... that the management at Dragon have wisely decided to stick the Black Label name on all the inaccurate and difficult kits.
It makes choosing so much easier for all of us.
I may have blanks in my memory but is there a single Black Label kit which hasn't had more or less serious issues ?
I'm happy to be corrected so please feel free to provide a list of the acceptable ones.
/ Robin
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
Dragons Black Label, we should be grateful ..
RobinNilsson
TOS Moderator
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 04, 2017 - 09:33 PM UTC
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 04, 2017 - 09:44 PM UTC
I agree, but.....those are unique models. Inaccurate to the more experienced, but to the guy (like me) who wants to have a (fill in the blank) that no one else makes-- it is acceptable
My two cents
My two cents
CMOT
Editor-in-Chief
Joined: May 14, 2006
KitMaker: 10,954 posts
Armorama: 8,571 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 04, 2017 - 10:02 PM UTC
It was my understanding that the Saladin and Patriot are far efforts.
goldnova72
Joined: February 21, 2009
KitMaker: 627 posts
Armorama: 592 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 04, 2017 - 11:29 PM UTC
They missed a few things on the Saladin IRC , the exhaust was wrong and the interior hatch detail was comparable to my 70s era motorized Tamiya Saladin - absent
Bravo1102
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 01:46 AM UTC
Let's see
USS Zumwalt ship -couple of shape issues
Atomic Cannon - simplified molded on parts
M103 - monstrous shape issues
M6 heavy tanks - shape issues but with no existing vehicle not bad.
Conqueror - gun barrel and engine deck
Saladin - really simplified and bad exhaust
Kampfpanzer 70 - conflation of two existing prototypes.
T56E1 - shape issues
Patriot - simplified and using Italeri HMMT.
All over-priced. Marketing issue? Here's a kit we don't think will sell so we'll skimp on production budget but at least we can say we did it.
The three best for out of the box are the M6 heavy tanks and Kampfpanzer 70. The Atomic Cannon is way better than the ancient Renwal even if in 1/72 but such sticker shock.
Frankly, Dragon shot themselves in the foot. They've been setting this incredibly high bar for themselves with many of their kits and these coming in so under par really makes them look bad.
USS Zumwalt ship -couple of shape issues
Atomic Cannon - simplified molded on parts
M103 - monstrous shape issues
M6 heavy tanks - shape issues but with no existing vehicle not bad.
Conqueror - gun barrel and engine deck
Saladin - really simplified and bad exhaust
Kampfpanzer 70 - conflation of two existing prototypes.
T56E1 - shape issues
Patriot - simplified and using Italeri HMMT.
All over-priced. Marketing issue? Here's a kit we don't think will sell so we'll skimp on production budget but at least we can say we did it.
The three best for out of the box are the M6 heavy tanks and Kampfpanzer 70. The Atomic Cannon is way better than the ancient Renwal even if in 1/72 but such sticker shock.
Frankly, Dragon shot themselves in the foot. They've been setting this incredibly high bar for themselves with many of their kits and these coming in so under par really makes them look bad.
TopSmith
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,742 posts
Armorama: 1,658 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 02:48 AM UTC
So who makes a better Salidin?
ALBOWIE
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 03:00 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The Saldin outline appears to be very good however there are some serious gaffes or omissions. The Exhaust shield has no exhaust inside and lacks the highly visible manifold that connects it to the engine, the complete lack of any detail on the turret hatches or worse still the Drivers hatch, the lack of splash rails around the turrets. The Engine deck has weldswhere there aren't and vice versa, the Radiotor inlet has the vanes all wrong. These are fixable with reasonable modelling skills but at the price this kit sold for they should not be there. An extremely overpriced kit at the time of release. This kit was more expensive than the Abrams which to me is the gold standard in Modern Armour kits in accuracy and kitting. The Saladin is below BronzeIt was my understanding that the Saladin and Patriot are far efforts.
ALBOWIE
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 03:04 AM UTC
Quoted Text
So who makes a better Salidin?
Sadly no one in Plastic but I would say Accurate Armour. You could buy theirs for the same price when the black label one was released
SgtRam
Contributing Writer
#197
Joined: March 06, 2011
KitMaker: 3,971 posts
Armorama: 2,859 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 03:08 AM UTC
It finding the Conqueror to be an ok kit, so far fit is good, I have added an Aber barrel, Voyager PE, and will be replacing the dreaded DS track with a set from Master Club. I have added some Mr. Surfacer to the turret, and I have scratch build the tow cable bridge parts.
For me I am not a stickler on all the fine points as a 100% replica. So far it looks like a Conqueror to me, and I am happy with it.
For me I am not a stickler on all the fine points as a 100% replica. So far it looks like a Conqueror to me, and I am happy with it.
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Monday, March 06, 2017 - 06:05 AM UTC
Quoted Text
It finding the Conqueror to be an ok kit, so far fit is good, I have added an Aber barrel, Voyager PE, and will be replacing the dreaded DS track with a set from Master Club. I have added some Mr. Surfacer to the turret, and I have scratch build the tow cable bridge parts.
For me I am not a stickler on all the fine points as a 100% replica. So far it looks like a Conqueror to me, and I am happy with it.
Kevin-- I completely agree with you. Who else makes this model or, for example, the T-28 in 1/35?
DJ
TopSmith
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,742 posts
Armorama: 1,658 posts
Posted: Monday, March 06, 2017 - 06:25 AM UTC
Does anyone make an after market correction for the Saladin?
SgtRam
Contributing Writer#197
Joined: March 06, 2011
KitMaker: 3,971 posts
Armorama: 2,859 posts
Posted: Monday, March 06, 2017 - 06:31 AM UTC
I believe DEF has a resin set, with barrel, exhaust, and some hatch detail corrections.
Kevin
Kevin
goldnova72
Joined: February 21, 2009
KitMaker: 627 posts
Armorama: 592 posts
Posted: Monday, March 06, 2017 - 06:39 AM UTC
IRC Def made a set of 6 sagged wheels , Castoff made the Saladin Upgrade Kit
Bravo1102
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Monday, March 06, 2017 - 06:43 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextIt finding the Conqueror to be an ok kit, so far fit is good, I have added an Aber barrel, Voyager PE, and will be replacing the dreaded DS track with a set from Master Club. I have added some Mr. Surfacer to the turret, and I have scratch build the tow cable bridge parts.
For me I am not a stickler on all the fine points as a 100% replica. So far it looks like a Conqueror to me, and I am happy with it.
Kevin-- I completely agree with you. Who else makes this model or, for example, the T-28 in 1/35?
DJ
Hobbyboss and ICM. A T-28 is a Russian medium tank. A T28 is a US super heavy tank.
Not being pedantic because I discovered this while searching for the kit on eBay! I put in T-28 and all I got were Russian multi turreted tanks... put in T28 and there's the Dragon kit.
TopSmith
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,742 posts
Armorama: 1,658 posts
Posted: Monday, March 06, 2017 - 11:03 AM UTC
Great, who carries Castoff?
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Monday, March 06, 2017 - 01:42 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Conqueror - gun barrel and engine deck
This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are multiple other shape and dimension issues in this kit.
But yesterday I bought the Amusing Hobby Conqueror and I actually started to appreciate the Dragon effort much more... Of course I know that AH kit is Mark 1 and Dragon one is supposed to be Mk2 (but it isn't quite... more like Mk1.5). AH kit has much more serious shape and dimensional issues... Some parts are more correct and better detailed than in the Dragon kit, but many others are worse and some shape/size issues - particularly in the turret are MUCH worse. I think I will use AH kit only as the parts donor for my Dragon kit, although still a lot of additional work will be required to make a reasonably accurate Conqueror (regardless of the mark). Luckily it looks like much less effort is needed than I had to put into the M103 kit, if using the Black Label kit as a base.
SgtRam
Contributing Writer#197
Joined: March 06, 2011
KitMaker: 3,971 posts
Armorama: 2,859 posts
Posted: Monday, March 06, 2017 - 05:37 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Does anyone make an after market correction for the Saladin?
MR Modellbau makes a resin set #35477
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Monday, March 06, 2017 - 06:13 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextQuoted TextIt finding the Conqueror to be an ok kit, so far fit is good, I have added an Aber barrel, Voyager PE, and will be replacing the dreaded DS track with a set from Master Club. I have added some Mr. Surfacer to the turret, and I have scratch build the tow cable bridge parts.
For me I am not a stickler on all the fine points as a 100% replica. So far it looks like a Conqueror to me, and I am happy with it.
Kevin-- I completely agree with you. Who else makes this model or, for example, the T-28 in 1/35?
DJ
Hobbyboss and ICM. A T-28 is a Russian medium tank. A T28 is a US super heavy tank.
Not being pedantic because I discovered this while searching for the kit on eBay! I put in T-28 and all I got were Russian multi turreted tanks... put in T28 and there's the Dragon kit.
This I did not know!
