MR's "Realistic Reliable Track"

[UP2CSX]

Very thought provoking, guys. I guess I don't think of myself as an elitist and certainly don't have the modeling skills of a lot of y'all here. OTOH, I've been in the hobby a few years and have advanced beyond the stage of wondering how track fits together. MR has had some good articles but the ratio of useful information to fluff has been decreasing steadily over the past few years. I especially object to the reviews, which are now nothing more than ads for the products, rather than an honest review. If I see one more review that ends with "This is a great (fill in the blank) model for your layout", I think I'm going to puke. It's bad enough that the advertising to content ratio is already so high without having the reviews turn into more ads.

Let's look at the April, 2009 edition entitled "Beyond the Basics". Good start. The first actual article doesn't occur until page 31, a short piece about using spun polyester to make backdrop clouds. Not a bad idea and I would have used it if I hadn't already painted clouds on my backdrop.

The "Step by Step" article on time and place has some tidbits on information but not much. Even worse is the last picture in the article, when they show a boxcar used for storage. They go into great detail about how they painted and weathered it but then just set it down on the layout. It's a classic beginner's mistake of not even trying to blend in the bottom of a structure to the layout.

The Beer Line structures article, Freytag's Foundry, and the lightweight module articles all contain some good information. Then we have the article I was waiting for - "Beyond the basics.. . a step above in accuracy". What I find, however, is a well built layout that's really no better in terms of accuracy or detail than many of the layouts I've seen here. No offense to the layout builder. It's a nice layout but basically pretty ordinary. Look at picture #6 on page 65 and tell me if you think that looks like a "step above" in terms of realism. Look at John Bortle's (who regularly posts here) picture on page 97 and you be the judge of which scene is a step above in modeling.

I've done enough nitpicking so I won't even get into the review "infomercials". Suffice it to say that I don't find $6.00 worth of value in the many issues of MR these days.

 

[stationmaster]

I subscribe to all three magazines mentioned. Even MRC has become somewhat complacent in their articles. Just recently I read an article in MRC. I thought I recognized it. I went back a few years in my library and "voila" there it was. An article on kitbashing and the operation of an industrial switching complex. It is my contention that there are more than enough subjects that no magazine needs to reproduce articles as if on a merry-go-round.

I do enjoy many of the how-tos. I especially like the photos. I am not much of a picture taker myself. Not that I don't know how, or don't have the equipment. I just don't take pictures. I've got three digital cameras including one of those "high tech" Canon 12 megapixel jobs with multiple lenses and all of the whistles and bells. I just don't take pictures.

It just seems that MRR is stuck. Stuck in a niche, or philosophy, that doesn't allow them to be the cutting edge magazine they used to be. Is there a magazine that is a "one size fits all"? Not that I have found. MRR 20 years ago came close to fitting the bill, but has waned in the last 5-7 years. RMC is for the more advanced modeler and Scale Rails is still growing. Still the NMRA entry needs new management in order to "kick it up a notch".

There is another magazine, whose name I can't recall, that deals with the building of only structures. It's a bit limited in some areas but all things considered is a good rag for those that love to construct buildings. Very limited on the smaller scales, HO, N, ect, but the same principles apply.

The void seems to be in the area of the intermediate hobbyist. This is one fact that I think all will agree.

Does anyone recall the old magazine called "Kitbashing Magazine"? I have a bout 10 magazines dated from the late '70's. I haven't seen it for many years. That was a good read for those that liked destroying engines to rebuild some unique pieces. And the articles on structures were straight forward and very easy to understand.

Bob

 

[Cjcrescent]

Also there is the NMRA (don't say ugh!) and Scale Rails magazine. If you have not seen it in a few years, you are missing a mag that is improving by leaps and bounds. The best part is the articles are written by fellow model railroaders, not journalism students that play with trains.

Couldn't agree more Karl. I've seen the "Bulletin" go from poorly copied pictures, biffy jokes, and poorly written articles to a much better level of quality in articles, pictures and reviews. I don't know if it will ever reach the level of MR back in its heyday, but its a lot better than it was.

