# Revell 2009 Monster Kits Discussion



## OzyMandias (Dec 29, 2004)

I received these last week, and frankly was pretty stunned at the overall poor condition of the parts when I checked through the boxes. I haven't owned any of these kits before and so it's difficult for me to draw conclusions about deterioration of the molds and overall kit quality compared to what has been released before.

There are several threads discussing the kits here already, but I thought current builders might benefit from a centralised thread discussing the changes in quality and tips for correcting the problems that now exist.

I will post some photos to highlight some of the problems I have discovered so far, in the meantime, here's a list:

Overall: 
-The instructions are woeful! 
-Boxes aren't very nice either (that's me wishing for repro long boxes I guess)
-All the kits are made from a very shiny, brittle plastic. Lots of sanding required to prep surfaces to take paint. 
-Some parts are thin to the point of being translucent.
-Pits, mold depressions or whatever you want to call them. You could spelunk in some of these they are so big and deep.
-FLASH everywhere to varying degrees.
-The hands on all four kits have very delicate looking fingers. The removal of flash and seam lines will have to be done with extreme care to avoid loss of detail or breakage.

Dracula: 
-Excessive flash on grass tufts.
-The Ring!!! looks like both halves of the mold not properly mated. Heaps of flash. Other small parts on same sprue have lots of flash as well. 
-Bats are very thin and the one with extended wings has a huge pit in it's back.

Frankenstein:
-Coat parts thin at ragged edges. 
-Lots of flash blocking tear holes in clothing will have to be carefully removed.
-Name on tombstone seems soft at the edges and almost depressed in the stone now.
-Small posts for the front of the stand are flared very badly and will require a lot of trimming and sanding to fit into the square holes in the base.

Wolfman:
-FLASH!!! His mouth is over half closed with it. Must be removed carefully or the fangs will be damaged. 
-Small parts quite thin. Rat tails look very fragile.

The Mummy:
-Cobra hood has two HUGE pits that will need filling and detail resculpted.
-Lots of flash around bandage parts.
-The rest of this kit seems ok aside from flash.

I'm very pleased to have the kits, and they are buildable. I am just surprised at the apparent lack of quality compared to other kits I have built in the past.

People who own or have built previous releases of these kits who could compare the quality might make for some interesting reference.

Others who have the current versions these kits feel free to chime in with your own observations.

The floor is open and discussion is welcome...:thumbsup:


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

They don't seem to be too bad compaired to my Luminators from 1991. Seems like most suffer from the same problems.


----------



## scooke123 (Apr 11, 2008)

Most of the monster kits seem to have deteriorated as far vack as the Aurora Glow kits - just comparing the quality between the originals and the glows were going downhill. Dracula's ring hasnt been any good since the originals- even the early Monogram issues the ring was a blob!
Steve


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

What MCR said, Oz. I've been building these kits since 1963, so let me respond to your observations:

Overall:
-The instructions are woeful!
No doubt; the original Aurora instructions, or those that came with the 1999 long box reproductions were the best by far. "Woeful" would hardly describe the Monogram instructions.

-Boxes aren't very nice either (that's me wishing for repro long boxes I guess)
Hear, hear! 

-All the kits are made from a very shiny, brittle plastic. Lots of sanding required to prep surfaces to take paint.
I've read a similar statement regarding the Luminators Wolfie over on MCR's "Let's Build" thread with some confusion. I've never known paint (well, _oil-_based paint) to fail to stick to styrene, no matter what the surface texture was like. Of course, the surface should be prepped, and a good primer is always a help.

-Some parts are thin to the point of being translucent.
Which ones? Used to be, the parts of Aurora kits were about the thickest in the business.

-Pits, mold depressions or whatever you want to call them. You could spelunk in some of these they are so big and deep.There are at least two reasons for that: one would be the engineering of the molds, when flaws like those weren't the big deal they are today. The other would be that the molds are pushing sixty; show some respect for the old geezers! 

-FLASH everywhere to varying degrees.
It's a b!tch getting old. :hat:

-The hands on all four kits have very delicate looking fingers. The removal of flash and seam lines will have to be done with extreme care to avoid loss of detail or breakage.
That's not as much of a problem as it might appear, Oz. If you've ever tried to reposition them - and I have - you'll soon learn that those little digits are _tough_.


Dracula: 
-Excessive flash on grass tufts.
Always did have. But if you carefully shave the flash down from the edges of the tufts toward the base, the flash will curl into pretty natural looking blades of grass.

-The Ring!!! looks like both halves of the mold not properly mated. Heaps of flash. Other small parts on same sprue have lots of flash as well.
Annoying, but again, not a huge problem, as Lugosi's ring was white metal with a small crest engraved on the top.


-Bats are very thin and the one with extended wings has a huge pit in it's back.
You'd want wings that were of scale thinness, yes? And a little putty will fix the bat's back - with a little care you can make it look like fur and be done with it.


Frankenstein:
-Coat parts thin at ragged edges.
Again, the plastic is 1/8 the thickness of the real thing, so it has to be thin to look authentic.


