Dissecting Diecast

Dissecting Diecast: Do Rivet Counters Help or Hurt the Industry?

We’ve all stumbled across the term “rivet counters” when perusing the many threads winding their way through the average diecast forum. But the question remains, “what is a rivet counter?” A “rivet counter” is a glorified term for someone best characterized as an overzealous hobbyist who would like to see a finished model look every bit as good as the real thing. It isn’t meant as a demeaning term — just one that best describes someone that scrutinizes every conceivable aspect of a finished model. The problem is that the average diecast manufacturer simply doesn’t have the resources to make their models look every bit as good as the real thing without breaking the bank. Moreover, the average model buyer couldn’t point to a “glove vane” on an F-14 or explain why an engine intake on an F-15 should be canted downwards or horizontally, or for that matter care. Only a handful of devotees know that the wings on a Grumman F8F Bearcat fighter should have its wings swept in a dihedral versus anhedral position, or could accurately describe the condition and what causes it from an aerodynamic standpoint.

So I sometimes stare in amazement as I read the banter that goes back and forth between forum users as they do their best to tear apart a model in the hopes of making it the perfect replica. Coming from the video game industry, and having played my fair shared of computer wargames and combat simulations over the years, it reminds me of how “grognards” — best described as a wargaming rivet counter — are constantly looking for the “holy grail” of wargames or flight sims, routinely taking designers to task for overlooking or simplifying one aspect of the product in order to make it more enjoyable if slightly less accurate in the user’s eyes.

The problem, in a nutshell, is that most diecast manufacturers must draw the line somewhere when it comes to designing their replicas, otherwise they will never bring the project in on budget or to market in a timely manner. I dare say, most are deeply interested in the feedback their products receive and do their utmost to correct deficiencies when and where ever possible. But the fact remains their target audience is typically more of a casual collector that just wants to add a decent replica to their collection that won’t bust “their budget” in the process. Its a fine line both parties must tow from a market driven perspective, bringing in the best possible product on time and within reasonable cost constraints so that everyone is satisfied and the business model can move forward to the next project all over again. 

Share This:

Dissecting Diecast: When Does a Name Change Become Necessary?

B-29 Superfortresses would have faced an onslaught of Japanese Kikka jet aircraft had the war continued into late 1945 and beyond

We’ve all seen it countless times before in the private sector: a company, enslaved to its past or looking to give its moniker a hip new update, changes its name to better suit its audience or address events marring its progress. Years ago, tobacco giant Philip Morris changed its name to the Altria Group, when more and more independent studies proved the correlation between smoking/using tobacco and the onset of cancer. Biotech maker Activated Cell Therapy, altered its name to Dendreon, not only because it sounded sexier but more importantly gave people the impression that they were all about stimulating dendritic cells of the immune system to fight,  you guessed it, cancer.

Two modelmakers may be faced with the same identity question in the not-too-distant future. Wings of the Great War, which instantly conjures up imagery of World War I biplanes and such, kicked off a line of WWI-based ground vehicles in late 2015, instantly faced a name recognition problem when it called the new range Wings of the Great War: Armor Collection – Tanks of World War I. Certainly a mouthful, the Company may have been better served if it changed its overarching name to say, The Machines of World War I, or The Great War Collection, which better denotes how the Company is attempting to reach both the aerial and armor enthusiasts of the period.

A highly unusual design for its time, Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender pursuit fighter had a canard configuration, a rear-mounted engine, swept wings and two vertical tails.

Likewise, Luft-X, which reemerged recently after facing some quality control issues, has thus far laid out a fine line of secret weapons projects that could have easily been added to the Luftwaffe’s roster had the war continued a bit longer. But what happens when the Company decides to replicate some of the experimental aircraft being developed by other nations embroiled in the conflict, such as the Japanese Kikka jet-powered aircraft or even the exotic Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender pursuit fighter put forward by the US in 1943. Does the Company decide to go with the Nippon-X or US-X naming convention to address each faction, or do they decide to go with a more all-encompassing label such as Secret Projects of WWII?

For a company to succeed in this highly competitive industry, it is important that a customer instantly recognize what each particular model maker offers otherwise they face an uphill struggle trying to separate themselves from the pack. Food for thought for newcomers and entrenched favorites alike.

Share This:

Dissecting Diecast: Are Two Versions of the Same Item Better Than One?

Unimax’ Action Grade packaging was designed to appeal to younger collectors and get them interested in military-themed collectibles

We’ve heard through the grapevine that Waltersons, the new owners of the Forces of Valor brand, may bring back the marketing duality of offering two versions of each upcoming aircraft. Unimax, the original makers of the brand, came up with this concept as a means of addressing how they planned to introduce the same merchandise into deep discount big box retailers as well as traditional hobby stores. They envisioned an “action grade” version for the Target, Walmart and Toys R Us chains of the world, which meant there was no weathering applied to the vehicle and the outer box had a somewhat mass market look to it, thereby appealing to kids as opposed to hard core collectors. The “enthusiast version”, on the other hand, gave each vehicle a more robust appearance, complete with weathering and some battle scarring, along with a more traditional collector designed outer box.

