DMLs 1/35 Saladin has been previewed on Missing Lynx. Looks like a very nice kit, but a little pricey, in my opinion, and without much variety in the decals provided. Maybe one of the aftermarket companies will print a sheet for the Saladin.
http://missing-lynx.com/reviews/modern/dml3554reviewcs_1.html
Hosted by Darren Baker
DML Saladin previewed on ML
jphillips
Joined: February 25, 2007
KitMaker: 1,066 posts
Armorama: 789 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 02:11 AM UTC
Biggles2
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 03:25 AM UTC
With not even interior detail on the hatches, they might as well have molded all hatches shut! Then it would be a real 'Black Label' kit! 
stufer
Joined: May 25, 2003
KitMaker: 416 posts
Armorama: 342 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 03:35 AM UTC
well,it seems to have avoided the pitfalls of previous Black Label kits by actually measuring up to the real thing!!
no interior-well,other kits have come to market with no interior and the aftermarket boys have stepped in,I'd be surprised if Accurate Armour haven't got something lined up all ready.....
as for the price,if you want one bad enough save up,nobody's holding a gun to your head.......
Maybe the 'Black Plague' has abated for a while.....( but who knows....)
no interior-well,other kits have come to market with no interior and the aftermarket boys have stepped in,I'd be surprised if Accurate Armour haven't got something lined up all ready.....
as for the price,if you want one bad enough save up,nobody's holding a gun to your head.......
Maybe the 'Black Plague' has abated for a while.....( but who knows....)
iowabrit
Joined: November 06, 2007
KitMaker: 585 posts
Armorama: 557 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 03:50 AM UTC
Well, against my better judgement I've placed an order for one via HLJ. Even with shipping it's cheaper than Dragon USA. But like others have said SOME interior would have been nice for those bucks.
C_JACQUEMONT
Joined: October 09, 2004
KitMaker: 2,433 posts
Armorama: 2,325 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 06:23 AM UTC
Instructions and photos of the box contents are on HobbySearch.
http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10284018
Cheers,
Christophe
http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10284018
Cheers,
Christophe
Keef1648
Joined: January 23, 2008
KitMaker: 1,240 posts
Armorama: 1,192 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 05:14 PM UTC
I hope I am wrong but looking at the instructions it seems that it is devoid of any sort of inside hatch detail?
Where is the canvas 76mm main barrel recoil cover?
A hefty price for a kit missing the obvious details..
Secondly, Black and Green Camo wasn't worn in Borneo (Brunei) in 1963? All AFV's were painted in Bronze Green in the Far East! and they were still the same when we took them over in 1966 and withdrew from Borneo and relocated to mainland Malaysia.
Black and Green camo was a product of the 1970's.
Keith.
Where is the canvas 76mm main barrel recoil cover?
A hefty price for a kit missing the obvious details..
Secondly, Black and Green Camo wasn't worn in Borneo (Brunei) in 1963? All AFV's were painted in Bronze Green in the Far East! and they were still the same when we took them over in 1966 and withdrew from Borneo and relocated to mainland Malaysia.
Black and Green camo was a product of the 1970's.
Keith.
ericadeane
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 05:59 PM UTC
Keith: the review linked in the first post CLEARLY states the hatch interiors are devoid of detail -- as have the two following posts on this thread.
It's an interesting subject to be sure.
It's an interesting subject to be sure.
Bravo1102
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 07:59 PM UTC
So opening hatches with no interior? Beats what Dragon did on its first 1/72 kits. Hatches molded shut but with full hatch interior.
Ever get the feeling there's somebody at Dragon with a vicious sense of humor and a strong dislike of nit-picking model builders? This'll show them... (insert maniacal laughter here)
Ever get the feeling there's somebody at Dragon with a vicious sense of humor and a strong dislike of nit-picking model builders? This'll show them... (insert maniacal laughter here)
SdAufKla
Joined: May 07, 2010
KitMaker: 2,238 posts
Armorama: 2,158 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 08:36 PM UTC
Interesting review...
