Hello, First of all, this kit is based on the information we gathered from this website, and other sources: LINK The kit is based on an early production AC1, using hull #12 and axle housing #18 (castings by Bradford Kendall were individually numbered). We have no evidence that these castings were actually combined, but since they are numbered early in the run (75 or so units were cast), we made the assumption that part numbers were not mated to each other, based on a photo from AWM showing axle housing #27 being on the same tank as mantlet #32. As for Paul Roberts fantasy description of our castings, let it be known that he has NOT seen this kit, nor has he seen ANY of our kits cast since we restarted making armor about five years ago. In fact, just so you may judge his comments for what they are worth, the only time Mr. Roberts has had the opportunity to actually see a kit of ours was at the Auburn AMPS show in 2012, and once he realized whose kits he was looking at, he couldn't run away fast enough. Mr. Roberts was a pattern maker for us many years ago, and we ceased using him since none of the patterns could be cast from his work without significant corrections having to be made. His pattern for the M2A1, for example, was significantly off in ALL basic dimensions, which were un-correctable without reconstructing the entire pattern. Since we refused to accept his work since then, he has been very critical of all our work. Also, if this kit was based on 1990's casting techniques, as he claims, they would be one piece castings, with large castings blocks and parts mounted directly to those blocks, making them impossible to be removed. Mr. Roberts is just spouting his bias against a kit he has no knowledge of... Jon Warneke Commander Models, Inc.

Will you be doing the AC-3 17pdr version too ? As a what-if builder, that's the one I really want -- one-man front area, rounded-style bins, bigger(?)different-shaped turret. A book on the Sentinel story covering all surviving vehicles & the differences would be lovely too !

I was trying my best to give an unbiased comment based upon the photos that Commanders put up on their own web site, however as this has turned into comments directed specifically at me I shall respond with less generosity. The images visible on the Armorama review and Commanders own site are what I am going on and there are clearly visible reasonably large bubbles plus the mentioned flash visible in the photos of the parts sprue. This is clearly a result of the casting technique used which has not changed substantially since Ted Paris was using it in the early 90s. The quality _is_ better than the rather indifferent quality of the time but it's not miles better. Compared to that of Accurate Armour, Resicast, Cri-El, and even Cromwell, the Commanders parts will require more clean-up work _as evidenced by their own photos_!! I'm not making it up , take a look at the photos for yourselves. I still can't understand why a company would post advertising photos of parts that are not absolutely perfect, but Commanders continues to post photos of parts with small to medium bubbles and flash. I am at a loss to explain it, m'self. Not sure what running away might have to do with anything. That I chose to walk away and not converse with someone who I had had unfortunate financial dealings with shows considerable restraint on my part, I thought. That my M2A1 was off in some dimensions was directly related to the request that it use the existing M3Lee kit as a base which we all know is 1/8" too wide. My kit, however is the correct length and height. Notwithstanding this (and it is the first time anyone at Commanders has mentioned these concerns at all) the reason we ceased business was that I insisted that I be paid a rational fee for my work rather than the rather fanciful and unverifiable "Royalty" system that Ted had in place beforehand. When I asked that my M103A2 master be bought outright for a reasonable sum ted told me that he was getting out of the armour kit business and returned my masters (all broken, and unusable, by the way) . He immediately released the Commanders M103A2 kit completed by someone else putting proof to the lie. My late production Matilda I is still the only one on the market (and I admit the rear sprocket is a bit large) as is my Mk II Light Tank, with a complete interior. Ted was very happy to manufacture and sell all of my kits for several years with no comments that they were unproducable only stopping when I asked for a reasonable return on my efforts. Since my M103 was turned down I have not approached Commanders since, so this is a fabrication. Because the quality of many of the pieces is evident from the photos _you_ post on your webs site. It's not great, Jon, no matter how much you protest to the contrary. Take a look at your parts and those of your competitors and you'll find that it's not great. Adequate, sure, but not great. No, My Mk II Light Tank kit of the mid 1990s was cast exactly as the Sentinel, with upper and lower hull parts plus interior components. I have one that I got as part of the deal, back in the mid 90s so I know this to be _just like_ a 90s cast kit. I think, Jon, that I have demonstrated that I have exactly the knowledge to make the comments I did. That I think Commanders kits are not top of the line isn't news, but then, again, it shouldn't be news to anyone who sees resin kits prior to being built. They are not. They simply are not the top of the line in resin kits. Are they _bad_? No. I never said they were. Are they _great_? Definitely not and for the reasons I presented in my several reviews. I understand you are proud of your products. Good on you. But you also need to have a rational grip on the market and on where your kits stand, quality wise, and it's not at the top. It simply isn't. Your very own advertising shows this to be true and there's not much I can say that your own photos don't say to the person who looks at them closely. If you wish to continue these public attacks on my reviews, please have your ducks in a row beforehand. If you wish to comment to me personally, please feel free to PM me and we can do it out of the public eye as is more polite to the other here. Regards Paul