An enthusiast edition of the ubiquitous US GMC 2-1/2 ton truck, complete with some accessories and a collector focused outer box

According to a recent posting, Waltersons will likely offer a 1:72 scale aircraft in much the same look and manner as Unimax once crafted, pretty much a plain vanilla product priced well below the competition. They also indicated plans to sell an enthusiast version, which could, conceivably be painted slightly different than the standard version, and will be accompanied by carrier planking or some other appropriate accessory designed to make the product stand out a bit more. The enthusiast version could sell for as much as $99.99, which would make it a more premium offering and quite possibly come with a numbered certificate of authenticity, making it a more desirable product to obtain from a collector’s standpoint.

So, what say you? Does this marketing move make sense and are you willing to pay more for a more deluxe product that could conceivably appreciate at a quicker rate than a larger run item?

Share This:

Forget Stocks and Bonds, Stamps and Coins. Invest in Collectibles

While most collectors don’t pay attention to the value of their collection, it’s nice to know that should you run into a bit of financial trouble, selling off your collection might prove to be a valuable lifeline. According to the Financial Times, https://www.ft.com/content/a44ba202-f9bb-11e6-bd4e-68d53499ed71, some legacy Star Wars memorabilia, many of which sold for a pittance in relation to today’s market, are commanding prices, at auction, into the tens of thousands of dollars. While not every item in every conceivable segment of the hobby has gone up in value by such stratospheric numbers, its nevertheless nice to know that some collectibles could serve as a retirement nest egg should things start to go south.

Share This:

Dissecting Diecast: Keeping a Web Site Current

One of my biggest pet peeves as both a retailer and collector is when a diecast manufacturer neglects to update their web site. Don’t even get me started why some companies fail to have an Internet presence at all. That, in 2017, is highly inexcusable and inexplicable, something that can be built for possibly a few hundred dollars by a professional if they don’t have the expertise in-house. When new tooling costs upwards of $250,000 or more to create, that’s a drop in the fiscal bucket, no matter how you slice it

No, what bothers me to no end is when a manufacturer goes the extra mile and obviously plunks down big bucks to create their virtual storefront, only to let it languish in Internet purgatory for months on end with a nary a word said. If we had to break it down, web sites are, without question, the cheapest form of communicating with one’s audience, able to put a public face on their merchandise and direction for all the world to see at any time of day. Its easier to update than sending out monthly mailings, and its cheaper than having someone call a vendor to keep them informed about what’s going on. Yet several key model makers seem to overlook this vehicle on a regular basis, either not realizing how important the site is to existing and new viewers, not caring, or perhaps lacking the technical expertise to update it themselves without calling in a professional. Trust me, it isn’t that hard, and once you learn the nuances, can be refreshingly simple and enjoyable to maintain. C’mon guys. Some of you are missing the boat by not keeping your web site current, and its something that could be addressed and fixed in the blink of an eye.

Share This:

Dissecting Diecast: Solido Keeps Us Guessing in 2017

Last month, as part of our preview of what to expect in 2017, we alluded to the fact that French manufacturer, Solido, was planning on getting back into the military game in a “big” way. By “big”, we weren’t necessarily referring to the fact that they intended to offer a large number of SKUS – rather, by introducing both a 1:72 scale range of military vehicles and aircraft repurposed from the War Master line up, along with larger, reworked 1:43 scale military vehicles originally made by Eaglemoss. In fact, the banner image on their Facebook page even showed several former Eaglemoss vehicles as part of their 2017 vehicle lineup to bolster this claim. However, when we paid a visit to their Facebook page earlier today, their Nuremberg Toy Fair booth didn’t include any Eaglemoss vehicles at all, but rather several 1:43 scale vehicles that we haven’t seen before, including both a German and US tank transporter, King Tiger heavy tank, and what looks like a modern era US AFV sitting atop the US tank transporter.

Currently, we are awaiting further information concerning this intriguing development, which will no doubt help to reignite interest in the 1:43-1:50 scale segment of our hobby.

Share This:

Dissecting Diecast: Are Manufacturers Fighting the Last War?

Its been said that when training for the next military conflict, generals typically do so by fighting the last war, taking lessons learned from the most recent conflict and then attempting to apply them to the battlefield of the future. While its certainly important to dissect why a particular campaign succeeded and how it was carried out, military planners must nevertheless keep a wary eye on what’s to come using the latest technological breakthroughs, thinking outside the box to come up with new ways, platforms and doctrine to take on even the most determined of foes.

For some reason, this very same allegory seems to apply to today’s diecast manufacturers. Rather than modelling many of the latest weapons destined to be used by today’s warfighter, the current crop of modelmakers seem more content to offer an array of replicas tied to former conflicts instead of following today’s headlines. Thus far, there have only been a smattering of replicas aimed at today’s air forces, the most notable coming in the form of the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, largely due to their connection to the voracious US/UK markets. However, there are other aircraft types now setting foot on the world stage that are screaming to be modeled too, most notably the Russian PAK-FA as well as the PLAAF’s pair of J-31 and J-20 stealth fighters. Yes, Air Force 1 did a credible job of recreating a prototype PAK-FA several years ago that is no longer available, but with Russia scheduled to deploy upwards of 100 PAK-FAs to its front line aviation units later this year, I would think that collectors would be equally happy to add one or even several updated operational schemes to their collections.

The same holds true for the newest Chinese aircraft nearly ready for operational use, which will likely be sent to defend their interests in the South China Sea. Bear in mind that I’m not advocating for a military conflict to settle geographic disputes, particularly with the change of administration in Washington DC taking place today, however, I do think its important that military enthusiasts, collectors, analysts and even those people that could care less about a regional confrontation have some sort of point of reference to look upon, as we enter, what many believe to be a Second Cold War.

Share This: