[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

[STARMAN 352ND]

FVD,
That is one long post you had there.....I liked it too.
Most of the things you said about the aircraft is a lot what i look for.
To make this short...If i don't like a certain paint scheme or aircraft make i won't get it.
I still find myself having a hard time buying more German fighters or Bombers of WWII
and i think the reason is i only like a few of their pilots.Hworth18 kinda got me to like a few other German aircraft along the way.
But the Spitfires, Mustangs and Corsairs of WWII will always be my favorite fighters and i do look at the detail on all of them.
It's what makes me happy.
Now you just wait when that P-61 BlackWidow comes out....That's going to knock your socks off.
As for the modern fighter It's the F-14 Baby i really dig that jet fighter ..My bro flew one for years before going to the F-18's .
F-16 and F-22 are great too and i look for the same detail on them as well.
I could go on and on about what i look for but it be boring too.. for a different collector because we all have our own criteria.
JP

[FormerViperDriver]

Yeah, Starman, I guess I was trying to analyze my own selction behavior more than anything else, and posted it to see if it's of any use to anyone. Agree the bottom line is if you're happy with the models you bought, it doesn't really matter why.

But some people seem to have had disappointments on occasion, and that's usually because a model didn't meet their expectations in some respect (it's happened to me a couple of times). On those occasions, I'm curious to find out what it was that fell short (other than the obvious manufacturing defect). I have a pretty analytical mind...

Seems to me a big factor for you is the sheer esthetic appeal of aircraft (shape and colors), which is big for me as well. It's hard to explain to those who don't share this love for the shapes of flying machines. But you obviously know what I'm talking about. To me even the A-10 is beautiful, in its own way.

Anyway, cool that your brother flew F-14s and now F-18s (regular Hornet, or Super-Bug?). Awesome jets, I've fought in simulated combat against both of them in the F-16. They were tough. Too bad the F-14 is retired (except in Iran!). That jet combined good looks and effectiveness!

FVD

[PappyB]

Lots to chew on there Viper, and I'll mull it a bit and post a respone. My first reaction though is that "resale/value" does belong in the list and would not be mixing apples and oranges, at least to me. I much prefer a limited release model over the opposite, and I will pay a premium for them. All things being equal, if there's a limited edition model made by one brand, and an unlimited by another that are equal in quality or at least close, I'll buy the limited.

I like "limited edition" because it makes it seem more like a valued "collectible" as opposed to a mass production matchbox car that just about everyone in the world could own if they wished. And while it really doesn't add much to a model itself, I do love getting a serialized certificate, too... again, just makes it seem more like a "collectible" to me. And I like the idea that if my storage space, or tastes change down the road that I have a good chance of getting most of my money back if I decide to sell.

Its not first on my list, probably the quality of the model itself is first, followed by "uniqueness". I guess I'd but limited/collectibility next. (When I say quality I mean simply how well manufactured is it. How good are the graphics, the paint, the fit/finish, etc.) Accuracy comes next... but I don't get very caught up in this one, if it's in the ballpark, it's generally acceptable to me, but I can certainly understand how this might be a very important factor to those more familiar with the machines.

[fileasfog]

My priorities goes as follows:

- I like variety in types of models.
- Gear up
- pilot
- I love weathering
- Alot of details but not too many antenas and fragile parts.
- More metal than plastic

[bsmith13]

Gosh Viper! You either took months creating that, or you are an extremely fast typer!

I will take your criteria, and add my own notes as to their applicability to my collecting habits:

1. Subject:
- Type: With a few exceptions, I only rarely have more than 3 examples of a particular subject in my collection. The exceptions have to do with Livery.
- Livery: I have a ton of Spitfires and Mustangs. The really silly thing is that I have 5 BoB Corgi Spitfires. To me, the livery can be boring if someone famous flew the plane. I gravitate more towards liveries that are historically significant rather than merely colorful

2. Scale:
I am not very consistent with this. I prefer 1/72, but if a particular aircraft is not available in 1/72, I will buy it in a different scale. A good example of this is the Postage Stamp 1/100 F9F I bought. I have branched out into nearly every major aircraft scale because of this, but then a few of the Spits and Mustangs seem to creep in.

3. Overall mould accuracy:
This is important to me, but I must qualify it a bit. Depending on how much I desire a particular aircraft, I might overlook some mold accuracy in order to have it represented in my collection. But is also swings the other way - if the mold is bad enough, I would pass it up, even if it sports a livery I really want. There are some models that are so ridiculously inaccurate that I would never buy them, no matter how inexpensive or desirable the livery. A good example is the Ixo Corsair, which has no oil filter coolers in the wing roots.

4. Detail accuracy/quality:
- Paint/finish: If they paint is bad, then I won't buy it. Inked panel lines make no difference.
- Markings/decals, with the subcategories of accuracy and quality: Let's say there are two Spitfires that sport identical liveries from two different manufacturers. Assuming that the molds are similar, I will take the one that has the more accurate markings.

- Landing gear (including gear doors):
In order of preference, I will buy:
-- Models with two sets of landing gear, one up, one down.
-- Models with landing gear permanently in the up position.
-- Models with landing gear permanently in the down position.
-- Models with retractable landing gear. My reasons are the same as FVDs; these models weigh too much for a flimsy retractable landing gear to support them well. I'd rather not risk damage to my models.

- Panel lines:
Engraved is a must. I have passed any number of models that had decals instead of panel lines. Weird, I know.

- Cockpit detail:
I don't have many aircraft bigger than 1/72, but the ones I have all have cockpit detail. Fairly important.

