| . . . What I have learned over the years is that these are not museum quality replicas, but mass produced toys marketed to adults and should be viewed as such.. We should expect a certain level of quality and accuracy, but anything past that is asking too much for the price we pay.. |
While I would agree with you that these models are certainly not museum quality replicas, I do find the term 'toys' a touch trivial overall. To me, a 'toy' is designed with 'play' in mind. Even the 'simplest' model in my collection wouldn't stand up to too much play. I only have to look at my collection of vintage Dinky and Corgi Toys from the 50s to mid-60s to see the differences. Mind you, those spindly props on the civil airliners were often the first to go. And to add chaos-to-confusion, diecast collectable models
do often get lumped in (erroneously IMPO) under the category of 'toys' at trade events or swap meets, so I guess it is easy to see why people may use the term.
You are right in our expectation of quality and accuracy as it pertains to price, but I think if some firms are going to banner their wares under terms like 'Aviation Archive' I would expect they pay
a bit more attention to the 'accuracy' of those limited details they are adding. I suspect that is the area that irritates collectors the most.
Just my 2¢ worth.
JPN