The price is hefty, but it seems to be on the high side of the average in the current trends in MSRP for new, full AFV releases. Aside from the major moldings (hull parts, wheels, etc), the parts count does appear to be pretty low for the asking price.
However, I can live with the detail omissions (hatch interiors and gun-mantlet cover) IF the basic dimensions and other geometry fundamentals are correct.
Details I can add, but deconstructing a kit only to put it back together in a more accurate shape (like Pawel's admirable reconstruction of the M103) is increasingly less attractive to me these days. There are simply too many really nice AND accurate kits being released to spend weeks and months fixing fundamental accuracy issues.
So far, Cookie's review is encouraging, and AFAIK, no one else has identified any major errors (not omissions, mind you, but actual errors or mistakes in accuracy). Hopefully we'll see more reviews with objective measurements and comparisons.
I remain guardedly optimistic about the new Saladin, despite the sticker shock. US$70 retail means that I may have to do some shopping around, though.
The price is hefty, but it seems to be on the high side of the average in the current trends in MSRP for new, full AFV releases. Aside from the major moldings (hull parts, wheels, etc), the parts count does appear to be pretty low for the asking price.
However, I can live with the detail omissions (hatch interiors and gun-mantlet cover) IF the basic dimensions and other geometry fundamentals are correct.
Details I can add, but deconstructing a kit only to put it back together in a more accurate shape (like Pawel's admirable reconstruction of the M103) is increasingly less attractive to me these days. There are simply too many really nice AND accurate kits being released to spend weeks and months fixing fundamental accuracy issues.
So far, Cookie's review is encouraging, and AFAIK, no one else has identified any major errors (not omissions, mind you, but actual errors or mistakes in accuracy). Hopefully we'll see more reviews with objective measurements and comparisons.
I remain guardedly optimistic about the new Saladin, despite the sticker shock. US$70 retail means that I may have to do some shopping around, though.
18Bravo
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 08:56 PM UTC
Quoted Text
...I'd be surprised if Accurate Armour haven't got something lined up all ready...
They've got the whole interior including the engine in their kit. It would be a wise move to offer that separately. Of course, the wiser move on our part (and yes, I have not seen the DML kit) is to pony up 100 quid and get their whole kit, with known quality and customer service.
obg153
Joined: April 07, 2009
KitMaker: 1,063 posts
Armorama: 1,049 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 09:57 PM UTC
If this sounds like a rant, then a thousand apologies beforehand, effendi. Lots of kits out there with no interior, so for those inclined, that's what AM companies are for. But no interior hatch detail? Not much point in stuffing a figure into an open hatch to hide a lack of interior when the opened hatch has nothing on it. I've got a couple DML PzIII's & IV's with 6 hatches/doors on the turret alone, each of which has at least some details.
And as Mr. Sewell's fine review noted, Dragon took pains to consult two British armor experts in order to get the details right. So it's not outrage, disappointment, or nit-picking, it's confusion. Why bother asking experts? Why earn a reputation of producing kits with exceptional detail
and then seemingly lose focus on the same level of detail as time goes by? Maybe it just comes down to; "Ours is not to reason why,, ours is just to buy or not buy."
And as Mr. Sewell's fine review noted, Dragon took pains to consult two British armor experts in order to get the details right. So it's not outrage, disappointment, or nit-picking, it's confusion. Why bother asking experts? Why earn a reputation of producing kits with exceptional detail
and then seemingly lose focus on the same level of detail as time goes by? Maybe it just comes down to; "Ours is not to reason why,, ours is just to buy or not buy."
C_JACQUEMONT
Joined: October 09, 2004
KitMaker: 2,433 posts
Armorama: 2,325 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 10:39 PM UTC
Yeah too bad about the hatches.
Not a dealbreaker for me though, I don't intend to put figures in.
The price will be the major factor, but I can wait, whenever I can grab one at $40 or under, I'll take it.
Having scored a MBT-70 at $35 for Black Friday, I think I have a good chance.
Cheers,
Christophe
Not a dealbreaker for me though, I don't intend to put figures in.