- Antennas, pitot tubes, masts, gun tubes, etc…:
The models should have them. If they don't, I make them.

- Weathering:
I collect both pristine and weathered models. Doesn't make that much of a difference to me.

- Rivet detail:
I am not a rivet counter, but rivets that are grossly inaccurate suffer when displayed next to accurate models.

- Moving/functional parts:
The only moving part I require is a propeller, and this as a measure to mitigate damage. In my experience, a propeller that spins is less likely to break than one that doesn't.

- Pilot/crew figure(s):
I like figs, but they aren't necessary. However, if the model has landing gear fixed up, there BETTER be a pilot in the cockpit. I don't believe in scale ghosts.

- Tricycle balance.
Yes, please.

5. Sturdiness/solidity/heft/durability:
I prefer sturdiness to heft, but that's kind of hard to judge unless I've held a previous example of the mold in my hot little hands.

6. Ease of assembly:
To me, ease of assembly is a bonus rather than a requirement. I have assembled some fairly tricky kits in the past, so doing it with diecast gives me a warm sense of accomplishment rather than a case of annoyance..

7. Availability of a stand or display base:
If a stand is supplied, it better do its job and SUPPORT THE MODEL!

8. Packaging:
I like nice boxes, but not when it's going to cost me an extra $10. I keep all the boxes because I have limited display space, and my models rotate in and out of storage.

Finally, there is one additional criterion I'd like to mention, even though I don't care much about it;

9. Collectibility
I personally don't care how limited a model is, though I admit it is a major rush when I snag a rare Corgi for a good price.

There! Done! That was a whole lot of typing for me, too. Thanks for the subject!

[STARMAN 352ND]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Anyway, cool that your brother flew F-14s and now F-18s (regular Hornet, or [color="Red"]]Super-Bug?[/COLOR). Awesome jets, I've fought in simulated combat against both of them in the F-16. They were tough. Too bad the F-14 is retired (except in Iran!). That jet combined good looks and effectiveness!

FVD

F/A-18F Super Hornet........I know he misses the Tomcat too.
He just gave my dad a Bugs patch called "Darn Bugs"with felix
It's one of the many F-14/F-18 Transition patches created for the Tomcat sqns
that went to the Hornet sqns.
JP

[DADoser]

With FormerViperDriver's permission, I used his criteria to create a poll:

http://forum.themodelhangar.com/showthread.php?t=3186

Great thread/discussion!

[planenutsfrog]

Durability as also been among the main concerns that led me to diecast collecting. Additionnally, I have never been an expert modeller and have always been fond of metal !

1) Subject : Military helicopters, and single or twin engined planes from today to the 30's + 1/200 Airliners from the 30's to the 70's.

2) Scales : Military acft : 1/48 and 1/72 ; Airliners : 1/200.

1/48 and 1/200 : one model of each type, except for the very best ones, of wich I buy 2 (EI P51B/C and C1 FW190 D11/D13)

1/72 : For jets, depending on the variants available, the maximum of the same type I buy is 3 : 1 single seater, 1 two seater, and 1 naval variant (ex : Witty Su 27, GC Su 34 and Su 33 ; Corgi Harrier and Sea Harrier ; Corgi Jaguar S and Jaguar B ; ect... ). However, as I particularly like planes wearing French, Swiss, Canadian or Dutch colours, I sometimes take 2 identical jets with different finishes (ex : Meteor RAF/Dutch ; Hunter RAF/Swiss)

Helicopters (any scale) : one of each type.

3) Mould accuracy : Simply essential ! I love the Mirage III/V/50 family, but buying for example the FM model is absolutely out of question so grossly wrong it is !

4) Detail accuracy / quality : If you don't mind I would prefer : Authenticity / Value for money :

Authenticity : The model has first to be as accurate as possible, before I consider paint/finish or markings/decals.
For example, I never bought Corgi so called FN "F4U7", because it is NOT a F4U7 ! The eyecatching finish may be correct, but the plane is wrong.

Value for money : Above everage : HM, Witty, Herpa, Hogan ; everage : EI, C1, Corgi, Dragon, WAC, NR ; Below everage : FM, Marushin, IXO

Moving parts : not at the expense of authenticity.

Pilot figure : rather none than an alien.

Weathering : no

Cockpit detail : yes

Opening/removable canopy : yes

Panel lines : no inked ones pse.

Landing gear : NO models with landing gear permanently in the UP position pse !

5) Sturdiness/heft/solidity/durability : preferably more solid than Dragon and lighter than Marushin.

6) Ease of assembly : easier than Dragon and Marushin.

7) Stand / display base : I generally use neither, but if the landing gear can be put in the up position, a stand is welcome.

8) Packaging : adequate protection of the model inside is my only concern.

9) Collectability : I couldn't care less !

Sorry for answering that late, but I have just discovered this interesting thread.

[Copland]

Quality; and, do they look like the real thing? I collect mainly armor, and stay with Dragon (for the most part). It seems that Dragon tanks are pretty accurate. I don't have time to research Dragon's accuracy, so, for the most part, they have proven their dedication to detail and so I trust that whatever tank they introduce, it will be a good representation of the real thing. Only once has someone mentioned an inaccuracy on a Dragon tank, and it was minor. I do have a few planes, but am not knowledgeabale enough to discuss detail. Although I have over 100 tanks, I do not "count rivetts." I read about them, look at them, and study the battles. If there is something that I am concerned about in the area of accuracy, I usually consult this forum and a couple of tank buddies.