I don't get why some companies don't treat their advertising like photos on an internet dating site, i.e. bait. I remember reading of one site that offered this advice: "Choose your profile picture carefully. Your audience will assume that, given what you trying to accomplish, the picture you show is one of you at your best and most attractive. In other words, reality can only be downhill from there.” KL

One thing that I have seen on this site, and other sites is people making judgments on pre-production and/or sprue images. To me, showing the pre-production and/or sprues shows what the buyer is getting. Until someone has done a physical hands on review, it is not known what is really to be expected. I think most people understand what it expected when doing a resin kit as opposed to plastic. Unless the company is a BIG name resin producer like DEF, Black Dog, etc, people can expect there is a little work required. And fortunately for small resin companies, modellers are able to get kits and/or conversion for vehicles that may never be made in plastic.

OK Paul, let's do what you state, and see where it comes out... OK, I have looked at my photos, and if you look carefully, you can see that three of the road arm parts, and one driver's hatch have bubbles. Now, since the kit needs 12 road arms, and only two driver's hatches, but you get 14 and 3, you have, in the end, one road wheel arm with a small bubble (or "significant" if you consider a .02" diameter bubble in a stiffening lip hidden after construction that...). As for the large bubbles, they are all in the sprues, and have already been sent to the landfill. I.E., they are NOT included in the kit. Same for the flash, since no matter how hard I try, I cannot keep the flash intact on the parts as I pack them. As for the one piece castings, I can't find any voids. Sorry to disappoint... Paul, you picked up the box, saw Ted behind the table, dropped the box onto the table, and nearly hit the guy behind you as you dodged away. As for you "unfortunate" financial dealings, you are the one who agreed to them. So, is there really just one person involved in this? First, Ted never requests that a specific kit be used. That is the decision of the pattern maker. But besides that, when that knowledge, which you knew before hand, became known, the sales weren't there, and you blame Ted for that? I don't know whether to call this ineptness or incompetence. You purposely built an inaccurate full kit, and then expected it to sell... ...which YOU agreed to beforehand, but... When you built your patterns, they were constructed from either .010" or .020" thick plastic. To expect that patterns built with such flimsy materials not to have been broken once again shows the complete lack of knowledge of casting you have. As for refusing the M103 kit, you admit here that you had a propensity to not get kits right, so once bitten, twice shy... Thanks for mentioning two more kits that were basically flawed. Both of these kits were severely attacked as inaccurate, and both were constructed poorly requiring numerous repairs each time molds were made (I believe one set for each since sales were so dismal due to the quality, or so the reviews of the time said...). As for a reasonable return, you would have received one if they weren't so poorly received and generally criticized for lacking accuracy and detail. Yet, you provided both these kits knowing the financial agreement you were under, and had to have agreed wholeheartedly to it before providing Ted with patterns again and again. This was a good decision on your part, since they probably wouldn't have been accepted anyhow... And this is your own, self admitted, biased opinion. We have many happy customers for our products, and the quality of the patterns we have far exceed the ones of the late 1990's, since most of them don't have to be rebuilt every time molds are made from them. So, now that you have clarified your statement, I can properly answer it. Large pieces, such as hulls, lend themselves to the same casting techniques that have been in use since the 1980's. However, we have refined some of them in order to fully utilize our improved equipment and facilities. But, in order to satisfy you, please point out the "significant" bubbles in the hull castings, just so we can all try and understand your criticisms. As for the interior parts, they would have been cast far differently today than they were in your 1990's scenario. The simple fact of that is, I don't cast them like Ted cast in the 1990's... I can point out "top of the line" kits with MAJOR faults all day long, and it still wouldn't matter to you. ALL kits have faults, it's just some people, like yourself, like to overly emphasize some company's faults, and ignore or minimize other company's faults. OK, so we mix opinion and psychoanalysis in this. What exactly would constitute a "rational" opinion of our kits? If someone else states they like our kits, and buys them, would that person be irrational? So you don't like kits you don't have. Good for you. Readers, however, need to understand that you are expressing unqualified opinions rather than factual analysis, and that you have a personal drudge against Ted because you feel you unfairly treated due to some other issue than the patterns you provided was demonstrably inaccurate (by your own admission, by the way). You say our kits are definitely not great, yet you have NO first hand knowledge of any of our present kits. Is this rational? To the contrary, we do have demonstrable results of your work, and we stand behind our decisions of the past. Conflating the products of 20 years ago with the products we produce now is simply dishonest, especially since your inaccurate work was a contributing factor to those opinions of those products. Oh, and as for a "rational" grip on the market, we're still in it, unlike many other companies... Jon