The price will be the major factor, but I can wait, whenever I can grab one at $40 or under, I'll take it.
Having scored a MBT-70 at $35 for Black Friday, I think I have a good chance.
Cheers,
Christophe
Biggles2
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 18, 2015 - 10:49 PM UTC
Another Black Label disappointment!! I should be getting used to it by now.
ericadeane
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2015 - 12:48 AM UTC
geez biggles. is the lack of hatch underside detail all it takes to disappoint you? Have you been waiting since the early 70s Saladin for now -- and the lack of hatch detail "ruins" it for you?
I think you can be pretty assured that those who've been waiting for this interesting kit won't be deterred.
I think you can be pretty assured that those who've been waiting for this interesting kit won't be deterred.
Keef1648
Joined: January 23, 2008
KitMaker: 1,240 posts
Armorama: 1,192 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2015 - 12:52 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Keith: the review linked in the first post CLEARLY states the hatch interiors are devoid of detail -- as have the two following posts on this thread.
It's an interesting subject to be sure.
Yes I was aware of that and I still intend to purchase one myself and stock it in the store I manage because of what has been said about it being the only reasonable plastic one (kit) available.
Another 'Gaff' apart from the camoflage is prior to early 1967 there were no turn indicators and according to the instructions it only comes as such (with), so another modification will be required depending on your builds location and time frame.
Just a point 'Cookie' The following decals are not 'Crossed Scimitars"..(quote)
Queen’s Royal Irish Hussars, Brunei 1963 (black/green with code 31, crossed scimitars and number plates); (unquote)
Thay are of course, 'Kukris' indicating the regiment was part of >
51 Gurkha Infantry Brigade, located in Brunei 1963.
I guess the two experts were ignored somewhat and they took the easy route for kit detail manufacturing reasons.
And I'm sorry but to me, price should be an indication of quality and detail of the item...
Keith.
jfeenstra
Joined: April 24, 2014
KitMaker: 342 posts
Armorama: 342 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2015 - 01:00 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Another Black Label disappointment!! I should be getting used to it by now.
How is this kit a disappointment? So far, the issues mentioned are very minor:
1) No hatch interior detail: Yes, this is an unfortunate omission. But this is not the first kit from any manufacturer to not have this detail. I've looked at the photos of the real thing, and the details basically amount to a head pad, latches, and a hatch lip. Nothing that a bit of plastic and scrap PE can't fix. Are we model builders, or simply model assemblers?
2) No interior detail, especially for the price: How many kits have interior detail? And I didn't hear too many complaints about Tamiya's WWI Mark IV, which is higher priced but has no interior in that big open box.
3) No gun recoil cover: Since there are photos of Saladins without it, this cannot necessarily be considered an omission. This is a no-win situation for Dragon; if they included it modellers would have complained that it was poorly molded or that they couldn't model a Saladin without it! This is an easy fix with a bit of putty, lead foil or tissue, and is much easier to make then mantlet covers for such things as the Centurion or M48. Again, are we modellers or simply assemblers?
4) One of the color/marking schemes is incorrect: Like this is the first time that a manufacturer has made an error like this? There are 6 schemes in the box (I don't here anyone giving Dragon high marks for this, considering many kits these days come with only one or two), so I'm sure at least one is correct. And given the broad usage of the Saladin, I expect aftermarket decals from Star, Echelon or others will be available.
5) The high price: The price is relative depending on where you shop. As mentioned, it is still priced with the average range of current kits. Dragon has marketed the Black Label series as a bit of a specialty brand, so it's expected it will be priced higher.
Why is it that so many people feel the need to get on the bandwagon and criticise the kit simply because it's Dragon and/or Black Label? How about we evaluate the kit on its own merits? The issues mentioned so far are EXTREMELY minor and easy to fix. And many of us will buy the inevitable aftermarket upgrades anyways that will probably resolve these minor issues for us. If you are waiting for the perfect kit, perhaps you should find a new hobby, because I haven't seen one yet in my 20 years of modelling.
If you don't like it, don't buy it and buy the Accurate Armour kit. Perhaps Dragon's kit will be the impetus for another manufacturer to release one, although given how long it's taken to get this one, I think I'll just use some basic modelling skills to update this one (or cheat and buy some aftermarket
)All this is for naught of course if major dimensional errors are discovered. Maybe I should break out the calipers this week and start checking it (since I have the kit already).
Just my two senses
Keef1648
Joined: January 23, 2008
KitMaker: 1,240 posts
Armorama: 1,192 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2015 - 01:10 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextAnother Black Label disappointment!! I should be getting used to it by now.
How is this kit a disappointment? So far, the issues mentioned are very minor:
1) No hatch interior detail: Yes, this is an unfortunate omission. But this is not the first kit from any manufacturer to not have this detail. I've looked at the photos of the real thing, and the details basically amount to a head pad, latches, and a hatch lip. Nothing that a bit of plastic and scrap PE can't fix. Are we model builders, or simply model assemblers?
2) No interior detail, especially for the price: How many kits have interior detail? And I didn't hear too many complaints about Tamiya's WWI Mark IV, which is higher priced but has no interior in that big open box.
3) No gun recoil cover: Since there are photos of Saladins without it, this cannot necessarily be considered an omission. This is a no-win situation for Dragon; if they included it modellers would have complained that it was poorly molded or that they couldn't model a Saladin without it! This is an easy fix with a bit of putty, lead foil or tissue, and is much easier to make then mantlet covers for such things as the Centurion or M48. Again, are we modellers or simply assemblers?
4) One of the color/marking schemes is incorrect: Like this is the first time that a manufacturer has made an error like this? There are 6 schemes in the box (I don't here anyone giving Dragon high marks for this, considering many kits these days come with only one or two), so I'm sure at least one is correct. And given the broad usage of the Saladin, I expect aftermarket decals from Star, Echelon or others will be available.
5) The high price: The price is relative depending on where you shop. As mentioned, it is still priced with the average range of current kits. Dragon has marketed the Black Label series as a bit of a specialty brand, so it's expected it will be priced higher.
Why is it that so many people feel the need to get on the bandwagon and criticise the kit simply because it's Dragon and/or Black Label? How about we evaluate the kit on its own merits? The issues mentioned so far are EXTREMELY minor and easy to fix. And many of us will buy the inevitable aftermarket upgrades anyways that will probably resolve these minor issues for us. If you are waiting for the perfect kit, perhaps you should find a new hobby, because I haven't seen one yet in my 20 years of modelling.
If you don't like it, don't buy it and buy the Accurate Armour kit. Perhaps Dragon's kit will be the impetus for another manufacturer to release one, although given how long it's taken to get this one, I think I'll just use some basic modelling skills to update this one (or cheat and buy some aftermarket
All this is for naught of course if major dimensional errors are discovered. Maybe I should break out the calipers this week and start checking it (since I have the kit already).
Just my two senses
I have both AA kits, with and without the complete guts..
Secondly having served on the Saladin for a few years, the missing and wrong details stand out to me.
Especially when someone touts having consulted a couple of experts in order to bring this to the workbench!
Keith
jfeenstra
Joined: April 24, 2014
KitMaker: 342 posts
Armorama: 342 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2015 - 01:30 AM UTC
Especially when someone touts having consulted a couple of experts in order to bring this to the workbench
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2015 - 05:38 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Maybe I should break out the calipers this week and start checking it (since I have the kit already).
Maybe you should, indeed. I would be very interested to see how are the basics in this kit, like overall dimensions and shapes. While the lack of any interior details is certainly a disappointment at this price point, but it is not a deal killer for me. But after the M103A1 adventure, I will not touch any Black Label kit until I know the basic shapes and size are accurate.
Keef1648
Joined: January 23, 2008
KitMaker: 1,240 posts
Armorama: 1,192 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2015 - 06:12 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Interesting review...
The price is hefty, but it seems to be on the high side of the average in the current trends in MSRP for new, full AFV releases. Aside from the major moldings (hull parts, wheels, etc), the parts count does appear to be pretty low for the asking price.
However, I can live with the detail omissions (hatch interiors and gun-mantlet cover) IF the basic dimensions and other geometry fundamentals are correct.
Details I can add, but deconstructing a kit only to put it back together in a more accurate shape (like Pawel's admirable reconstruction of the M103) is increasingly less attractive to me these days. There are simply too many really nice AND accurate kits being released to spend weeks and months fixing fundamental accuracy issues.
So far, Cookie's review is encouraging, and AFAIK, no one else has identified any major errors (not omissions, mind you, but actual errors or mistakes in accuracy). Hopefully we'll see more reviews with objective measurements and comparisons.
I remain guardedly optimistic about the new Saladin, despite the sticker shock. US$70 retail means that I may have to do some shopping around, though.
Mike, interesting review by Cookie indeed?
The engine was a Rolls Royce B80. Mk6A 8 cylinder (straight eight) not a V8 and the .30 (not 303) MG's were changed in early 1966 to M1919.A1 fixed (Coaxial) and M1919.A4 flexible (commander).
The ealier version marks can be seen below in the (early) stowage plates.
The 76mm main ammo was Smoke, Cannister, AP and HE. No HESH or HEAT was ever stowed or fired by British Army issued Saladin armored cars. Cannister was rarely carried although we did firepower demonstrations with it for effect.
Frenchy
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 12,719 posts
Armorama: 12,507 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2015 - 06:28 PM UTC
Saladin Mk2 hatches details (for those who will need them in a near future 
) Courtesy svsm.org
Turret hatches :
http://svsm.org/gallery/Saladin/P1170474
http://svsm.org/gallery/Saladin/P1170472
Driver's hatch
http://svsm.org/gallery/Saladin/P1170429
http://svsm.org/gallery/Saladin/P1170859
H.P.
) Courtesy svsm.orgTurret hatches :
http://svsm.org/gallery/Saladin/P1170474
http://svsm.org/gallery/Saladin/P1170472
Driver's hatch
http://svsm.org/gallery/Saladin/P1170429
http://svsm.org/gallery/Saladin/P1170859
H.P.
SdAufKla
Joined: May 07, 2010
KitMaker: 2,238 posts
Armorama: 2,158 posts
Posted: Monday, January 19, 2015 - 08:10 PM UTC
I have to be honest, Keith, and say that I never bother to read the historical background info in any review.
All I'm interested in is what's in the box: Is it accurately molded? How detailed is it? The overwhelming remainder of almost all review information in all reviews is just so much useless fluffery. This is especially true for "in the box" reviews.
This "first look" or "in the box" review was no different.
(Build reviews are, of course, useful from that aspect - the build, but they are usually just as suspect when it comes to kit supplied historical or markings and finishing info. A build reviewer who cites the references used in his own research, however, has considerably more cred...)
I rarely even care about the kit decal options since I usually build one of the kit's subjects. Same applies to camouflage and colors. If I do plan to use any of the kit decals, I'll do my own research to confirm their accuracy.
Your observations about the errors in markings and camouflage are examples of the very reasons why I have so little faith in any reviewer's comments on these subjects. The same applies to the information about the automotive aspects.
Kit makers usually take the path of least resistance especially for historical descriptions and markings and camouflage, and I usually don't pay much, if any, attention to what reviews have to say about this either.
(BTW: I find the new trend in paint and finishing companies publishing their own "research and reference" books that coincidentally also promote their own products disturbing. The same applies to those kit manufacturers who are taking camouflage and marking information from these same finish product companies and making those the basis of their kit finishing options. The research basis for much of this stuff seems to be artistic fantasy intended to sell paint and not make historically accurate models. But I digress...)
In regards to this particular review, aside from the descriptions of the kit's contents, the only thing that was of real interest to me was Sewell's comment that the kit matched his available references.
I understood this to be a fairly positive assessment of the kit's basic dimensions and geometry.
