Let's talk about...REVELL (RANT!) Part.2 😤

PART 2 of...Ooof...WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT REVELL! 2nd in my series reviewing major model manufacturers...(in 2 parts!)
Time to consider & investigate the rather inconsistent quality from Revell.

A new series of vids where I review current model manufacturing companies, their noticeable key features, what they do really well, what is not so good, & subjects they should maybe consider in the future...Today: REVELL! 🫣

Coming soon: Tamiya, ICM, Takom, GWH, etc.

Please like, share, comment & subscribe!

[belind]

For me growing up in the States, Revell was the brand everyone “cut their teeth on” coming up in the hobby. A lot of nostalgic memories on some of their older kits, but would I buy them now? No. There are too many companies that offer far better kits for the money you’re spending, much like you said in Part 1.

[SEMJW]

Built the Revell 1/48 SR-71. Enjoyed 50 % of the assembly of the kit after 0 % fun sanding smooth the rough outer surfaces that were similar to 280 grit sandpaper. Sink marks and gaps need attention. The engines are without issues. Added Master pitot tube, Eduard engine nacelle louvers, stressed/heat skin effects, rivet detail and crew figures. Fabricated a 9 inch tall, stainless steel multi position stand, led flickering engine exhaust and UV lights in the cockpits. The canopies in the closed position with landing gear stowed, posed as if in flight as desired with the bonus of saving me from having to modify the kit's lacking detail in those areas.

I agree with the thought that Revell quality, part count and detail are as if a smaller scale was increased to the next size up. Their latest 1/32 P-51D kits (I have built two posed in flight so no need for engine or landing bay/gear detail) are that way.
Modelers should expect kits from 2010- capable of assembly with glue only, without obvious faults of bad design/fit or poor part quality. Ryefield Models shows what can be accomplished with recent injection molding technology. I believe the Revell 1/48 SR-71 is a good example of a not so good but could have been better, model that will cause some new/returning builders to question or quit the hobby and the experienced to be annoyed correcting the problems.
I will not purchase another current Revell kit.

[iannicholls]

I do remember seeing one of the old Matchbox kits re boxed by Revell. In very small print on the side it said something along the lines of “Original mould designed in 1974, modern decals, recommended for skilled modellers”. I thought at the time Well OK but you need to have that clearly displayed on the front of the box in big letters. Very good rant Peter and it needs to be said.

[kennethhughes]

Straight forward and honest. Thank you for your videos. Living in Japan I can confirm your comments that European Manufacturer kits have become very expensive here, particularly over the last 18 months! All the best.

[mikemontgomery]

I must admit, I tend to ignore Revell kits. That’s not to say I haven’t bought any in recent times but, they’re definitely not as present in my stash as they would’ve been 20 years ago. Then again, I moved my focus onto particular subjects, where the manufacturer “does but doesn’t” matter so much as, kit quality versus scarcity. I think that’s the biggest part of my calculus.

[terrybrown]

Just bought the SR71. It was pretty expensive but there's no choice so you just pay if you want one. It looks OK in the box and I'm a competent modeler rather than an expert so I think I'll be happy with it. I have the A400 and an A380 to build which also look OK in the box. I built my step daughter their Boeing 747 with the Iron Maiden decals. It was an old, scruffy molding but with nice decals. It looks OK on the shelf. I think for most of us that are not rivet counters Revell are acceptable even if not cutting edge when they model what you want.

[hamilton]

As a kid in the early sixties I loved their 72nd scale WW1 aircraft!

[joeschenk]

I agree completely with your "editorial" on Revell. Well said and well done. Some of these kits are just good for expending in firecracker tests. 🧨👍👍👍

[Mancmodeller]

Thanks for the plug Peter, and I promise, I will get around to building the Eagle soon!! Food for thought in these two videos, and very well explained. I'm very loyal to Revell/Monogram, had some lovely kits from them in the past, but definitely finding it hard these days to support their recent releases...All the best, Gary

[alantoon]

The problem with Revell is that they probably have few, if any model people working for them.
And that is a damn shame, considering the heritage of the company.