I actually prefer to get the aftermarket tracks separately: 1. They will be cheaper than resin tracks 2. Even if the kit included aftermarket tracks from some other manufacturer the cost would probably be the same, or possibly even higher, for me since I can usually get the aftermarket tracks at a lower cost (shipping Friul tracks once within Europe instead of twice across the Atlantic ocean) Customer Service ? Excellent. I have only had good dealings with Commanders. Quality ? I have seen many resin kits, some require more work than others but none of them are as easy as assembling a Tamiya kit. I have suffered warped parts and parts with bubbles in them from nearly all manufacturers, except Pit-Road and Etokin, so bubbles and warping is sort of included in the deal. I have even had warped parts in styrene kits .... / Robin

I love the smell of forum drama in the morning.

Well, I can see a few more bubbles than that, but the point is that if I look at kits from Formations or other top of the line manufacturers, I see no bobbles in their advertising photos and receive parts with very few of them., Unless you have chosen to photograph parts that are not your best, then one can believe that parts that are shipped are worse or at least no better than what's in the photographs. Does this make the kit bad? No,.. I said it wasn't, Does it make it the best? just as surely not. And that is what I am trying to get across. For the person who has not bought one of your kits before, they are not at the top of the casting game. They are still good enough for most people, but they are not the best. As for the voids in the sprues, of course they don't count and were not part of my comments. Again, I never said there was only one person involved what I said was that I chose not to have any interactions with someone I had had unfortunate financial dealings with. Mutually agreed to or not. I stood by my deal and asked at the M103A2 for a different deal. It was turned down because, I was told, Commanders was getting out of the armour business and we parted. Was I disappointed? Yes, especially as the M103 kit being sold soon after I was told Commanders were getting out of the armour business was demonstrably inaccurate and you have admitted that it is over on the Dragon M103A1 thread. So I was lied to at the time and then I was upset. I built a kit using a base that Ted knew was inaccurate because he wanted to use that base, and he was fine with it all the way up to making the moulds and selling the kit. He knew my approach all along because, as you say, _at the time_, I did not know the casting business and was frequently talking to him to establish how to build the pattern. Not once did he ever mention making the mods to the Lee hull to narrow the kit although he knew the progress at every stage. I can't speak to why he thought it wasn't an issue then and thinks it is one now. ...which YOU agreed to beforehand, but...[/quote] Yes I did and stood by that deal for all masters up to the M103A2 whereupon I looked for a better deal. Actually all of my patterns are built on .030 and ,040 plastic and I can post photos of them even now. Surface or open details are down to .015" but this was approved in advance. The actual problem was that for the M2A1 I didn't know (and wasn't told in advance) that the patterns were put under vacuum when moulded in rubber. I offered to fill the M2A1 with plaster, but Ted said it would be OK. When it came to the Matilda I, I was again told that the .030" - .040" hull box would be OK and not to fill with plaster. This turned out not to be the case. Apparently we both were wrong. And if that was his opinions, even if not shared with me at the time and hidden behind a lie, I'm OK with it. I sold the master later at a rational price to a company that was not only happy to have it, but also cast some preproduction parts with, surprise, no problems at all. Go figure. Actually I saw the reviews at the time and while the rear sprocket was called out (and yes, the AA early Matilda I has a better sprocket) the primary flaws in the kit were the instructions, and the poor casting of the parts. The accuracy wasn't mentioned at all. As it really couldn't be as I have the works drawings for the vehicles and to this day, the kit