Deagostini Falcon. Anyone seen this?
- Thread starter Howard
- Start date
Dedalus5550
Sr Member
The difference would be if the Australian or South African markets get the correct wookie roar but not the rest of us.
pwrdby6hamsters
New Member
I know this has been beaten to death, but I would like to point this out.
When I decided to purchase this model, I recall seeing the quote about it being “the most accurate replica...”, but I took that with a grain of salt, as that was obviously all marketing talk. The quote that grabbed my attention and was a big factor in my purchase came from Deagostini's FAQ on their forum.
http://forum.buildmillenniumfalcon....millennium-falcon-frequently-asked-questions/
Under the section titled “So is this a toy?” of the FAQ, it states the following:
“No. When we say this a prop-quality replica, we mean it. In other words, if you travelled in time back to 1980 and substituted the completed model for the same scale prop used in the filming of The Empire Strikes Back, there would be no difference on screen. That’s as good as it gets.”
In it they made the claim that if you replaced the original with your completed model, there would be no(zero) difference on screen. If there are zero differences between the actual movie prop and the De Agostini model on screen, then that would logically equate to be 100% screen accurate. Of course one could argue that, when they state “on screen”, there is motion blur and other stuff that would make it so you can't make out the small details on screen. This may or may not be the case, I have not tried going through the movie on Blue ray to verify.
But non the less that statement is deceptive and should be corrected on their part.
I do like this build and plan to continue with it, regardless of the inaccuracies that have been presented. I think with a little work, it will look pretty good. I am pleased that they do have dedicated forums for it. It is great to read and learn from the many builders on there and see which direction they chose to go.
I am not pleased with Deagostin's customer service though, The quality of their shipping is horrible, and they still haven't refunded me 126.00 after I cancelled two of my subscriptions and returned two unopened boxes within their timeframe. It has been over two months now.
-Powered by 6 hamsters
Last edited:
I agree with Powered by 6 hamsters.
The 100% accuracy or even 98% is pretentious.
Sadly they're marketing everybody possible and compare to the rest of the world, we are not that many to care that much about the accuracy.
In the same time , I believe it's a good thing that they're marketing everybody (not a contradiction) so they can produce something that big with a really cool metal framing and accurate enough to push it further it with minor mod tasks. And not forgetting that ours will be mainly ABS which means way more solid than a real Studio scale replica.
Whatever people are saying even about the global price, I would not be able to make it happen just from scratch like Mr Tox can do. Thanks to him and the other masters to inspire us to improve our model.
And when you know how much it can cost to buy all the donor kits needed for accuracy .... I went through that process for my ESB ATST and just the donor kits brought me up to $2000. That includes the kits plus the shipping.
So price wise, I'm not that disappointed so far for the Deago MF.
That'd be nice that people remember that it's a scale model and people in this hobby always want to upgrade their model and that's why you can find photo etching or retooled resin parts or whatever we need to make them the way we want.
So far I'm having fun to build it and mod the parts I want. My only regret is that I can not have it all at once to organise my built better.
I just hope Deago will be able to bring us to the end. I'd be upset if they don't.
But seeing the number of countries this models is gonna be available, It looks pretty safe....
I may jynx it but so far, the customer service as been pretty good for me. We'll now see long term.... And based on the stories I've read, I understand the bitter comments.
I regret that The US version of the site is not offering the issues on their own as well if I want an extra issue of specific parts So I can do tests and make mistake without jeopardizing
the final model.
And at the end, It's just a hobby.... It's meant to be fun,
Stephane
Supercoolin
Active Member
My only complaint is that DeAgostini do not do his homework prior to offering this kit. Even Steve D. should had advised them that the Star Wars faithful modelers spend countless hours researching the original models and expend major resources to get their hands on a single original greebly, rather than a recast, just to known their model is a close to the original as humanly possible. This is a majorly vocal group of customers that have, and continue to subscribe for this kit. They spend many hours in forums sharing their incredible efforts. Even a slight deviation to the original studio model is unacceptable, under any circumstance. 98 out of every 100 subscribers would never know the difference between a 95% accurate and a 100% accurate model, but it is that 2 out of a 100 purists that expect the 100% accurate that was promoted by DeAgostini from the get go. I cannot believe that they were not aware of the dedication that this large group of modelers have to maintaining the accuracy of their Star Wars models, and all the little online businesses and sub culture that has grown over the years, dedicated to providing "accurizing" parts. To just scuff that group off, and not address their "gripes", even if we see them as silly, will come back to haunt them in the future. Ship modelers, car or motorcycle modelers, would never buy a couple other model kits to find that perfect gas cap. Something Sci-fi modelers do every day to get the "perfection" they strive to achieve.
Just my two cents worth.
Just my two cents worth.
MonsieurTox
Master Member
Guys...
Keep in in mind that you get what you pay for.
I mean the DeAgo is a very cheap alternative to get a model the same size the original was.
It is impossible to get something 100% accurate (and they should not advertize it this way), but it's still quite nice.
You still have the possibility to build it from scratch and detail it with parts coming from hundred of kits. But it would cost something between $4000 and $5000 (one of the kit ID close to the $1000 mark). Even then you wont get a 100% accurate replica but it something is wrong, you'll know who to blame !
Keep in in mind that you get what you pay for.
I mean the DeAgo is a very cheap alternative to get a model the same size the original was.
It is impossible to get something 100% accurate (and they should not advertize it this way), but it's still quite nice.