As to the bit about DML consulting experts - Since Sewell doesn't say where he got that tidbit, I assume that it was from DML's own promotion materials. The source of the review kit was also not given, and in that case, I also assume that it was a sample provided by the manufacturer.
Sewell's own characterization of the two experts as editors "emeritus" was a bit over the top and fluffy and said nothing about what type of consultation and information was actually provided for the kit's design and development. In short, another review UBI (UBI = useless bit of information) that sounded like a manufacturer's self-promotion.
All of these things add up to yet another reason why I'm like Joe Friday when it comes to kit reviews - "Just the facts, mam..."
Unless a reviewer actually cites the references he checked or that he took his historical information from, I just tend to not pay any attention to those parts of the review.
In this case, Sewell did not cite any references except to say that the kit matched his.
Ergo... I found the review interesting in that the kit may be dimensionally and geometrically accurate. I also found the descriptions of the kit's contents interesting in that those descriptions allow me to make a price-value judgment about buying or not buying the kit.
As to the rest, it's of no consequence to me. Just so much DML propaganda and kit promotion. That's to be expected and filtered out.
For historical, technical, painting and markings, I know just who and where to turn to do that research on my own.
So, I remain guardedly optimistic about DML's Saladin based on this interesting review...
All I'm interested in is what's in the box: Is it accurately molded? How detailed is it? The overwhelming remainder of almost all review information in all reviews is just so much useless fluffery. This is especially true for "in the box" reviews.
This "first look" or "in the box" review was no different.
(Build reviews are, of course, useful from that aspect - the build, but they are usually just as suspect when it comes to kit supplied historical or markings and finishing info. A build reviewer who cites the references used in his own research, however, has considerably more cred...)
I rarely even care about the kit decal options since I usually build one of the kit's subjects. Same applies to camouflage and colors. If I do plan to use any of the kit decals, I'll do my own research to confirm their accuracy.
Your observations about the errors in markings and camouflage are examples of the very reasons why I have so little faith in any reviewer's comments on these subjects. The same applies to the information about the automotive aspects.
Kit makers usually take the path of least resistance especially for historical descriptions and markings and camouflage, and I usually don't pay much, if any, attention to what reviews have to say about this either.
(BTW: I find the new trend in paint and finishing companies publishing their own "research and reference" books that coincidentally also promote their own products disturbing. The same applies to those kit manufacturers who are taking camouflage and marking information from these same finish product companies and making those the basis of their kit finishing options. The research basis for much of this stuff seems to be artistic fantasy intended to sell paint and not make historically accurate models. But I digress...)
In regards to this particular review, aside from the descriptions of the kit's contents, the only thing that was of real interest to me was Sewell's comment that the kit matched his available references.
I understood this to be a fairly positive assessment of the kit's basic dimensions and geometry.
As to the bit about DML consulting experts - Since Sewell doesn't say where he got that tidbit, I assume that it was from DML's own promotion materials. The source of the review kit was also not given, and in that case, I also assume that it was a sample provided by the manufacturer.
Sewell's own characterization of the two experts as editors "emeritus" was a bit over the top and fluffy and said nothing about what type of consultation and information was actually provided for the kit's design and development. In short, another review UBI (UBI = useless bit of information) that sounded like a manufacturer's self-promotion.
All of these things add up to yet another reason why I'm like Joe Friday when it comes to kit reviews - "Just the facts, mam..."
Unless a reviewer actually cites the references he checked or that he took his historical information from, I just tend to not pay any attention to those parts of the review.
In this case, Sewell did not cite any references except to say that the kit matched his.
Ergo... I found the review interesting in that the kit may be dimensionally and geometrically accurate. I also found the descriptions of the kit's contents interesting in that those descriptions allow me to make a price-value judgment about buying or not buying the kit.
As to the rest, it's of no consequence to me. Just so much DML propaganda and kit promotion. That's to be expected and filtered out.
For historical, technical, painting and markings, I know just who and where to turn to do that research on my own.
So, I remain guardedly optimistic about DML's Saladin based on this interesting review...
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.