[FormerViperDriver]

I’ve been a Model Hangar forum member for about a month now, and one thing that has struck me as I caught up with some of the older threads (as well as reading the new ones) is the amount of debate about model quality/value and buying recommendations. Of course, that’s what’s great about the forum! But the interesting part was that in more than one instance, it seems the very same model evoked quite opposite reactions on the part of collectors. What was seen by some as a truly excellent model, was sometimes regarded as a worthless piece of junk by others. It’s pretty obvious I was faced with widely diverging views about what makes a diecast model “good” or “bad.”

Some threads have in fact specifically touched upon individual criteria for assessing a model’s worthiness (such as panel lines: inked versus not inked, etc…), but there didn’t seem to be a thread with a comprehensive discussion of all the possible criteria collectors use.

I am therefore starting this new thread to try and elucidate what are, indeed, the various factors that collectors on this forum consider when deciding to spend their hard-earned cash on diecasts. My intent here is threefold, I think: first, to satisfy my own curiosity; second, to potentially learn about factors I might not have considered myself, but which could help in my future choices; and third, to provide input to diecast companies who might actually be reading this (or maybe it’ll just confuse the heck out of them…). There’s perhaps a fourth objective, which is to possibly to help new diecast collectors with tips and ideas on what characteristics might be good to look for before purchasing a diecast model.

My approach will be to list my own criteria for model purchase, and go from there. This is just a way to get started: in no way am I implying that my criteria are the only ones or the best ones. I do believe some criteria are far more subjective than others (that is, matters of personal taste as opposed to more objective criteria), and I’ll try to point these out as I go. Note that you will not see “price” as part of my initial list, and that’s because I don’t see it as an independent variable. Rather, it is something that I weigh against all the other criteria. But it is an important factor, of course, and so I shall discuss it separately in the conclusion.

I apologize in advance for my tendency to be aircraft-centric, although I also collect armor myself. I probably will also be military-subject centric. It seems a majority of this forum’s members collect military aircraft models more than anything else. In any event, many of the outlined criteria should apply to civilian aircraft, as well as all kinds of vehicles and ships.

One final note before I start: I will not address criteria/factors for buying models primarily with intent for re-sale or pure speculation. I personally buy models to keep and display. They are a tangible representation of my interest in military history and technology. It is not impossible I may some day actually sell a few (perhaps because of space limitations, or because better models will be available to replace some of my lower-quality exemplars), but that is not the intended purpose when I buy them. This kind of buying entails criteria which may be quite different than what I will cover here, so let’s not get confused.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So here we go. My personal criteria for buying diecast models are, starting with the most important:

1. Subject: It’s pretty obvious that the first requirement for anyone to by a model is some interest in the subject being represented. As a practical matter, almost all collectors will focus on one or more themes. However, some themes will be extremely broad (in fact, perhaps at some point the term “theme” may not apply any more, I’m just not sure where that point is) while others are narrowly focused. Some may specialize in only one type of aircraft or vehicle. One can imagine an “all P-51” collection, for example. Others such as myself will collect over a wide-ranging spectrum.
My only real criterion is that I collect military, or at least military-related, subjects (though I don’t collect warships yet, I very well might some day). It seems most collectors fall somewhere in between, concentrating on a given time period, country, conflict, prop versus jets, only ships, only armor, etc...
The “subject” criterion can be further sub-divided in two parts: type, and livery.

- Type: This is the specific type of aircraft, tank, ship, etc… Within my own (admittedly broad) collection theme, I tend to go for many different types rather than many versions or liveries of a few similar types. Others will go the other way. This is a matter of personal focus/interest and really cannot be debated. Selection of a type of subject might be based for example on historical significance, appropriate “fit” into a given theme, or purely esthetic considerations (“beauty”). Certain types have many different variants, which sometimes is of importance to collectors (most certainly to those who concentrate on one or few types). Personally, I’ll tend to only collect different variants of a type only if the visible differences are significant (example: P-51B versus P-51D). If the differences were mostly internal, then I don’t care so much.

- Livery: This is a big factor for most collectors, but not all. The basic split among collectors seems to be between those who like special/one-off liveries, versus those who prefer more generic/operational liveries. Extreme examples of the former are special airshow paint schemes (usually very colorful). More generic, but still specific enough, are models of aircraft that belonged to a famous pilot (perhaps an ace), or tank commander, or was part of a specific historical action. At the other extreme are models in common markings for the era/region and lacking more specifically identifiable markings.
Personally, I tend to prefer the more generic, “operational” liveries for modern aircraft, but I do own a lot of WW II aircraft associated with specific aces. I also have a few “airshow” models, but not many.
For me, a new livery offered on a type I already own has to be pretty significant or exceptionally well done to justify buying it. In practice, I have done so for a quite a few types, (the most I have of one type is 10, but that’s for the F-16 which is special to me since I used to fly them.), but for the majority types I only have one or two, maybe three at most. The “standard” exceptions: P-51s, Spitfire, and Me-109. Most will know what I mean…

2. Scale: This I believe is quite important to most collectors, though perhaps not to the same degree as I see it. I happen to collect across scales based on subject availability, but I do have a distinct preference for 1/48 (or 1/50 for ground vehicles). Some collectors on the other hand are “one-scalers,” usually gravitating towards 1/72 in military aircraft or vehicles, 1/200 or /1400 for airliners, and 1/1250 for ships. My collection includes scales from 1/144 to 1/18, as I like to get the subjects I want in whatever scale I can get them.

But my preferred scale will likely remain 1/48 as I find WW II fighters, a major theme in my collection, simply too small in 1/72, not to mention the WW I stuff (which I do sincerely hope will be more fully represented in the diecast future). I don’t see getting away from 1/72 for the larger aircraft (bombers, transports), while modern jet fighters generally are fine in either scale. Perhaps space limitations will force me in the future to buy more 1/72, we shall see. That is an important factor. The large scales have more detail/accuracy, but the smaller scales allow more models in the same display space. Smaller scales tend to be cheaper as well, not a negligible advantage. A matter of preference and priorities…

Now we get into criteria that are more objective, though still leaving plenty of space for personal tastes and judgment.

3. Overall mould accuracy: Now, this is a real big one for me. One thing I will ask of a model is to faithfully convey the overall lines of the original, at least to some reasonable degree. I do not like models that have significant flaws in that respect. Now, it is true that there are varying degrees of possible errors here, and where to draw the line (acceptable flaw/unacceptable) is not always clear. Some of it depends on personal knowledge of the subject. I, for one, am much less likely to forgive a mould flaw in a modern jet than in a WW I fighter, for example, simply because I’m more familiar with the jets. I may not detect a flaw in certain types of less-familiar aircraft until it is pointed out to me. So there is an element of subjectivity here. But in theory there is no reason why diecast manufacturers can’t get this right: just do the research and make sure you hire skilled mould-crafters. Double check your prototype examples against the real subjects, and make appropriate corrections. Some of the flaws I’ve seen in certain models are just unexplainable in my opinion.

Another factor is that I’m more likely to forgive some flaws (up to a point) if this is the only diecast mould for that type (in any scale) on the market, with nothing better in the horizon. Beggars can’t be choosers…

Finally, I’ll admit it’s not always easy to draw the line between what is part of the “overall line” and what constitutes a “detail,” as far as flaws are concerned. Which leads right into my next criterion:

4. Detail accuracy/quality: This is a very broad area which can only be discussed by breaking it out into constituent parts, or sub-criteria. I have tried to do that below, but I won’t say I might not have missed something, or that the order couldn’t be modified. In fact, I do modify my own order pretty often, when I rate one of the sub-criteria as either completely sub-standard (unacceptable or close) or outstanding. Anyway, here’s what I look for in general under this heading. Again, this is ranked from most important to least:

- Paint/finish: This is a big one for me. If it looks like it’s been painted by a five-year-old, forget it, I won’t care what else is right with the model. I guess I could re-paint it myself, but hey, I thought I was paying money to have that done for me. Thankfully, overall this is not a huge problem in the diecast world. Other more subtle issues with paint/finish can be wrong tints, blotches, overly glossy “plastic-looking” finishes etc... I believe the quality of paint and finish is critical to the overall impression the model makes, so it’s listed first under this criterion. Close behind/associated with it:

- Markings/decals: Two possible sub-headings here: quality and accuracy. Let’s talk quality first. In my book, pad-printing is obviously better, but decals are fine if well executed and protected. Presence or absence of small markings can be a factor, particularly on larger scale models. They lend an air of authenticity, even if not 100% accurate. Which brings up the accuracy aspect: this can be a difficult one to assess, as a given aircraft or vehicle (I mean a specific serial number) can go through lots of different liveries in its lifetime, or even during a specific period of its life. Markings on aircraft of the famous aces, for example, evolved over time, sometimes in subtle ways. But still, most collectors will know when something is just completely wrong. Again, it’s all in the research.

- Landing gear (including gear doors): Only important if you display your models gear-down of course, but since that’s the case for me (see more discussion below in Para 5 and 6), I care about the gear being properly represented. Too often is this part of the aircraft neglected. I’ve seen overly skinny gears, fat gear, misshaped gear, you name it (wobbly gear is discussed later). Not good… In this respect, I’m always suspicious of retractable gears on a model (versus separate parts for gear down/gear up options), because unless very well done, there is too much risk the gear won’t look right or be sturdy enough (see my discussion of moving/functional parts below). Retractable gears are more easily implemented in large scale models, of course.

- Panel lines: I’ll be brief here because this topic has been discussed ad-nauseum in other threads on this forum. Panel lines should be engraved, not raised or painted, and they should at most have very subtle inking if any. I personally don’t like heavily inked panel lines, although it won’t by itself stop me from buying if the model is otherwise a good one and it’s a subject I just “got to have.”

- Cockpit detail: This is more important for larger scales, and certainly more important if combined with the option to display the canopy in the open position. This is kind of a tough one, as most of the time this detail won’t be well seen (at least not with the way I display my models). So I don’t demand very detailed cockpits in general, but it’s certainly nice to have if it doesn’t increase cost too much. An instrument panel, a stick/yoke, a seat that looks fairly realistic are the minimum required, with gun sights, HUDs, throttles, etc… being welcome additions. At scales 1/48 or greater, I’d really want all these things to be present, with increasing levels of detail as the scales go up. I’ll discuss pilot/aircrew figures later in this portion.

- Antennas, pitot tubes, masts, gun tubes, etc…: Important for authenticity and “look,” these tend to be fragile parts on a model so there is a bit of a trade-off there. Not every little protuberance found on the real thing needs to necessarily be represented on a model, but there are usually some more prominent ones which need to be there (the larger the scale, the more important they become). Some companies have turned to rubber for these parts in order to minimize breakage, but then beware of potential malformations (abnormal bending) which may detract from model appearance. I prefer the more rigid stuff, even if it means I have to be more careful when handling the model. I will discuss the installation of such parts on the model (if not already attached out of the box) in criterion 6 below.

- Weathering: This has also been discussed specifically in this forum. It is very much a matter of personal preference. In real life, all aircraft have times when they are dirty and others when they just came out of the wash rack. Some crew chiefs (“plane captain” for you Navy types) take great pride in the outward appearance of their plane. Although for sure, in wartime it’s much harder to keep the aircraft clean. In any case, I prefer either very subtle weathering or none at all. I’ll accept more weathering on tanks (particularly mud on tracks/wheels) than on airplanes. I like my planes to look like they are maintained by a caring crew chief…

- Rivet detail: Let’s face it, at any scale except the largest (I mean 1/24 or above), you shouldn’t really be able to see rivets on most WW II and later planes (except maybe on natural-metal finishes). They call it “flush riveting” after all. But I’ll admit they do lend an air of authenticity to diecast models, so rivets are good, but let’s keep them as small as possible while still visible. Rivets are easy to over-do. I’d rather see no rivets than big fat ones.
- Armament (here I include weapons, external fuel tanks, targeting pods, reconnaissance pods, etc…): This itself is really made of two parts. First, realistic loadouts (that is, appropriate weapons for the type aircraft in question), and second, accuracy/detail of the weapons themselves. I mean, what’s with those ugly 600 Gal fuel tanks under the wings of some of FM/Armour’s F-4s? Gross buffoonery if you ask me. I was able to cut off the very inaccurate fuel tanks on the belly of their 23 TFW A-10 (otherwise a fine model), but why were they there in the first place? A choice of weapons included with the model is great, but with some caveats discussed under the next criterion (model sturdiness/solidity).

- Moving/functional parts: Some collectors love those. In general, I don’t. Now, I don’t have anything against them if they are meticulously implemented, but too often they detract from model accuracy (excessive gaps, misalignments, etc…) and sturdiness. I’ll take accuracy and sturdiness over movable flaps any day. But if a manufacturer can do both, more power to them, as long as it doesn’t significantly increase cost.

- Pilot/crew figure(s): This is a nice option to have, particularly if you like to display your models “in flight,” and I like it also for ground vehicles. One consideration here is whether the provided figures (if any) look anything like the real thing, meaning as a minimum like human beings, preferably with the right type of clothing, flight equipment, etc...

- Finally, let me cover another issue under this heading which is a little special: balance on landing gear for tail-heavy tricycle gear aircraft. This may not be a factor for those who display their models on stands, but it is for me. What I mean is I don’t like to have to use an artificial prop to make sure a model doesn’t tip on its tail when displayed “on the ground.” On some types, proper balance might be technically very difficult to achieve (e.g. B-24), but every attempt should be made to get it right. This may mean the use of lighter (plastic) parts in the tail area. So be it, as far as I am concerned.

5. Sturdiness/solidity/heft/durability: This is of the main reasons I went away from plastic kit modeling and gravitated towards diecast collecting. To me, diecasts are SOLID, or at least should be. Part of the concept is that the model should be mostly, if not entirely, made of metal. Some collectors won’t consider it a diecast unless it’s got at least 90% metal in it (or whatever). My rule is the more metal the better, everything else being equal, but there is leeway.

Technically, I guess, ready-made (or easy-assembly) plastic models aren’t diecasts at all, but many collectors consider them “quasi-diecast” or “pseudo-diecast” (pick one). Personally, if it gets me the subject I want and the price is right, I’ll buy it. But I prefer metal, by far. Another aspect of solidity/sturdiness is the susceptibility of small parts (antennae, etc…) to breakage. Hopefully the right materials are used to minimize this potential problem (but I recognize the limitations here, and the responsibility of the collector himself to employ some care in handling the models).

Heft has to do with how much the model weighs compared to its size. There’s something about the heaviness of metal diecast compared to plastic models which conveys the true “substance” of the real thing, and this is appreciated by most collectors. I don’t consider this as important as solidity, though.
Finally, durability is a factor, although it appears most diecast can last forever if not overly abused (some of the diecast tanks I had as a kid didn’t make it, though…).

Under this criterion, I suppose I might as well cover one of my pet peeves: wobbly landing gears. I display most of my models gear-down “on the ground” (I do own quite a few FM/CDC/Armour models after all), so easily collapsing gears tick me off. This is related to my next criterion:

6. Ease of assembly: Diecasts shouldn’t have a lot of assembly required. In the real world, it goes from “just take it out of the box and you’re done” (Witty), to the other extreme of Marushin models, where some significant time and effort are required to assemble the model (though still nowhere close to a standard plastic model kit). For those who complained about having to assemble the early Eagles International issues, forget about Marushin. But most diecasts models, at least aircraft, fall somewhere in between.

Personally, I don’t like to have to mess around with lots of parts to get my model display-ready, particularly small parts that may be fragile (sometimes referred to as “fiddly bits”) or easily lost. I also really (REALLY) like the parts to stay in place once installed; I hate it when parts fall off the model every time I pick it up (Dragon: take note). Sure, some glue can take care of that, but I’d ideally like to keep the option of changing gear positions, armaments, etc… at a later date if I so wish, which means no glue.

There are really only two types of loose parts I’d ever want to see with a diecast model when I open the box: landing gear (up/down option) and armaments. I like the option of selecting external weapons (or fuel tanks) myself. But how these weapons are installed is paramount. Again, I don’t want them to fall off when I touch the model, and I want them to be easily put in place without risk of breakage.

The standard for this criterion has in my opinion been set by Century Wings with their first release (F-14 Tomcat). The only parts to add are gear and weapons (plus weapons racks/pylons), they are easy to put in place (although apparently not on all their models, according to recent feedback on this forum), and they are very sturdily installed once there. True, their solution may be more difficult to implement on other moulds, but it’s what everyone should aim for.

7. Availability of a stand or display base: This is not that important to me, since as mentioned earlier I prefer displaying models gear-down “on the ground”. But having the option is always nice, and I do use it for some of my models in order to allow me to display more models on one shelf (some on the ground, others in the air). I don’t particularly like stands because of their artificiality. There are such things as aircraft on pedestals in the real world, but those are in museums or other public displays. So stands should be as discreet as possible, yet sturdy (a difficult compromise). Some stands are so big and conspicuous that they overwhelm the subject. That wouldn’t be a good thing in my book.

Something that doesn’t appear to make much sense is offering a gear-up option but no stand. Wouldn’t you agree, Carousel One? Also, the stand should allow displaying of the model with the external stores it comes with (such as centerline tanks or bombs). Finally, to me a model on a stand (“in the air”) with no pilot/aircrew on board just looks unnatural. But that’s just me…

8. Packaging: It’s nice to have beautiful box art and such, but I don’t buy the model for the box, so if getting it in a plain brown cardboard box will save me $10 (or whatever) on acquisition, I’ll take that. A lot of collectors discard the boxes anyway as soon as the model is taken out. On the other hand, I personally keep my boxes for future transport of models when I eventually move. So I value the ability to put the model back into the box easily and safely, if desired or necessary; this is a useful feature for those who re-sell their models as well. As a consequence, I don’t particularly care for having to destroy all or part of the packaging to get a model out (probably makes it non-reusable), but that in itself won’t stop me from buying. Bottom line: I value practicality over beauty in packaging.

Also, as amazing as it may sound, I’ve had a coupe of models where I had extreme difficulties getting the model out of the box (stupid stripped screws). I know I’m not the only one to have experienced this problem. There really is no need for this kind of aggravation. It REALLY ticks me off.
Packaging is usually understood to also cover any included cards/ booklets/handouts with some history and/or characteristics of the subject. Sometimes, that is printed on the box itself. This is of very secondary importance to me, since if I don’t know that stuff already, I can easily research it. But if it doesn’t cost extra, why not. Finally, any tokens, coupons, etc… which might be included in the model box are of no importance to me whatsoever when deciding to purchase a model (even if you get a free model in the end: the companies recoup their costs one way of the other…).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I’m done with my list of criteria proper, so to wrap it up I now turn to the price issue, as promised. As stated up front, this is not an independent variable for most collectors. Most of us weigh price against the other criteria above (whether in my order or not) and make a judgment of value-for-the-money. In the early days of “serious” diecast (not so long ago), the dearth of selection led to collectors buying pretty much anything that came out without too much regard for price (up to a point of course). But now, the concept of “opportunity cost” definitely applies: when I purchase a given model, assuming a limited budget, what will I now NOT be able to buy? Should I buy one large-scale, high-end model (GMP), or eight smaller, lower-end ones (IXO)? I can’t necessarily do both, so I must choose. That’s when I weigh the price against my selection criteria. That is why price, in my mind, is not a separate criterion on the same order as the others.
As it turns out, though, I do have a sort-of absolute criterion for price, actually. I have this psychological barrier about three-digit prices (in US Dollar terms) which I find extremely hard to break. Yes, I have a problem with paying $100 or more for any model, although I have done it a couple of time (after much hand-wringing). But it’s quite possible I’ll get over this problem in the not-too-distant future, assuming the subject is something I’ve wanted for a long time and the quality is there.

Well, that’s about it. I hope this little exercise proves useful, and that it doesn’t just rehash the obvious. Judging by the output of some diecast companies (and the subsequent debates on this forum), methinks it’s perhaps not so obvious after all. Please let me know if I forgot something.

FVD