Hobbyist Forums banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,791 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi Folks,You know with the newer kits and better level of detail,I was wondering,do fellow modelers consider those older kits obsolete.Example,the big Polar Lights Refit USS Enterprise vs the 22 inch Enterprise A.My point is because it's older and may not have as much detail or as accurate,doe'sn't mean you still can't enjoy it.Another example.Back in 1961 Aurora made a 3 foot model of the USS Enterprise Aircraft Carrier CVAN-65,which is still being produced today.Bert Kinzey,in his book on the USS Enterprise said about the old Aurora kit it's only value is to collectors,I disagree.It doesn't have the level of detail of the Tamiya kit but captures the Enterprise very well from the time it was built.The Enterprise is also a beautiful Carrier.Another thing the newer models,don't have.Those old AMT Star Trek Models were great and very fun to build and felt like they were from Star Trek,you can't replace that,Guy Schlicter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,695 Posts
I never have considered any older kits, obsolete. Just like the PL TOS 1701 is more accurate, I still like to build the AMT kits, because they still look good. I used to want accurate, but then I never built as many as I wanted. Now, if it looks close/good I will build it, for the fun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,661 Posts
When it comes to car modeling, some of the older stuff is just as good as the latest state-of-the-art kits if you're not concerned about ultra-realistic engine and chassis detail. In fact, some of the earlier car kits with multi-piece bodies are actually better for customizing and kitbashing, since the bodies are pre-chopped into sections!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
741 Posts
There is really no way a model kit can be "obsolete." If an old kit is wanting for detail, the only limitation is what the modeler can or will add on their own. Have not the DLM parts kept the ERTL 1701-A up to date and fully accurate? Why toss it? If I eventually get to my P.L. 1701-A, where would I put it???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
I still like the old AMT/ERTL ST models because, in my personal Star Trek Universe, there are subtle differences in each and every Constitution -class starship. Some, like NCC-1017 & NCC-1664, look exactly like the unaltered 18" AMT/ERTL kit (which, by the way, is canon, as that is exactly how they were portrayed onscreen). Others look just like the 22" cutaway. I even puttied, sanded, and repainted the old Playmates toy as the USS Yorktown , NCC-1717. I've done several of the Polar Lights TOS ships (Eagle, Defiant, Exeter, etc ), but the only ships I feel have to be represented by that particular kit are the USS & ISS Enterprise . When I get a wild hair and decide to build something like the old AMT/ERTL "Spaceship Set", I just make the Federation vessel a different ship than the 1701. My last one became the Farragut .

In my version of the Trek Universe, all models are welcome! :) It makes my life easier, as well as less expensive.....
 

·
Starship Class
Joined
·
11,656 Posts
m5multitronic said:
I still like the old AMT/ERTL ST models because, in my personal Star Trek Universe, there are subtle differences in each and every Constitution -class starship. Some, like NCC-1017 & NCC-1664, look exactly like the unaltered 18" AMT/ERTL kit (which, by the way, is canon, as that is exactly how they were portrayed onscreen). Others look just like the 22" cutaway. I even puttied, sanded, and repainted the old Playmates toy as the USS Yorktown , NCC-1717. I've done several of the Polar Lights TOS ships (Eagle, Defiant, Exeter, etc ), but the only ships I feel have to be represented by that particular kit are the USS & ISS Enterprise . When I get a wild hair and decide to build something like the old AMT/ERTL "Spaceship Set", I just make the Federation vessel a different ship than the 1701. My last one became the Farragut .

In my version of the Trek Universe, all models are welcome! :) It makes my life easier, as well as less expensive.....
VERY well put, good sir! Excactly as I look upon the situation! :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
Oddly enough every 'old' kit I have has never been re-engineered and released. I've got an SF3D kit that was later re-popped as MaK but that's about it.

Some of it comes down to ease of build. The EntRefit smoothy has sag issues, the chunky one has chucky issues, the PL 1:350 is so fraggin' awsome that it just kinda overwhelms the other ones.

Oh, wait, I do have one model. I have an orignal Valkyrie from Macross. It's big advantage over the Hase kits is that it's transformable with closing landing gear. But beyond that it's a poor kit. Fragile, lots of consessions to the transforming thing, somewhat chunky detailing.

Still, I'd love to have another. ;)
 

·
Curmudgeon
Joined
·
6,578 Posts
Call it nostalgia or sentiment, but I still like building the older, imperfect Star Wars and Star Trek kits, not to mention the Polar Lights repops of the Aurora horror kits. Yeah, they require a bit of extra work sometimes to make them presentable, but that's part of the fun. I don't need 100% accuracy, as long as the imperfections aren't overly apparent (like the excessive sidewalls on the AMT Millennium Falcon kits); besides, adding and/or correcting detail (as desired/needed) makes each build-up that much more unique and personal.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top