 

[Cjcrescent]

Bob;

Right now the most "useful" mag, I find, is the Narrow Gauge and Shortline Gazette, also called the Narrow Gauge Gazette or just the Gazette. It seems to have something in every issue that either gives me an idea, teaches me something new, or refines a technique I already use.

Its just my opinion, but I believe that its the best modeling mag published.

Another one that was right up there with the best was Prototype Modeler. Very good mag devoted to pure prototype modeling, but has gone the way of many other pubs.

 

[kbkchooch]

Bob;

Right now the most "useful" mag, I find, is the Narrow Gauge and Shortline Gazette, also called the Narrow Gauge Gazette or just the Gazette. It seems to have something in every issue that either gives me an idea, teaches me something new, or refines a technique I already use.

Its just my opinion, but I believe that its the best modeling mag published.

Another one that was right up there with the best was Prototype Modeler. Very good mag devoted to pure prototype modeling, but has gone the way of many other pubs.

I've seen the Gazette and agree that some of the techniques they discuss are neat. Pardon me, but narrow guage just ain't for me.
I do miss ModelRailroding magazine. The tiny little rivot counter inside me got excited with the monthly diesel engine drawings and photos!
Thats where I learned that EMD stood for "every model different" !

 

[jackn2mpu]

I've seen the Gazette and agree that some of the techniques they discuss are neat. Pardon me, but narrow guage just ain't for me.
I do miss ModelRailroding magazine. The tiny little rivot counter inside me got excited with the monthly diesel engine drawings and photos!
Thats where I learned that EMD stood for "every model different" !

I've fallen in love with the Gazette ever since my first issue years back. I too thought narrow gauge is not for me, but there are construction techniques that are applicable to every scale and gauge. And some of the structures they show really stir the imagination in what can be achieved.

 

[Espeefan]

I especially object to the reviews, which are now nothing more than ads for the products, rather than an honest review. If I see one more review that ends with "This is a great (fill in the blank) model for your layout", I think I'm going to puke. It's bad enough that the advertising to content ratio is already so high without having the reviews turn into more ads.

SNIP

I've done enough nitpicking so I won't even get into the review "infomercials". Suffice it to say that I don't find $6.00 worth of value in the many issues of MR these days.

I'm going to share a little secret with you. I am not defending these reviewers, in fact, I am one, and have done several for Model Railroad News, and the old "Model Railroading". Here's a little info on how the process works: I have never "Santa Claused" a review, but as a rule, if we get something that is a piece of crap, it goes back to the manufacturer with a list of things to fix, then be resubmitted for review if the manufacturer likes. It really serves no purpose to trash a manufacturer for trying to bring a new product to market. All you usually accomplish is having them send it somewhere else, or not having it reviewed at all. So the big reason you don't see bad reviews is that they don't make the cut. Substandard products don't get reviewed. (at least not by me )

I have found issues or things I don't like about products, and stated problems I had with kits, instructions, operability, and so forth, and I try to be honest about "would I buy this for myself?" Most times I would. I can see where this would be confusing to readers, and hope this explains things some.

BTW, I've never reviewed for MR!

 

[DougM]

but as a rule, if we get something that is a piece of crap, it goes back to the manufacturer with a list of things to fix, then be resubmitted for review if the manufacturer likes. It really serves no purpose to trash a manufacturer for trying to bring a new product to market. All you usually accomplish is having them send it somewhere else, or not having it reviewed at all. So the big reason you don't see bad reviews is that they don't make the cut. Substandard products don't get reviewed. (at least not by me )

So although earlier I was defending MR I did find the "reviews" pretty useless and your enlightenment and to the way these functions makes me think the review model for probably most magazines is hugely biased, and if I was feeling grumpy I might say unethical.

 

[stationmaster]

My guess is that in the current environment that the publishers don't want to lose any income from advertising dollars. A fact that I can understand. But, being a bit of a "trueist", I do sometimes sacrifice making a dollar to stay true to my conscience and my beliefs. I've done so many times. And I think that the business took care of itself with that philosophy.

While publishing these magazines is a business, there is one fact, one rule, that must be at at the forefront. It's all about the hobby. The hobby should ALWAYS be the first consideration when any article is written or magazine published. Without the hobby, and the hobbyist, there would be no magazine. The publishers and the hobbyist should be on the same page, walking hand in hand. The manufacturers/advertisers will have to follow.

Bob

 

[UP2CSX]

Alan, what you say makes some sense but it doesn't apply to other publications I subscribe to. For example, Motor Trend doesn't send back a car to a manufacturer if it has obvious flaws. They take the product they have and review it, warts and all. Popular Communications reviews products they are sent or that they buy off the shelf. The product gets an honest review, which means sometimes it's classed as a piece of junk. They probably have to spend more money to buy products for reviews since manufacturers are wary of sending them things that they know aren't quite ready for prime time. Consumer Reports never reviews anything sent to them. They buy it from a consumer channel and use standardized methods to test and review, giving each product in the same class an apples to apples comparison. I think this type of reporting is missing from all model railroad magazines but especially MR. An excellent example is the recent release of the PWRS cylindrical grain hopper. They are beautiful models but the wheels have such fine treads and flanges that cars won't stay on the rails. Did I learn about this issue (before I spent my hard earned money) from MR? Nope, I found out about it here. This is the kind of information I'm looking for from MR. I want to know what's good, bad, and ugly. It should never be incumbent on a magazine to send back a model for rework so it can get a better review when it's sitting on the shelves now and people are buying it.

 

[kbkchooch]

I want to know what's good, bad, and ugly. It should never be incumbent on a magazine to send back a model for rework so it can get a better review when it's sitting on the shelves now and people are buying it.

Amen Jim!

Why should the reviewing mag let the manufacturers have a second chance anyway. Would I ? Probably not ! I'd just get my money back and go elsewhere.
As a friend of mine is fond of saying,"A turd is a turd, you can freeze it and it will stop smelling, but its still a turd".

 

[Espeefan]

For example, Motor Trend doesn't send back a car to a manufacturer if it has obvious flaws. They take the product they have and review it, warts and all. Popular Communications reviews products they are sent or that they buy off the shelf. The product gets an honest review, which means sometimes it's classed as a piece of junk.

SNIP

This is the kind of information I'm looking for from MR. I want to know what's good, bad, and ugly. It should never be incumbent on a magazine to send back a model for rework so it can get a better review when it's sitting on the shelves now and people are buying it.

OK, either Y'all have misunderstood me, or I have poorly communicated here. probably the latter

First it isn't incumbent on a magazine to send anything back. I'm actually aware of this happening only once in many years of reviews with a water product that didn't cut it. That product, I believe, did not make it to market.

I've done a few reviews and I always say what I didn't like as well as what I did. Some examples:

An American Model Builders SP station: Hard to understand instructions on how to install the doors properly, no spares of delicate prone to breakage parts, insufficient guidance on how to make some of the compound joints in the roof fit right.

A Sunshine Models resin kit that had poor decals (though I have bought many since that had perfect decals) and the main train air line left out of the kit & off the instructions

Bachman's Peter Witt Trolley that had a difficult to program decoder and no instructions anywhere on what CV's did what.

Incorrect trucks on the Red Caboose S-40 stock car (contacted the manufacturer, they explained why, and had shipped replacement trucks to replace the original problem issues)

All of that stuff was in the reviews.

And please, lets not compare a couple of hundred thousand dollar hobby market (for a particular model/product like those grain hoppers) with the billions spent on cars and computers/tech. It's a totally different industry, mostly cottage, and operates on a shoestring compared to companies like Toyota or Dell.

The mags I have written for all tell the reviewers to write what they think, and to be fair and honest. If I ever had a product that I couldn't say anything nice about, I would tell the editor of the problems and let him make the call. If he told me to write it up, I would. He's the boss. Pilot models or new products that show lots of problems might be returned to the manufacturer. Stuff in production, and on the shelves would get reviewed. I can't speak for all mags but those I have worked for value the readers above the manufacturers, and have stood by reviewers in the past where the manufacturer didn't think they got the review that they should have. Successful publications get more dollars from their readers than their advertisers. The readers buy the mags, after all. No readers, no revenue!

I've never had a product that was so bad I felt I could say nothing positive, and I've never refused a review of anything.

Also, most review samples are gratis. Furnished by the manufacturer free of charge in exchange for a fair review. The smaller mags don't have the cash to buy everything, and the manufacturers hope to get some favorable publicity. It usually works out right for everyone, including the consumer, but no system is perfect.

Usually the reviewer's payment for his time & trouble is getting to keep the item (at least in my case )

Like I said before I can't speak for MR, but my experience doing this is that it's all on the up & up. If you read a good review, it's because the reviewer really liked the product. Do bad ones get written? No doubt! Do reviewers miss stuff? You bet! (I have ) But the intent isn't to write a commercial. The manufacturers are already doing that themselves & paying the mag to run it.

It's hard to cover everything in this type of forum, would be much better done over a beer or two . All I can tell you is that there is no "handshake agreement" or any sort of collusion between the mags and the manufacturers for favorable reviews only. The guys writing usually just plain really like the product they are covering. This isn't unusual when you understand that lots of reviews are done by request, and the reviewer usually is doing something he/she is interested in. I do anyway. It makes the prototype research part of the job easier if it's an era/rr/item that you know something about.

Hope this clears things up a little! Going back and reading my original message, I did a poor job of explaining my experiences. Sorry, it was lunch time at work & I was running out of time!

 

[UP2CSX]

Alan, I did not mean to cast aspersions on your work and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. My beef is with MR specifically, not other magazines. I think MR purposely gives manufacturers a pass when they should get a scathing review. As an example, check out the September, 2002 of a Downtown Deco kit. I've built several of these and not one had a flat wall, the hydrocal castings were were warped and full of flash, and the pieces were so fragile that it is almost impossible to put one together without breaking a casting. The MR review says (and I think fair use quoting is allowable in this case) that the kit has "...well-detailed and textured plaster wall castings that had little flash, no air bubbles, and were perfectly flat. They fit together well with a minimum of sanding and filling. Hmm. I apparently got at least three really bad kits or MR got a really good one. They go on to say :...Even though my kit was carefully packed in a sturdy corrugated box, I found the fragile front wall had broken into several pieces. The damage took only a few minutes to repair with white glue..." My DD kits always had at least broken casting. And the damage only took a few minutes to repair so that's OK? Why should a customer have to do any repair to an $80 kit? Continuing: "The instructions are a bit sketchy, but the details are clearly explained and there wasn't much to figure out with only four walls and a roof." Sketchy instructions and $80 for four walls and a roof? Do you think the word "sketchy" may have been described a little differently by a modeler trying to figure out how to put it together?

I suspect you might have been a little tougher on this kit, especially if it was one off the shelf, not one hand picked by DD for review. Even then, they couldn't deliver it without breaking a wall. I have no idea how DD has stayed in business for seven years but one of the reasons is fluff reviews like this, that make the modeler think the building kit really isn't so bad so they go out and buy one. I have yet to meet a modeler who has built a DD kit that didn't have a ton of grief with it. Products like this should get much more critical reviews, especially for what was pretty high price in 2002.

 

[jackn2mpu]

Alan, I did not mean to cast aspersions on your work and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. My beef is with MR specifically, not other magazines. I think MR purposely gives manufacturers a pass when they should get a scathing review. As an example, check out the September, 2002 of a Downtown Deco kit. I've built several of these and not one had a flat wall, the hydrocal castings were were warped and full of flash, and the pieces were so fragile that it is almost impossible to put one together without breaking a casting. The MR review says (and I think fair use quoting is allowable in this case) that the kit has "...well-detailed and textured plaster wall castings that had little flash, no air bubbles, and were perfectly flat. They fit together well with a minimum of sanding and filling. Hmm. I apparently got at least three really bad kits or MR got a really good one. They go on to say :...Even though my kit was carefully packed in a sturdy corrugated box, I found the fragile front wall had broken into several pieces. The damage took only a few minutes to repair with white glue..." My DD kits always had at least broken casting. And the damage only took a few minutes to repair so that's OK? Why should a customer have to do any repair to an $80 kit? Continuing: "The instructions are a bit sketchy, but the details are clearly explained and there wasn't much to figure out with only four walls and a roof." Sketchy instructions and $80 for four walls and a roof? Do you think the word "sketchy" may have been described a little differently by a modeler trying to figure out how to put it together?

I suspect you might have been a little tougher on this kit, especially if it was one off the shelf, not one hand picked by DD for review. Even then, they couldn't deliver it without breaking a wall. I have no idea how DD has stayed in business for seven years but one of the reasons is fluff reviews like this, that make the modeler think the building kit really isn't so bad so they go out and buy one. I have yet to meet a modeler who has built a DD kit that didn't have a ton of grief with it. Products like this should get much more critical reviews, especially for what was pretty high price in 2002.

As documented here, you're not the only one to have problems with DD kits and MR's review of same. What's really sad about these kits in particular is a modeler on his own could do better. I don't know who Randy has to do his castings (himself maybe?) but they could be done better. And for the broken pieces - don't know if that's happening in shipping or in taking them out of the molds. If in shipping, he could use the same type of expanding liquid foam product used to insulate walls that can also be used to cradle parts. I'm not talking the overly large styrofoam pieces used inside a box for a tv. If the breaking happens in de-molding, a little more care there would help. All it takes is the kind of care a modeler would put into his or her own layout to do the job. The same thing goes for reviews - would I want this piece, as-is, on my layout and be proud of it?

 

[Espeefan]

Alan, I did not mean to cast aspersions on your work and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. My beef is with MR specifically, not other magazines. I think MR purposely gives manufacturers a pass when they should get a scathing review. As an example, check out the September, 2002 of a Downtown Deco kit.

I know you weren't Jim, and that's one of the dangers of e-mail. It's just sterile text. The smilies help a little but it's still easy to take something out of context. I was trying to defend the integrity of the process, which I think, is overall pretty good. MRN does not pay it's reviewers. We get to keep the item we review in exchange for our time, and that's it. If you put a calculator to it, I could make more shoving buggies at Wally world. It's actually better that way because nobody pays for my opinion, and I do consider carefully "would I buy this for myself?" and "people will spend their hard earned (and now maybe scarcer) hobby cash based on what I say here".

That's how it's supposed to work!

As for DD kits, I have one or two here. The castings are fine, but I think the problems you describe are a result of that shrink wrap they use. That stuff gets tight and hydrocal castings don't flex much!

As a strictly neutral observer I will point out that the reviewer did mention the broken casting and sketchy instructions. He did it nicely, true, but the infio was there. Sketchy instructions are rather common in craftsman level kits. Ever build anything by Sheepscot Scale? they come right out and say that some things are up to you to figure out, and I guess that they figure anybody with the experience & ability to tackle one of their kits will know this and probadly do it anyway.

Did you ever contact DD about your busted pieces and give them a chance to make it right? Bet they would. Westerfield has sent me pieces I've broken building his kits. In some of those small companies the kits are assembled by family members around the kitchen table. They do want your business and will generally take care of this kind of stuff.

Oops! time to head to the office! Another happy day!

Regards,

 

[jackn2mpu]

I know you weren't Jim, and that's one of the dangers of e-mail. It's just sterile text. The smilies help a little but it's still easy to take something out of context. I was trying to defend the integrity of the process, which I think, is overall pretty good. MRN does not pay it's reviewers. We get to keep the item we review in exchange for our time, and that's it. If you put a calculator to it, I could make more shoving buggies at Wally world. It's actually better that way because nobody pays for my opinion, and I do consider carefully "would I buy this for myself?" and "people will spend their hard earned (and now maybe scarcer) hobby cash based on what I say here".

That's how it's supposed to work!

As for DD kits, I have one or two here. The castings are fine, but I think the problems you describe are a result of that shrink wrap they use. That stuff gets tight and hydrocal castings don't flex much!

As a strictly neutral observer I will point out that the reviewer did mention the broken casting and sketchy instructions. He did it nicely, true, but the infio was there. Sketchy instructions are rather common in craftsman level kits. Ever build anything by Sheepscot Scale? they come right out and say that some things are up to you to figure out, and I guess that they figure anybody with the experience & ability to tackle one of their kits will know this and probadly do it anyway.

Did you ever contact DD about your busted pieces and give them a chance to make it right? Bet they would. Westerfield has sent me pieces I've broken building his kits. In some of those small companies the kits are assembled by family members around the kitchen table. They do want your business and will generally take care of this kind of stuff.

Oops! time to head to the office! Another happy day!

Regards,

I'm not the person you're responding to, but one who has had problems with DD's kits. In the one I have (Grimm's Funeral Home) the pieces were not packaged with shrink wrap but bubble wrap, and not very good at that. If you look at my previous post you'll see where I mention a few things Randy could do better. And what I mention could be done at home with a spray can of the expanding foam insulation available at any good hardware store.

As to contacting Randy about getting parts replaced, what makes you think the replacement part would get to me in any better shape?

I don't see how anyone can defend the review process when it entails being given a product by a manufacturer instead of buying it through a retail source anonymously. Too much of a chance for a sweetheart deal or a specially-picked-for-the-review thing to be going on. It's like when I was working for an electronics firm 30 years ago and was helping in the development of a new product. I made sure the salespeople had units that were WAY better than a normal unit. Would I want that to go for review or scrutiny at a trade magazine? No way.

 

[blownoutcylinder]

I'm not the person you're responding to, but one who has had problems with DD's kits. In the one I have (Grimm's Funeral Home) the pieces were not packaged with shrink wrap but bubble wrap, and not very good at that. If you look at my previous post you'll see where I mention a few things Randy could do better. And what I mention could be done at home with a spray can of the expanding foam insulation available at any good hardware store.

As to contacting Randy about getting parts replaced, what makes you think the replacement part would get to me in any better shape?

Whenever my sister puts out her pottery pieces they're always in an expanded foam container system----Hydrocal, to her, is just another form of ceramic. Hence the idea you have should do the trick---provided, of course, you don't end up with people who don't give a rats butt about how they handle someone else's stuff--and start kicking it around--

As far as the product reviews are concerned the problem to me anyways has always been that it was dependent upon a subjective call in the first place--I've never really depended on a magazines review because of that subjective element---The reviewer may have had a good product and I got the lemon---or the other way 'round even. Unless someone comes up with a perfectly objective method of reviewing a product I'm going to treat all reviews as subjective calls and leave it at that---

We are, after all, dealing with human perception and single products----I don't make calls based on one product reviews---- and there really is no Consumer Report for MRR'ing as yet-

 

[Espeefan]

As to contacting Randy about getting parts replaced, what makes you think the replacement part would get to me in any better shape?

What makes you think it wouldn't? If you have issues, and if you don't feel you got your money's worth, don't you think you should give the company a chance to make it right, either by replacing broken/defective items or by refunding your money? Have you asked? I would

I don't see how anyone can defend the review process when it entails being given a product by a manufacturer instead of buying it through a retail source anonymously. Too much of a chance for a sweetheart deal or a specially-picked-for-the-review thing to be going on. It's like when I was working for an electronics firm 30 years ago and was helping in the development of a new product. I made sure the salespeople had units that were WAY better than a normal unit. Would I want that to go for review or scrutiny at a trade magazine? No way

So do I understand correctly? You are saying that you personally fudged product reviews in the past? If so, shame on you and I understand why you feel the way you do.

Sweetheart deals? The next one I get will be the first.

Specially picked items for the reviews? How would you do that with a container of locomotives or a load of the same kit? The cost of doing something "special" for products in this price range would outweigh any possible benefit. Review samples are pulled at random. I have read reviews where the sample was found to be damaged upon opening the box. So much for that theory.

In any case, the reviews are our opinions on the product, nothing more. They are most definitely subjective, as Blownoutcylinder says. He has the right idea. They aren't meant to make your decision for you. You should still kick the tires yourself, and vote with your wallet. If you get disappointed, pursue the matter with the manufacturer or your LHS. Get your money back and don't buy the offending product again.

Wow, we're getting away from the issue. Do reviews get written that purposely favor the manufacturer? Maybe that has happened, but I honestly don't know of any that were done that way. The mags I have written for never attempted to influence anything I wrote. All they ever did was correct typo's and fix crummy grammar.