measures out to within .020" on all major dimensions and accurately reflects the second batch of Matilda Is. Some reviewers bemoaned that it wasn't an early batch Matilda I as the AA kit is, but that was a choice of version, not inaccuracy. Similarly the Light Tank Mk II kit reviews talked generally about the casting. And, again, the kit still measures out within .020" of the existing drawings. Yes, I understood the risk and took it for the three kits I submitted under that arrangement. However, by the 4th kit it was apparent that for whatever reasons the return was not worth my time and that a different understanding was in order, so I asked for one and was refused. I'm OK with that part. I was told Commanders was getting out of the armour kit business. I'm OK with that reason. Then a new armour kit came out very soon after and it was the very M103A2 that I was told could not be bought because you were getting out of the business. _That_ I wasn't cool with. I was lied to, straight up. Quality od low sales was never mentioned. If that was the truth, I'd be OK with that as a reason, but to lie to me straight out? Not cool. Probably, but your comment, above, is therefore a fabrication. Absolutely it's my opinion and one with some basis for it as well. Have I a bias, possibly. Have you? Just as possibly. I'm glad, I really am. Fair enough and maybe the pattern makers have been told of the requirements for a pattern before the job start? And, of course, we're now 20+ years later and the general requirements are much better known to newbies than they were at the time. If you re-read, you will see that I never said there were bubbles in the hull castings at ay point. I was responding to your comment that the castings of the 90s were all monoblock hulls and yet my Mk II was cast in the 90s just as the Sentinel is now, and with interior detail to boot. Again, I did say that the casting quality had improved since then. It's still not at the level of Formations, mind. And that's my point. Perhaps. But buyers also need to see alternate views of products the top and not so top of the line to get a broad swath of opinions and can then choose more thoughtfully amongst all the opinions. That they are good, but not great. That the casting technology is not at the top of the game and that a bit more of the "old school" resin kit building skill is needed than on the best available modern kits. That the price is a tad high given that the tracks have to be sourced separately. That (in this case) the subject matter is good and that the kit is available readily as opposed to the competing product. I do believe I said exactly these things in my comments earlier. I have no idea where you're pulling this from... Or this? I believe my numerous reviews and published books plus specific references to your own photos provides a comment on my "qualifications" and on the facts my comments were based upon. Patterns he knew all about and was happy to produce in the day. My main problem with the way our relation ended has always been the lie, not fact of the cessation of the business relationship. Actually I have seen a number of the new ones over the years and I stand by my comments based upon those kits, not the kits of the 90s. Is this inability to accept criticism rational? Maybe both of us are biased? Hey, good on you. You have a grip on your costs and on your market and prices. Staying in business doesn't guarantee great quality, but it does show the ability to balance quality, price and cost. I have never faulted that. Look, I may be biased, everyone is in one way or another. You are definitely biased, for your own reasons. Market can choose and if I'm the outlier in these opinions, so be it. My comments are just an opinion. However, so are yours. Neither has more validity than the other. Happy buyers are happy buyers. If my opinion allows them to buy with eyes that are more open, so be it, If your products and quality are sufficient to make them happy with the purchase and results, also so be it. That's how the free market works. I don't _have_ to unreservedly love your products. It's not a requirement. We've aired our dirty laundry enough, perhaps? People can make up their own minds on what to read and how much weight to give it in the future, no? Paul