[Oleg]

Everythg is relative. Dragon Armor diecast - is it really diecast? I thought so until I bought my first Admiral Toys 1:72 diecast tank. It has much more metal than any Dragon would have. In comparison Dragon actually looks like a pretty much plastic model. Some people like plastic and I can respect that but from now on I am only buying Admiral Toys. Unfortunately their product line is very limited for now. But I can wait as long as I get the real thing eventually.

[Skyhawk]

Yes, 1/72 Dragon Armour are PLASTIC, they are NOT diecast.
They dont belong in the diecast catagory. I have a few and i'm not getting
anymore.......why pay diecast prices for PLASTIC.
If they make REAL diecast.... then i will start buying them.

[SkyBuffalo]

Personally, I don't understand the fascination with the amount of "metal" in a 1/72 piece of armour. It's not as if it's GOLD! It's not hundreds of dollars per ounce. How much lead or pewter or nickel is irrelevant.

What matters to me is the quality. The Dragon tanks use a DIE to CAST their tanks, so they are die-cast. Even if it is mostly plastic.

I now have a number of Dragon armour examples, a few FOV tanks and one Admiral Toys example. While all good, the Dragon tanks have better detail in their castings and are painted better, IMHO. I basically give the Dragons an A, the Admiral Toys A- and the FOV a B+.

If you want better quality of how the model looks, go for a Dragon.

If you want a better paperweight, get an Admiral Toys.

Metal, shmetal. The Dragons are mighty puuuurty.

[Copland]

Diecast - def. "Pouring molten metal into a cast." Yes, the def. has been, shall we say, "stretched" beyond meaning, when it comes to Dragon. I still like the detail of Dragon armor. I have over 45 tanks from the CDC armor line - real metal diecast. Dragon is more detailed, but if Dragon is a 10 on detail, CDC is 8-9. If Admiral would do some real diecast, it would be nice. I know my tank buddies are going to scream, but I wish Admiral would do a Tiger I and King Tiger (ok, stop the screaming), simply because it would be nice to have a 1/72 scale Tiger I and Tiger II in metal! Still, I do like the Dragon armor, even without the metal content. If you check around you can find some very good deals on the Dragon line - $8.00-$10.00. Below is a def. at diecast101.com

Definition: The term refers to the process of forcing molten metal, under great pressure, into a die or form to give it a specific shape. Die casting is rather expensive to set up, but can produce mass quantities of castings at relatively low, per piece cost. The fine texture of the metal and the precision of the die can combine to create very detailed pieces when desired. The material used in diecast is actually a composition of metals, sometimes referred to as 'pot metal' outside the toy industry. It is not the same as steel or iron. Almost all die-cast toys and models have some plastic parts.

[hworth18]

This has always been a debate amoungst Dragon collectors.. The 1st Dragon tanks were 1/4 to 3/4 metal.. Early edition TigerIs have a metal turret, the Jagdpanthers have a full metal upper hull as do the Panthers.. I noticed that the later Dragon tanks are mostly plastic with a metal slug inside the hull to give them weight, but they are not metal themselves.. Diecast?? No.. Nicely detailed minature tanks?? Yes.. You decide.....

[chiefs70]

When I started in this hobby I was obsessed with metal content and I can't honestly say why that was the case. Do I weigh my collection? No. Do I believe the value will increase based on weight rather than the quality of the rendering? No. Do I believe zinc will soar in value I can melt my toys into money generating bricks? No. So, I have come to the conclusion that I want the best model available for the price and Dragon definitely qualifies. I really like the Panzer III Ausf L 15th Panzer Division Admiral released but it seems to lack the fine detail of the Dragons in my opinion - it seems a bit clunky. I will continue to buy their models as I know they are refining what they produce but at the end of the day I don't care too much about metal qualifying a model as desirable. I chose to buy my models a long time ago due to a lack of time so I guess I'll have to choose to either tolerate niggling issues or scrap the hobby altogether.

Opinions vary and we buy what we like which is why we enjoy the hobby.

[Berkut76]

Originally Posted by Oleg

Everythg is relative. Dragon Armor diecast - is it really diecast? I thought so until I bought my first Admiral Toys 1:72 diecast tank. It has much more metal than any Dragon would have. In comparison Dragon actually looks like a pretty much plastic model. Some people like plastic and I can respect that but from now on I am only buying Admiral Toys. Unfortunately their product line is very limited for now. But I can wait as long as I get the real thing eventually.

A little bit harsh don't you think?! Whether one likes it or not, Dragon has been the ONLY consistent maker of 1:72 assembled AFV for a few years already. While one can definitely fault Dragon for overproducing and having peculiar taste in subject matter, the level of detail and assembly quality remains unrivaled in the industry.

While I really want Admiral and Hobby Master to succeed, they have yet to prove their mettle. Admiral's first release, DAK Panzer IIIL was a disaster compared to Matchbox/Armour models from the late-1990s to say nothing of the ones from fire-breathing creature.

Although, Admiral had shown the greatest improvement between the first and the second release I have seen in this industry, my attraction to their models lies more in subject matter produced at now what appears to be acceptable quality level rather than truly outstanding workmanship and level of detail exhibited CONSISTENTLY by Dragon.

In short, it'll be fullish to limit oneself to one brand since you'll be missing on a lot given that Admiral Toys is small, almost artisan operation in comparison to the powerhouse that Dragon is.

Regards,

Sergey

[A3driver]

Oleg:Everythg is relative. Dragon Armor diecast - is it really diecast?

As long as the model is good, I don't care whether it's diecast, plastic, wood or clay. Just my 2 Cent of course.

[Cardinal]

I recall similar debates on this issue in the past .

Personally, I would really like Dragon to add more metal to their 'die-cast', like they did with the Challenger 2 tanks in the Armor range. That said, I find myself still buying the rest of the range for the following reasons:

1. Value for money (only marginally more expensive than a plastic kitset).
2. The detailing and painting is far better than what I could do myself.
3. Saves time as you no longer have to make the kitset.
4. They're (liveries and designs) generally well researched.
5. Quality Control is usually of a high standard
6. They're pretty much like peanuts - you can't only have one .

All in all, I like them, even when they're a bit on the die-cast 'lite' side .

[ZS-VAN]

I must confess that I really like the Dragon 1/72 armour. I have a FOV T72 and it just does not compare with the quality and packaging of the Dragon. Unhappily I haven't had access to other brands as yet.