[flyduck]

Excellent show as usual - refreshing straight talking and honesty. I can't believe you missed the chance to plug your f-15 video!

[MACEWINDULastJedi]

I think one thing Revell could do to be more honest, is label the kits CLASSIC! If they are not ready to retool a kit, like all the Matchbox products, the modelling channels can inform those new to the hobby which classic kits would be good for beginners!

[MrVolvobloke]

I bought Revell in the late seventies/early eighties, but they were OK then, and as a youngster my skill levels were fairly low. To me, they looked fine hanging on a string from the ceiling. Recently however I got back into the hobby and was wowed by the new generations of kits from Eduard / Airfix / Special hobby et al, and then bought the Revell 'Battle of Britain' set... Oh dear ! The same awful 50 odd year old kits I remembered, rattling around in a massive box that was way too big, and it wasn't even cheap ! Nostalgia be dammed. Disgusted, I gave it all away. Amazingly I can buy a Revell 1/72 mustang that is so old real mustangs were still in service in some countries for £8, or spend an extra fiver for a profipack Eduard 1/72 that comes with PE, Masks, six decal options! Anyway, I have no Revell kits in my stash, and after that won't buy anything Revell in the future.

[paulkilich]

The 1/32 p 51 Revell was perfection. even had the slid rail holes when canopy open. Must be different departments.

[trainzfan]

As a modeller who fades in and out of the hobby (blame the ADHD and my main interest in trains) I always choose airfix over revell. The difference is the transparency. Airfix are so open now about their tooling date and that is a big part of my purchase. I'll happily buy a vintage classics kit when I know it's old and fancy something different. I avoid revell kits as I never know what I'm getting when sometimes I haven't got the time or signal to check scalemates. Their paint and brushes are OK and that's all I'll ever buy. But until they become more transparent and honest about their kits, I'll avoid them like the plauge. Really good video, really informative and backs up my views on the brand.

[charlesnavarra]

Peter, Peter, Peter. I'm 71, been modeling since my 1960. I cannot see, cannot feel, cannot even read directions as well as before. I have, HATE, kits that have 50 parts just in the cockpit. I want very basic kits that are under 100 pieces. Not a kit with 225 or more. A basic kit can be upgraded by me anyway I want. Wires in cockpit, wheel wells, brake line to landing gear, any little bit I want. Understand your rant, but remember it works both ways. You make a model for enjoyment and to make it what you want it to be. So, just keep doing what you do to keep it fun. But someday, you will find your eyes and hands going as well. Enjoy the good times while you can! Blessings.

[babel]

I can't disagree with anything you said, Personally I've found much better value from ICM and Trumpeter, lately I'm loving Trumpeter 1/32 Aircraft. I've been getting them for lower price than 1/48 Tami ya kits. And I've had no problems with quality . Which for me getting back into hobby after almost 40 years away. is a real bonus. having great kits at lower price is a must for keeping this hobby alive.

[jorgefk]

Great video. Nothing new to me but of vital importance to many modeller`s. As you said, they have prety good kit`s but most of the catalogue is absolut rubish.

[tomroland]

An excellent video. I think you're providing a valuable service to novice model makers like myself. I've made some of the 1/72 modern armour kits from Revell and thought they were good. However, I think they're relatively expensive to purchase new and I've a theory that they just directly convert the prices in euro's to sterling. You mentioned buying after-market stuff to enhance a model. If you include postage and packing it all adds up to a costly exercise if it's not from a single source. The Eduard Profipak kits win out here.

[LarryKnudsen-te]

I've learned to not expect much from Revell. In spite of that I did go ahead and build their new SR-71. Yes, it lacks detail. I was surprised that camera windows were only represented by fine line engraving. Even in my old Testors 1/72 kit there were supplied clear plastic windows. Cockpit detail was okay, but lacking so I used the Quinta Studios 3D printed decals which made a HUGE difference. The engines and display stand were nice additions. I spray painted the stand gloss black which make the engines stand out nicely. The engines have a nice amount of detail however getting rid of seam lines is impossible because they are too close to details. No real problems with fit. I could send you photos if you like.