-Lots of flash blocking tear holes in clothing will have to be carefully removed.
Or manipulated to augment the appearance of torn material. I trimmed it as needed on my Franky, then lightly brushed a little lacquer thinner on the tatters for a "molded in" appearance.


-Name on tombstone seems soft at the edges and almost depressed in the stone now. Small posts for the front of the stand are flared very badly and will require a lot of trimming and sanding to fit into the square holes in the base.
These were always issues with the kit, although it used to be that the locating holes for the footstones were too large. My biggest beef is having to close the hollow back of the vertical headstone with sheet styrene.

Wolfman:
-FLASH!!! His mouth is over half closed with it. Must be removed carefully or the fangs will be damaged.
Here again, you can make lemonade out of lemons. I had this problem with Dracula, but whittled the flash down to a pair of nice, scale canines with a sharp #11 blade.

-Small parts quite thin. Rat tails look very fragile.
Actually, those rats' tails'll stand up to a lot more abuse than you'd think.

The Mummy:
-Cobra hood has two HUGE pits that will need filling and detail resculpted.
-Lots of flash around bandage parts.
-The rest of this kit seems ok aside from flash.
We've gone over these issues above. The biggest problem with the Mummy is eliminating the seams on the ruins, particularly that big block by his right foot. If you run a some silver paint over it after you *think* you've smoothed it over, you'll probably get a shock - those flat surfaces are far less forgiving than the bandaged texture of the figure! Oh, and it would be a good idea to pin his left foot to the half column beneath it - there's very little gluing surface under there, and my Mummy's foot keeps popping loose.

Quality is a bit of an issue with these older Aurora kits, compared to the models of today, I'll admit. But it should be remembered that these were the very first of their kind. Not to highjack your thread, Oz, but here are links to pages that will illustrate how the remarks I've made tranlated into the finished models:
http://members.toast.net/blackswampmodelers/MM_Frankenstein page.htm
http://members.toast.net/blackswampmodelers/MM_Dracula Page.htm[/SIZE][/FONT]
http://members.toast.net/blackswampmodelers/MM_Wolf Man Page.htm
http://members.toast.net/blackswampmodelers/MM_Mummy Page.htm

Thanks for coming up with this interesting thread!

Mark McG.


----------



## OzyMandias (Dec 29, 2004)

Thanks for the responses everyone. I mentioned somewhere else on the boards that I think I have been spoilt by the kits I've been building recently and the ease with which they have gone together.

It's interesting from what has been said that the kit molds have not appeared to have degraded as much as I thought. Some wear and tear is to be expected after this length of time, but a lot of it appears to have been there throughout the reissues.

I think I may have sounded more critical of the kits than I meant to in my initial post. It was more about curiosity as to whether the molds were degraded or if it might have been some sloppy production on Revell's part. It appears to be neither (but I'm still not forgiving Revell for the boxes and pathetic excuses for instruction sheets). 

What we are looking at is classic Aurora, and I'm tickled pink to actually own them now.

Mark, thanks for the in depth response. You really covered the bases for me, and I love the work you did on your own kits. There's tremendous attention to detail on the figures and the bases are superb! Between you and MCR I'm positively inspired to get building!


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

Mark said:


> My biggest beef is having to close the hollow back of the vertical headstone with sheet styrene.


But Mark! You're NOT suppose to turn Frankie around!


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

OzyMandias said:


> ...Between you and MCR I'm positively inspired to get building!


Well, that's the idea - and don't forget to post them pictures when you get 'em built! By the way, you brought up a good point about the [email protected] Revell instructions (why the company has so little regard for them is more than I can understand); maybe if we ask nice, somebody will post scans of the original/1999 repro Aurora sheets - ? Now, back to topic. There are indeed a few things to watch for as you build these classics:

DRACULA
- The mold-parting lines on the tree branches will take a lot of time to scrape off with a sharp #10 (curved) hobby knife. A little sanding with some coarse sandpaper, maybe 100-grit, will help. If you sand in the same direction as the tree bark, you can run a brush _moistened_ - not wet - with lacquer thinner over your sculpting. This will melt the hard edged cuts from your sandpaper and knife blade, softening them and making the work look like molded detail. This technique is useful for pretty much any styrene kit.

- The next time I build a Dracula kit, I'll pin the figure to the base. There isn't a whole lot of gluing surface to cement the figure securely (as I mentioned with the Mummy's left foot in my first post). Lengths of sprue, inserted through holes drilled up through Drac's feet, would do the job handily.

- The cape presents one of the greatest challenges a figure modeler will face. You can't slide the assembled cape over the figure. The three pieces have to be painted, then glued to the finished figure. Then you go back and fill the seam, texturing it as best ye may. If somebody has a viable alternative to this procedure, I sure hope they post it here.

- Now here's an easy fix: the joins of Drac's trousers fall where they would on a real pair of pants, so they really don't need to be filled. However, if you smooth the seams on the outsides of the pants legs before painting, you can run a piece of 1/8" black striping tape down their length. The tape will represent the band of silk that appears on the outside seams of real dress trousers.