Thank you for sharing
Scarred
Joined: March 11, 2016
KitMaker: 1,792 posts
Armorama: 1,186 posts
Posted: Monday, March 06, 2017 - 08:30 PM UTC
A few inaccurate measurements, slightly off angles and maybe an out of scale gun are one thing in a kit and most modelers won't mind them, but to miss major features such as happened on the T54E1 is unacceptable. Today if you can't actually get access to the subject you are trying to represent there are at least photo's available. This isn't the old days where you got kits based on rumors (Testors stealth fighter) bad spy photos or disinformation, so any kit manufacturer should be, lets say, 90% accurate. Especially at the prices kits are going for now. But it is nice for the 'Black Label' at least you'll know the kit will be sub par.
brekinapez
Joined: July 26, 2013
KitMaker: 2,272 posts
Armorama: 1,860 posts
Posted: Monday, March 06, 2017 - 10:20 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextQuoted TextQuoted TextIt finding the Conqueror to be an ok kit, so far fit is good, I have added an Aber barrel, Voyager PE, and will be replacing the dreaded DS track with a set from Master Club. I have added some Mr. Surfacer to the turret, and I have scratch build the tow cable bridge parts.
For me I am not a stickler on all the fine points as a 100% replica. So far it looks like a Conqueror to me, and I am happy with it.
Kevin-- I completely agree with you. Who else makes this model or, for example, the T-28 in 1/35?
DJ
Hobbyboss and ICM. A T-28 is a Russian medium tank. A T28 is a US super heavy tank.
Not being pedantic because I discovered this while searching for the kit on eBay! I put in T-28 and all I got were Russian multi turreted tanks... put in T28 and there's the Dragon kit.
This I did not know!
Thank you for sharing
Yes, the Russian tanks are hyphenated.
tankmodeler
#417
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 - 10:09 PM UTC
At this point I buy them if I can get them dead cheap at a show. 30-35 bucks is all I'll pay and, to me, that's all they're worth. And even then, some of them are too d@mned much work to be worth the trouble.
If the main problem with the T54E1 is the turret overhand, I can probably deal with it, but if the underlying hull is off and the turret shape is off more than the overhang, it's probably going into the not worth it to me category.
I would have happily paid full whack for each one of these kits and bought more than one of a couple of them if that had only been accurate in shape.
The Saladin is, from what I understand, the only one where the basic shapes are pretty accurate (lack of significant detail notwithstanding). That one I bought near full price.
Paul
If the main problem with the T54E1 is the turret overhand, I can probably deal with it, but if the underlying hull is off and the turret shape is off more than the overhang, it's probably going into the not worth it to me category.
I would have happily paid full whack for each one of these kits and bought more than one of a couple of them if that had only been accurate in shape.
The Saladin is, from what I understand, the only one where the basic shapes are pretty accurate (lack of significant detail notwithstanding). That one I bought near full price.
Paul
Pongo_Arm
Joined: January 27, 2017
KitMaker: 147 posts
Armorama: 147 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 - 11:28 PM UTC
The T54e1 does not have "shape issues" It has an absolutely wrong turret. And the kit is pretty much just a turret added to the early M48 hull that already existed.
I got the T54E1 and the Tacom T30/34 on the same day
What has happened to the Dragon Company, did everyone with any skill leave for these newer companies?
The plastic on the T54e1 turret looks like very poor quality toy casting. The components barely fit together.
I got the T54E1 and the Tacom T30/34 on the same day
What has happened to the Dragon Company, did everyone with any skill leave for these newer companies?
The plastic on the T54e1 turret looks like very poor quality toy casting. The components barely fit together.
Biggles2
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 - 04:44 AM UTC
How come nobody rails against Italeri? They have always had a much worse track record than Dragon for accuracy, detail, and fit! 
Scarred
Joined: March 11, 2016
KitMaker: 1,792 posts
Armorama: 1,186 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 - 04:55 AM UTC
Quoted Text
How come nobody rails against Italeri? They have always had a much worse track record than Dragon for accuracy, detail, and fit!
Because they've been so bad for so long that nobody expects much from them anyway. Tho over the decades they have gotten better. Same with Revell. Some manufactures you just expect bad from the get go.
bots1141
Joined: October 14, 2013
KitMaker: 318 posts
Armorama: 313 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 - 05:09 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextHow come nobody rails against Italeri? They have always had a much worse track record than Dragon for accuracy, detail, and fit!
Because they've been so bad for so long that nobody expects much from them anyway. Tho over the decades they have gotten better. Same with Revell. Some manufactures you just expect bad from the get go.
Italeri and Revell don't charge as much for their kits either. With Dragon charging 60+ dollars for their kits, they should be better than what they are!
 |
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.