Are all reviews positive on puropse to favor the manufacturers and preserve advertising dollars? NO! That's an absurd idea. Think about it. If that was the purpose, why wouldn't they just buy more ads where they could totally control what was said?

The last opinion I'll offer is that I've also used these reviews to make "buy/no buy" decisions. No regrets yet, though I might have disagreed with some statements. The review is a tool for you to use, that's all.

 

[jackn2mpu]

What makes you think it wouldn't? If you have issues, and if you don't feel you got your money's worth, don't you think you should give the company a chance to make it right, either by replacing broken/defective items or by refunding your money? Have you asked? I would



So do I understand correctly? You are saying that you personally fudged product reviews in the past? If so, shame on you and I understand why you feel the way you do.

Sweetheart deals? The next one I get will be the first.

Specially picked items for the reviews? How would you do that with a container of locomotives or a load of the same kit? The cost of doing something "special" for products in this price range would outweigh any possible benefit. Review samples are pulled at random. I have read reviews where the sample was found to be damaged upon opening the box. So much for that theory.

In any case, the reviews are our opinions on the product, nothing more. They are most definitely subjective, as Blownoutcylinder says. He has the right idea. They aren't meant to make your decision for you. You should still kick the tires yourself, and vote with your wallet. If you get disappointed, pursue the matter with the manufacturer or your LHS. Get your money back and don't buy the offending product again.

Wow, we're getting away from the issue. Do reviews get written that purposely favor the manufacturer? Maybe that has happened, but I honestly don't know of any that were done that way. The mags I have written for never attempted to influence anything I wrote. All they ever did was correct typo's and fix crummy grammar.

Are all reviews positive on puropse to favor the manufacturers and preserve advertising dollars? NO! That's an absurd idea. Think about it. If that was the purpose, why wouldn't they just buy more ads where they could totally control what was said?

The last opinion I'll offer is that I've also used these reviews to make "buy/no buy" decisions. No regrets yet, though I might have disagreed with some statements. The review is a tool for you to use, that's all.

I NEVER said I did product reviews. What I said was I would never have sent a specially-prepped unit meant for a salesman for someone to review. Big difference. The whole idea for giving a specially prepped unit (in this case a unit with specs that are WAY beyond what an ordinary user would get - in this case a piece of electronic equipment designed to use ultrasonics to measure for flaws and thickness in material) to a salesman as a demo unit was so that said salesperson could go and do his demos at a customer confident that the he could demonstrate what a unit could do and not run into the possibility of banging up against the specs due to a unit slipping out of spec. Our sales force did not return to the factory after every sales call, but only after making a run of months at a time. As most people know, calibrations on electronics DO change so what we did was to give a salesperson every possible advantage.

I don't sugar-coat things. I tell it like it is, and expect the same from others.

 

[UP2CSX]

Alan, I did indeed sent an e-mail to Downtown Deco letting them know one wall arrived broken and the other one broke when I was trying sand it flat enough to fit the adjoining wall. They were very nice and sent two more walls. The one wall was fairly flat but still arrived broken. The wall that was fairly flat but broken in the original kit was warped and full of bubbles. I just gave up and combined the parts to make one kit. It's not that they have poor customer service, it's that they make a poor quality product, ship it in poorly packed boxes, and can't seem to get two pieces to come out the same. In reading the MR review, it seems that their shipping protection hasn't improved since 2002 but there's no doubt in my mind that those wall were hand selected to be sent to MR for review.

In thinking about it, I'd really like to see reviews, especially for structure kits, which shows exactly what the kit looks like when you first open the box. This is something you can't do at a hobby shop, since almost everything is shrink wrapped, and certainly can't do on-line. It's one thing to have a picture of how the model looks when assembled and painted by a professional but quite another to see what lies ahead of you when you see how it looks when you open the box. A good example are the Merchant's Row kits. They look great in pictures when they are assembled and painted but it's a lot different when you open the box and stare at a bunch of gray plastic and realize you need to buy about 10 new brushes and 8 more colors of paint. As long as the buyer knows what he's getting into in advance, it's caveat emptor. Just showing a picture of the finished kit is something I can see in a Walthers catalog. Anyone who has ever bought a Proto Mather stock car kit will know exactly what I'm talking about.