FRANKENSTEIN
- The join of the Monster's boots to his pants legs are very weak. I opened the tops of the boots before assembling them to the legs, then poured a little plaster of Paris into the lower legs. This flowed into the boots, creating a solid core that not not only strengthened the joint but also gave me a solid area I could drill into for pinning later. Plus the weight in his legs made the Monster more stable. Two cautions: first, push a little modeling clay into the joint of the boots/legs assemblies to keep the plaster from running out any gaps (don't ask me how I know about this). Second, the plaster cures quickly, but you must allow the water in it to evaporate - at least overnight - or it will stay soft.

- The Monster's jacket has only that small tab at the waist, which fits into the "hip body plate", to locate it onto the figure. It just rests against the back of the neck of the front body part at one small point. If you glue some sheet styrene bits to these areas, you can beef up the strength of the joints, since the jacket must also support the weight of the arms.

- The head just butt-joins the shirt and looks very unconvincing. In oder to make it appear that he's _wearing_ the shirt, I slathered some vaseline on the base of the Monster's neck as a release agent, then parked it in position and sculpted a bit of shirt collar with AVES Apoxie Sculpt. It was important to keep checking to make sure the assembled jacket would fit over the back of the putty addition. Once this had set up, I cracked everything off and allowed the putty to cure on the shirt. Fortunately, the head, body, and jacket/arms assembly can all be painted before the head is assembled to the body, with the jacket slipped on last.

THE WOLF MAN
- Nothing much to say here, except that if you take care to camouflage the seams that run along his hairy body, he will be spectacular. And his base allows for all kinds of groundwork opportunities.

- Oh, one thing: the skull, like all of those produced by Aurora, is very unconvincing out of the box. If you look at a real skull, you'll see that the eye and nose holes are actually depressions, not empty spaces. Also, the gap between the jaw and cheek bones is missing. These features can be altered with some putty and carving. It's attention to these details that makes a model look authentic, not toylike.

THE MUMMY
- In addition to what I said about the seams on those ruins, there are unrealistic gaps where they fit into the base. I used fine sand and white glue to fill them the first time, but the next time I tackle the Mummy I'll probably use AVES again. Poking the putty with the end of a small paint brush handle would do a much better job of matching the molded sand texture.

- The little gaps where the hanging bandages fit on the Mummy need to be filled, to keep them from looking like parts that had been glued on. I found that hobby knives and a triangular file took care of most of the seams on the figure. It wasn't very hard to etch the criss-cross pattern of the fabric, or reestablish the edges of the windings. The seam where the leg assemblies join together and the one of top of the left foot are particularly hard to remove. But like those on the Wolf Man, if those seams can be eradicated successfully, the resulting model, even after all these years, can still be a jaw-dropper.

And of course, there are more aftermarket parts for the Fab Four than you can shake a broomstick at.

Now, on to a discussion of the colors you should paints these models. The definitive, most correct, hardest and fastest rule is: *DO WHATEVER YOU WANT!!!! *These are *your* models, Oz ( and everybody else who's reading this post) - so whatever looks right to you IS right. Pardon me for shouting, but experience shows that threads like these can easily degenerate into a debate about what color green Frankenstein should be. There was already a whole thread on that very subject and, if you dig, you may be able to find the one about how to paint the Phantom of the Opera's eyebrows as well (the sad truth is, I'm not making that up).

So have fun with these models, guys 'n' gals...that's what they were made for!

Mark McG.


----------



## hedorah59 (Nov 24, 2008)

Very interesting discussion! Thanks for all the tips, Mark!


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

MadCap Romanian said:


> But Mark! You're NOT suppose to turn Frankie around!


Ah, but the contest judges _do_, MCR. 

Mark McGee, you mean you _don't_, at your in-store competitions?


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Remember the molds for these kits are now approx 45 years old. One of the reason Monogram scrapped so many of the Aurora molds when they acquired them back in 1977 is even by that time, many were just shot. The Bride of Frankenstein mold had already worn out even under Aurora's ownership. Back in the 60s and into the 70s kits were run at much higher pressure than today, and mold wear was a real issue. I have built a couple of the reissues of the Forgotten Prisoner and the molds are nice and clean, but that kit was issued and run much less than say, Dracula, who has been run every few years since the mid 60s.

I remember some rough molding and sink marks on my old 70s Aurora issues. My unpainted Grey Frankenstein had marks on his hands that I remember... 

If you look at any other vintage kit that is still sold today you see a lot of the same issues... flash, thin edges, etc. The current repops of the old Monogram Dauntless, Stuka, etc by Revell show the same issues... Sometimes a company puts money into fixing up old molds, and sometimes not. I had bought a 1990s reissue of the Airfix SBD Dauntless and the clear parts were unusable due to mold deterioration. I bought a later issue, and surprisingly the clear part sprue had been cleaned up considerable and the parts were good again.


----------



## GlennME (Aug 4, 2001)

G'day Ozy. 

Kit quality:
I have two Creature From The Black Lagoon kits ... one released by Polar Lights, and the other the Monogram re-release. Presumably, both kits were produced from the same molds. The Monogram has excessive amounts of flash, while the Polar Lights is clean. You have to wonder about the difference in quality.

The boxes:
Does Revell watch the market? The long box re-releases by Polar Lights were a big success. I can understand why Revell wouldn't duplicate the long box this soon after PL, but why not release them in repro square boxes? Polar Lights current release of The Witch replicates the square box, so why not follow suit?


----------



## OzyMandias (Dec 29, 2004)

Mark McG, thank you so much for making those construction notes up. that is an invaluable tool that I will definitely be making use of. Printed and stored with the kits on my 'to build' shelf (actually right now it's a pile of boxes on my spare table on the back patio). 

Given these kits won't be coming directly into Australia due to licensing (that's another story), I can't exactly run out and pick another one up if I mess up, so a little heads up (or a lot in this case) is much appreciated.

djnick and GlennME you've both raised an interesting point. It appears that restoration of a failing mold is possible. It would be really interesting to find out how a company determines the viability of that sort of project.

Glenn, you mentioned the PL Creature, which I've also built. It was a very nice kit out of the box and went together with minimal problems. I've just finished PLs Bride kit (I know it was a repop in the truest sense of the word) which, as an Aurora kit, has been sighted as a pain to build by more than one modeller. The only parts I gave up on even trying to use were the chains. I substituted pieces from an old copper necklace and shackles made from bent paper clip wire cut to length. The rest of the kit has been a real pleasure to build. Once again I've not had the opportunity to build older versions of these kits so I can't compare. 

My oldest kit is actually the Monogram Phantom from 1983. Building that is a hazy memory at best and I can't remember much detail except that it was made out of the same shiny 'brittle' plastic, except in black instead of grey.

Obviously there was some re-engineering done by PL prior to releasing those kits, which brings me back to the question I asked in my original post about the molds perhaps suffering from age (understandably) and Revell perhaps not deeming it financially viable to repair them. Either way, I guess they knew they would have a market, and this way they only had to redo the packaging and instructions... oh and Dracula's head  So the budget was there to fix a potential lawsuit problem but not to preserve molds that will probably sell for another 100 years or more??? Go figure 

Great stuff guys, I'm loving reading this...


----------



## OzyMandias (Dec 29, 2004)

Just out of curiosity, does anybody have an archive of Aurora instruction kit scans and would it breach copyright to make them available?


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

GlennME said:


> The boxes:
> Does Revell watch the market? The long box re-releases by Polar Lights were a big success. I can understand why Revell wouldn't duplicate the long box this soon after PL, but why not release them in repro square boxes? Polar Lights current release of The Witch replicates the square box, so why not follow suit?


Of course, Revell reissued Superman, Batman, and Robin in 1999 very soon after the PL monster re-issues but decided to go the "cereal box" route with contemporary comic art. The only Aurora re-issue for which they used the original Aurora box-art was the MAD kit.


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

Mark, I appreciate your builds and always loved your articles in Amazing Figure Modeler and Modeler's Resource, so please don't take my post the wrong way. You're an excellent figure builder!

Actually Mark, I was making a joke about the base. However, you bring up the point about judging models for contests and if you'd get higher rankings for improving the kits. In reality, it's hard to say if the judges would pay attention to the back of the tombstone or not. 

I know you have the opportunity to attend the higher level shows, etc, and they would probaby have higher standards of judging, but at the smaller shows like here in Calgary, as long as the judges like the model, it's hard to say if they'd notice the "extra effort" of fixing the back of the tombstone or not. 

There's another point here. If 2 people both enter a Frankenstein, but one fixed the Tombstone yet painted his kit poorly compaired to the one person who didn't fix the stone but did a better paint job....well, which one would you choose? It's subjective to who's judging.

Also, if you enter a "box stock" or "out of the box" catagory, then you'd get penalized for modifications, even if they were improvements.

As for my instore competitions, if I wanted to get serious about things, none of the 8-16 year olds would win anything. We have a model car show and they all miss the basics, like removing seam lines, burrs, and making sure they paint everywhere. Half the time something falls off their model when they put it in the display case. 

Yet, I still have to pick "the best" from these glue bombs and I still have a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. I'm there for the fun and encouragement of the local kids.


----------



## BadRonald (Jun 2, 2000)

Revell seems to watch these forums and realize that there is an interest in styrene monster models.When they decide to enter the fray however, they fall short of the mark.Revell does not realize that things like box-art and instructions mean alot to modelers like us.


----------



## scooke123 (Apr 11, 2008)

One thing about boxes though - they most likely have lots in that size and type boxes around or available. To go to a different size and dimension box and print up more detailed intructions would maybe be cost preventative. A couple friends of mine are into garage kits and they say the boxes almost cost as much as the kits. They probably figured this was the best way to package them for the tatget profit they needed to sell these. Still sucks though would have maybe been nice to add a tree of glow parts with them!
Steve


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

Mark McGovern said:


> Pardon me for shouting, but experience shows that threads like these can easily degenerate into a debate about what color green Frankenstein should be.


Blue-gray.


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

Ozy, like Mark said, just be sure to have fun and POST SOME WORK IN PROGRESS SHOTS...we LOVES WIPs!


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

And if anyone is able to post a side by side of bare parts from an original (60s era) kit and a modern repop, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be fascinated to see it.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

*Some thoughts on judging model contests.*

MCR,

First and foremost: hats off to you for having a LHS at all, let alone running your in-store contests. To paraphrase the not-so-old saying, "It takes a village to raise a modeler". Hereabouts we are blessed with a couple good plastic model outlets, but I wish they'd do as much as you to promote the hobby.

I got your joke about the base, and I hope you realize I was joking in turn about whether or not you turn the models around at your contests. I know the IPMS has a reputation for nit-picking when it comes to the judging at their competitions. So this might be as good a place as any to share what I've learned about the process, from the perspective of both contestant and judge.

IPMS shows usually employ the "First-Second-Third" place system, by which the entries of a given category are compared to one another. At some shows, like WonderFest, the "Open" system is used; there each model is judged on its own merits, with Gold, Silver, and Bronze awards being given based on how well the models were built, irrespective of each other. There is a growing interest in adopting this system within the IPMS.

The standard operating procedure for the shows I've judged in is, the judges head off in teams of at least three to look at the category in which they have expertise. If a judge has an entry on the table, he must find a replacement, so he isn't judging his own model. Most of the time, there are some entries that are obvious glue bombs; of course the judges make allowances for Juniors or Seniors categories, where youth or old age affects the contestants' abilities. The judges will still have several models that they will consider contenders, which have passed the "four foot rule" (that is, the models look okay from four feet away).

Now the judges go in for a closer look. They check to see whether the seams have been filled where needed, and molding flaws like ejector pin marks smoothed over. The judges also look at the modeler's handiwork - whether the model was assembled without obvious flaws like file marks or glue blobs, and so on. Was the paint applied without brush marks or drips? Any silvering of decals? In short, how far did the builder go to make his model look less like a toy and more like the real thing in miniature?

Only a few entries might satisfy this criteria; sometimes, none of them do, so the judges try to find the best of a bad lot. At other times, there may be so many entries in a category they ask the Head Judge to make a split - a subdivision that allows the judges to distribute awards among a couple smaller groups of models. For example, at the 2001 IPMS Nationals in Chicago, the Science Fiction/Fantasy Figures category was split into Human and Non-Human subjects.

At this point, yes, the nitpicking may start. Let's say it comes down to an Aurora Frankenstein, Dracula, and Mummy; the question is, who's going to get First, Second, and Third place? All three are very well done. The Dracula and Mummy were built competently, but out of the box. There's some groundwork added to Franky's base and the builder repositioned his arms so well that they could have been molded that way. Frankenstein, although the simplest of the three kits to build would most likely get First place in recognition of the extra work done. Dracula, being the more difficult to build well, would get Second place, and the Mummy, Third.

Naturally, judging isn't always so simple, as the questions you posed demonstrate:

>...In reality, it's hard to say if the judges would pay attention to the back of the tombstone or not. 
Assuming there were more than one Frankenstein model to be judged, and they were otherwise of equal quality of workmanship, the answer would be you bet the judges would look. If one tombstone were covered and one wasn't, the extra work would garner the higher award. I expect that the judges in Calgary would probably notice the "extra effort" as much as any down here (IPMS shows aren't all that "higher level" - but like WonderFest, the competiton at the larger annual National show is fiercer because it attracts so many more contestants).

>There's another point here. If 2 people both enter a Frankenstein, but one fixed the Tombstone yet painted his kit poorly compaired to the one person who didn't fix the stone but did a better paint job....well, which one would you choose? It's subjective to who's judging.
Not really; the purpose of awarding trophies in competitions is to recognize superior modeling skills. So if even extra work is done badly, it won't necessarily earn a trophy over a simpler but better executed model of the same kind.

>Also, if you enter a "box stock" or "out of the box" catagory, then you'd get penalized for modifications, even if they were improvements.
Not at all; the IPMS has pretty strict requirements for a model to be considered for an "out of box" trophy: no additional parts may be added (although aircraft may have simple seat belts or alternate decals) and the kit instructions must accompany the model ont the contest table. Again, the judges will be familar with the category they are judging - so if somebody tried to pass a Polar Lights "Bellringer" with an aftermarket Hunchback nameplate off on *me* as an "out of box" entry, they'd be in for a disappointment. 

>As for my instore competitions, if I wanted to get serious about things, none of the 8-16 year olds would win anything...
And that would defeat the whole purpose of running your contests, Trevor - but I know you know better than that. It *is* all about having fun, so in the Juniors categories at most IPMS shows, the modelers who don't place will all get an Honorable Mention.

There are always going to be winners and losers in model contests. I've been in both groups; but I've honed my skills immeasurably from these competitions. Model contests have also afforded me the chance to see other modelers' work, and exchange ideas with the builders. These forums are great for that, but nothing beats the face to face experience.

Hopefully we can go over all this in person some day, either at Wonderfest or maybe up in Calgary!

Mark McG.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

frankenstyrene said:


> Blue-gray.


Dear frank,

GNAAAAAARRR!!! 

Sincerely yours,

Mark


----------



## BatToys (Feb 4, 2002)

BadRonald said:


> Revell does not realize that things like box-art and instructions mean alot to modelers like us.


They do as I talked to someone at Revell. They were unsure of copyright issues on the old Aurora paintings so that's why they avoid retro boxes. Plus Universal has a say in how their monsters look.


----------



## TAY666 (Jan 8, 2000)

Mark McGovern said:


> that is, the models look okay from four feet away


Hey!
That's me!



> Again, the judges will be familar with the category they are judging



Not necissarily true at WF.
There is such a huge variety of garage kits that if you are entering something oddball or obscure, there is a good chance that whoever is judging has never seen it before.
Same can be said for styrene kits. Some of these guys may be GK experts but have no knowledge of what it might have taken to make a particular styrene kit look good.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

TAY,

I have never judged at Wonderfest, so I can only go by what little I've heard. That is, the judges critique each model on its own merits. As I understand it, the judges' scores are all tallied for each entry, and the award levels are derived from the tallies.

With that in mind, it would seem to me that familiarity with this or that kit wouldn't matter as much as it does with the IPMS system. Since the WF judges are looking at each entry's own level of craftmanship without regard to the other entries, it seems to me that the effort involved in completing a model would be a secondary consideration. And even if that weren't true, the award level an entry wins is based on the opinions of many judges, some of whom would surely be more familiar the model even if other judges weren't.

What I do know for sure is that the WF judges place stress on a model's "Wow Factor" that IPMS judges don't. What wows the judges of the one organization may not impress the judges of the other. So where a good out of box job can garner an award at an IPMS show, it's likely to get passed over at WF. But a model that does do well at WF might not impress the IPMS judges - weird, but as I've always said, "Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances".

I say that because it's true that judging is subjective. And it should be remembered that, at least at IPMS competitions, the judges are unpaid volunteers who are missing out on the rest of the show. So I usually cut them some slack if I'm not happy with a particular outcome - there is always another show.

Mark McG.


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

I'm not 100% sure that most of the IPMS guys know what they're looking at. 

Case in point ~ Both our Calgary Rocy Mountain Modeler's Club, which is a "loose" version of IPMS and The official Vancouver (British Columbia) IPMS that My Dad and I enter (Well, not me so much anymore) have had their members be primarily aircraft and millitary guys. 

It's these guys that get shuffled into judging catagories that they know nothing about. For example, back in 1996, I overheard judges at an IPMS contest point to some of the models on the table and say "What is that suppose to be?" when they are looking at model cars. 

When I first went to the RMMC shows, there was 3 judges that were model car enthusiasts that would put on silk gloves and carefully pick up your model car and look underneath and judge all these aspects of your model. 

In recent years, they dropped these guys and now the judges made it a point not to pick up the model cars anymore to look at what's underneath. They now use the "points" system....meaning that these millitary guys stand there, look at the models from what you call "The 4 Feet Test" and then they say "Which one's your favorite car? One, Two, Three.....POINT!" Then, everyone points to a model they like and award 1st, 2nd, and 3rd for it. No one considers what the kit was originally or what someone did to make it look better, etc. As long as it looks good on the table, it wins. It's quite unfair.

Also, RMMC has @ 8-10 catagories for cars VS the 25-40 for planes. Somehow I think most don't know all the ins and outs of kits, unless they're Millitary or Planes.


----------



## OzyMandias (Dec 29, 2004)

Sort of a cross post but I felt it was worth mentioning here as well. 
I've just looked carefully over the next steps in MCR's Wolfman build and the imperfections that I have noticed in the current Revell molding are present in the Luminator version he is working on as well. They don't see to be much worse, except for a non-existent upper left canine on mine where the Luminator kit has a more prominent stump, it's still not what I'd call a fang...


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Just like any "job" I am sure quality control at the injection molding factory varies. Revell doesn't mold any of their own kits in the US any more. The molds are sub contracted out to Chinese, Korean, Polish, Mexican, etc outfits. It depends on the kit and whether its Revell, Revell Germany, etc. There is also more than one "mold" Revell doesn't cast 20,000 Frankensteins from a single mold, one sprue at a time. A mold plate will run X number of kits at once. So maybe one person got a Frankenstein from a good mold and one from a worn mold? A direct example of mold quality is the Revell USS Randall attack transport. I bought three of these kits when it was reissued in the late 90s. on the inside of the hull on one kit, it is obvious the mold had cracked and been welded back together. THere is a big solder bead across the inside and some other marks. The other kits do not show the repaired damage... so they were made from at least two seperate molds, if not three even.

Revell usually issues kits in common/standard size boxes. Its not cost effective to make a whole new box size that doesn't fit with the rest of their product line. The square size box they use for the Monsters is their large square box used for other kits. Its probably the same as some of the Dinosaurs, or large truck models. Part of that notion is to save money but it also makes for a unified store display. People recognize Revell kits in one size/style box. Revell's MAD reissue is a bit different as it was one of their SSP limited runs that use the old box art (but in a new box not the same size and or shape of the original).

Companies do overhaul molds but in this economy I don't see Revell sinking $$$$$$$$ into fixing something that you can fix yourself with an X-Acto for free...

And again even the original Aurora issues may be in bad shape. One of the reasons the Moebius Dr. Jekyll doesn't have any teeth is aparetnly they worked from an original kit to make their mold... but it was from a worn mold and the teeth were missing on the original Aurora parts. Moebius fixed this for the Glow release....


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

MadCap Romanian said:


> I'm not 100% sure that most of the IPMS guys know what they're looking at...


That's true to a certain extent; I've helped judge in categories about which I knew nothing. However, I was always with at least one judge out of the group of three who _was _an expert. Most of the time, I was there just to break tie votes among two knowledgable judges.

I will say that although I might have been unfamiliar with a particular genre, I could spot a smudged airplane canopy or orange peel finish on a car as well as anyone. It's the niggling little details where specialized knowledge becomes a deciding factor, but superior modeling is pretty much self-evident. The reverse is also true: in breaking a tie vote on an armor diorama just this year, I pointed out that the tank of what became the Second Place winner was attached to the base by a huge screw that was clearly visible underneath the model.

I have found that in general, contest judges have been as even-handed as possible. Yes, there are some bad apples out there (and I won't open a huge can of worms by saying any more here). So while model contests may be a [email protected] shoot for the contestants, my experience has been that the odds are still in favor of the players.



OzyMandias said:


> ... a non-existent upper left canine on mine where the Luminator kit has a more prominent stump, it's still not what I'd call a fang...


What dj said, Oz. I look at little defects like these as a way to make my model stand out. I added a mouth interior, fangs, and even a better set of ears to my Mr. Hyde. Some AVES filled in the mouth and little shards of styrene scraped off a piece of sprue became the teeth. I pressed the ears from a Frankenstein head into some modeling clay, then cast them using 5-minute epoxy.

Maybe it's because I've been building Aurora kits since I was a kid that I've come to expect these issues to come up. If all kits were so well engineered that it was only a matter of "shaking the box" to have a perfect model fall out, modeling wouldn't be nearly as much fun, IMHO.:thumbsup: 

Mark McG.


----------



## jgoldader (Mar 26, 2008)

After a good post or two on the inaccuracies of the kit and how to fix them, this has become a really depressing thread. 

I'm not out to win contests, I do this for fun. Is anybody out there besides me actually happy to have these kits?! I'm having a blast building Dracula; I've reposed his arms and bought a Posthumous Productions replacement head for him.

So, THANKS, Revell, for getting us a 1/8 Dracula! I'm looking forward to posing him next to my Moebius Mummy and Frankenstein! My glass is over half full!

Jeff


----------



## Cro-Magnon Man (Jun 11, 2001)

Mark McGovern said:


> DRACULA
> 
> - The next time I build a Dracula kit, I'll pin the figure to the base. There isn't a whole lot of gluing surface to cement the figure securely ... Lengths of sprue, inserted through holes drilled up through Drac's feet, would do the job handily...
> 
> ...


 
I always thought that Dracula gives about the best shoe-to-base marriage of any Aurora kit, almost certainly the best of any of the monsters. Of all other Aurora kits probably only the knights or the Viking have better base planes for the shoes. 
Pin the Dracula figure to the base with drill holes and lengths of sprue? Once the soles of the two shoes are glued to the planes on the rocks in the normal way, he isn't going anywhere. You see how securely/insecurely Dracula's shoes attach to the base if you try to pull him back off the base to reposition him.

The cape question came up here about seven years ago, when a member called almostvirgin said that she couldn't get the assembled cape on the assembled figure either. Anthony Taylor answered to say 'Sure you can, just leave the head off till last'. Happy days...
I put an assembled cape over Dracula's body last month; just put some paper between the cape and the figure so that paint from the cape doesn't leave a mark down the white shirt and waistcoat.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Cro-Magnon Man said:


> ... just put some paper between the cape and the figure so that paint from the cape doesn't leave a mark down the white shirt and waistcoat.


Hah! Ask and ye shall receive. That's what I get for following the instructions too closely. Thanks, for the tip, Cro.

I've had problems with "damage in transport" in the past, so I prefer to overdo things like mounting the figure to the base, rather than pay the price for having underdone them.



jgoldader said:


> ...this has become a really depressing thread...I'm not out to win contests, I do this for fun...


I don't find this thread "depressing" at all, Jeff. For many of us, competition is fun, too. It's not just about winning trophies - I also get to see a lot of other modelers' works and exchange ideas with the builders face-to-face. Not to mention the fact that where contests are held, a Vendors Room is never far off.

With all the models that are out there (and in my own stash), I don't consider my glass half full - it's overflowing!

Mark McG.


----------



## TAY666 (Jan 8, 2000)

Exactly McGee.
Contests are about the fun. Getting to see all those nicely built up kits that you would probably never see anywhere else. Seeing a kit in person is so much better than pictures.
Some things just do not translate well with photos.

And I was not complaining about the WF judging. Just pointing out that most of the time, unless the judge has built that particular kit, they probably don't know much about it.
So if you want them to know you scratchbuild something on your entry, you had better note it on the entry form. These people are not mind readers.
And while an outstanding OOB build will still be outstanding and be rewarded accordingly.
A borderline kit with some good scratchbuilding or modifications that are well executed could give it just enough bonus points in the judges mind to rate a little higher.


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

Tay's right - someone at WF told me that while stock buildups are great, there's only so much you can do with it, mainly paintwise. And there's not a thing wrong with that. But for the judges, bashing and scratching - IF it makes sense and is well done - shows real originality and effort and will put an otherwise 'ok' build a whole notch or two higher in their judgment. 

Customizing is where all the fun is for me, now. I have nothing against stock builds at all, but I recently tried to build something stock, just to see if I had the force of will to do it. I didn't. The ideas (bad, stupid and otherwise) came unbidden and I just...can't...build stock anymore. It used to be exciting; now it's become boring.


----------



## Matthew Green (Nov 12, 2000)

But the real question is.....What is NEXT from Revell?


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

*Must Reading For Competitive Modelers*



TAY666 said:


> ...So if you want them to know you scratchbuild something on your entry, you had better note it on the entry form...


You've made a great point there, TAY; unfortunately, the teensy little entry form doesn't allow a contestant to say very much about his/her models. All that's been written up to this point has come from many points of view, which has been interesting but also a little muddled. That inspired me to go back to the materials published by WonderFest and the IPMS to review exactly what their criteria for judging is.

Here is a link to WF's "Helpful hints 'n tips for contest entrants": http://www.wonderfest.com/hintsntips.html. It's must reading for anyone who wants to enter their Amazing Model Contest, and mirrors the judging standards put forth by the IPMS.

You can find their _Competition Handbook_, which was written for the benefit of judges and competitors, using this link: http://www.ipmsusa.org/MemberServices/competion_handbook.htm.

After reading these documents, whether we're contestants or judges at any model contest, we should all be clear on how the processes are supposed to work.

Mark McG.


----------



## OzyMandias (Dec 29, 2004)

I'm not finding this thread depressing either. I couldn't be happier building these kits, check out the communal Wolfman build thread for pics of my progress.

I started this thread purely out of historical curiosity to see if a timeline of condition could be charted, and it appears that things are holding up better than we might have previously thought. That is really great news!:thumbsup:
My interest arose as this is the first time I have been able to build the Fab Four, I don't have any Aurora or Monogram/Revell versions to be able to draw a comparison myself.

I actually glued up the new Dracula head this morning and test fitted it on the torso just taped together. As much I am disappointed it's not the original head, it actually looks pretty good once it's in place with the cape collar behind it. Drac will be next on my list after I finish the Wolfman. 

My Cup runneth over verily... :woohoo:


----------



## OzyMandias (Dec 29, 2004)

Here's a little something of interest. I received this photo from forum member emsinker (Thanks Ed!) It effectively highlights the quality of the molding from a Dracula square box glow kit. 

I started clean up on my Revell Dracula, so I can't do a comparative shot, but I can attest to the fact that although the parts in the Revell kit are a bit rough at this end of the sprue, they are nowhere near as bad as these parts. If that is actually a ring on the sprue in the photo, I'll eat my hat!

So whether it comes down to mold maintenance or advances in the technology used. different pressures and plastics for instance, this bodes well for continuing availability of these kits should the molds still be available for use.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Oz,

I don't ever recall having a Dracula that didn't have lots of flash. It's challenge to make some of the parts look realistic, but no more so than a lot of resin or vinyl models - and in a lot of cases, less so (just be glad there are so few vacuum-formed figure kits!). To be willing and able to overcome a kit's deficiencies and produce an authentic-looking model is one of the best qualities a modeler can have.

Mark McG.


----------



## OzyMandias (Dec 29, 2004)

Very true Mark. I thought the photo, and the current version of the kits bore out the point that the molds don't appear ot have deteriorated and the new castings actually seemed to have improved if anything.

I have almost finished my Wolfman build, and I can say without hesitation it has been fun, and challenging experience to circumvent some of the problems you kindly highlighted earlier in this thread.

These Aurora kits have been become Icons in the realms of Modelling and Horror fandom. It's good to know that, whoever does it, they will hopefully continue to be released.


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

Mark McGovern said:


> Oz,
> 
> To be willing and able to overcome a kit's deficiencies and produce an authentic-looking model is one of the best qualities a modeler can have.
> 
> Mark McG.


Well said Mark, and this is an area where competition can be a great thing if approached with that in mind. Competition can sharpen your skills immensely, give you a chance to see first hand how others build and modify their kits, and gives you the opportunity to talk with the builders about how they do things. I have NEVER met a contestant who isn't happy to share their techniques or knowledge (maybe I've just been lucky but I don't think so..). 
I love competition. I consider it to be another way to enjoy my hobby win or lose- and I've done plenty of both!

Chris.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

OzyMandias said:


> ...It's good to know that, whoever does it, they will hopefully continue to be released.


There doesn't seem to be any sign of the manufacturers letting up, Oz. The Fab Four, at least, have been reissued once per decade since their first appearance in the early sixties. The other Aurora monster kits also seem to retain their appeal - on these boards alone, members will classify themselves as coming from either the "long box", "square box", "Luminators", etc., generations. No doubt we'll hear from some builder down the road that he prefers the new Dracula head because it's the first version he'd ever seen when he was young.

And isn't it great that all the subsequent companies that supply our niche issue kits in the same 1/8 scale (or very near it, at any rate) as Aurora? The legacy continues...

A-nut,

A big "Amen, brother" to everything you said!

Mark McG.


----------