You still have the possibility to build it from scratch and detail it with parts coming from hundred of kits. But it would cost something between $4000 and $5000 (one of the kit ID close to the $1000 mark). Even then you wont get a 100% accurate replica but it something is wrong, you'll know who to blame !
Ok Tom... I think that is what people are so upset about with this kit. Honestly, this is the most money I have ever spent on a single model kit in my entire life. I can understand companies like Revell and AMT that created their kits with kids in mind and when AMT did theirs they didn't have alot of reference to go on. But here we have DeAgostini... a modeling company that has been in the business for over a 100 years and has the reputation of having the most accurate and most detailed kits ever made. Frankly, I was highly excited to see just how detailed this kit was going to be. When the first pieces arrived I was less then impressed with the interior pieces. But I chaulked it up to the fact that here you have a studio scale Falcon and the interior it pretty much conjecture. But the more parts of the interior that arrived the more disappointed I became. They didn't even look at any reference photos to accurize the interior at all. I can understand the the disproportions and having to move something here or shorten something there to make it fit, but comon... the bunk? The missing nav chair? The undetailed floor? I found the interior floorplan that I believe they used to design the interior.
Of course that image is from the Star Wars: Blueprints, however it isn't accurate to the work of Robert Brown or the movie whatsoever. Heck they didn't even bother to check all the work that has been done over the last 35 years to work out the actual size of the ship. Before the work of Brown and friends, they had no idea what the scale of the Falcon really was. But thanks to their hard work and effort it's been well established and accepted and now every single Falcon kit that comes out can now state the scale of the kit. They couldn't do that before because no one really knew.
But like I said, its as if this company that has the reputation for complete accuracy and quality didn't even bother to do any research whatsoever before they produced the kit. I wonder how many hours they poured into one of their other kits like the Formula 1 racers or the Trains. I'm sure they worked out all the scale and math for each of those kits spending hundreds of man hours pouring over every detail which is why they look so good. But they didn't even try with the Falcon. They could have done the same thing with it... there are thousands and thousands of images of the sets, the props, the speculations... and even our own Steve Starkiller has produced a completely movie accurate interior that they could have used.
Now, I've come to terms with the fact that even thou the interior isn't accurate and that at least the exterior was going to be. But then comon, they have tons of references to go on... the Fine Molds kit was considered Top Dog in the kit department and they could have used it for reference. But no.... The Master Replica's Falcon was an almost perfect clone of the prop they could have used... but again NO... then I heard that Steve Dymszo is on board and would be working with them and my thoughts immediately go to the fact that he had the actual 3D scans of the prop itself, and my hopes were once again restored because how can you go wrong with actual 3D scans of the prop and hi-res images to help... shortly after we hear news they were going to reissue the hull parts from pack 1 and 3 and our hopes are once again raised... but alas, they are STILL wrong. Then they reissue the cockpit nose cone, but once again, wrong AGAIN!
I'm not mad, I'm just really frustrated. I put my trust and faith into a company that had a really wonderful reputation for the best and most accurate kits on the market and I feel like I've been let down. I'm spending $1800 on a kit that I have to do, quite frankly, alot of fixing to that I really was hoping not to. I could understand if they had a few little fixes that needed to be done, but I mean comon... stickers to use instead of actual detail? The motor in the MIDDLE of the boarding ramp?? REALLY?
This is why so many people are complaining and carrying on about this kit. I plan to carry out the entire build, but please don't think that we're just complaining to hear ourselves complain like so many other forums and builders do. We've got some legitimate reasons to complain about things, and just saying that "if they fix one thing they'll just find something else to complain about" is very demeaning and uninformed as to the validity of the arguments in question. We all expected something a bit better then what we were promised and feel justified to voice or disappointment over it.
If you bought a car with all the bells and whistles and then a couple of months into owning it, you discover that all those bells and whistles were just smoke being blown up your bottom, I'm sure you'd have a few choice words to say to the dealership as well!
Of course that image is from the Star Wars: Blueprints, however it isn't accurate to the work of Robert Brown or the movie whatsoever. Heck they didn't even bother to check all the work that has been done over the last 35 years to work out the actual size of the ship. Before the work of Brown and friends, they had no idea what the scale of the Falcon really was. But thanks to their hard work and effort it's been well established and accepted and now every single Falcon kit that comes out can now state the scale of the kit. They couldn't do that before because no one really knew.
But like I said, its as if this company that has the reputation for complete accuracy and quality didn't even bother to do any research whatsoever before they produced the kit. I wonder how many hours they poured into one of their other kits like the Formula 1 racers or the Trains. I'm sure they worked out all the scale and math for each of those kits spending hundreds of man hours pouring over every detail which is why they look so good. But they didn't even try with the Falcon. They could have done the same thing with it... there are thousands and thousands of images of the sets, the props, the speculations... and even our own Steve Starkiller has produced a completely movie accurate interior that they could have used.
Now, I've come to terms with the fact that even thou the interior isn't accurate and that at least the exterior was going to be. But then comon, they have tons of references to go on... the Fine Molds kit was considered Top Dog in the kit department and they could have used it for reference. But no.... The Master Replica's Falcon was an almost perfect clone of the prop they could have used... but again NO... then I heard that Steve Dymszo is on board and would be working with them and my thoughts immediately go to the fact that he had the actual 3D scans of the prop itself, and my hopes were once again restored because how can you go wrong with actual 3D scans of the prop and hi-res images to help... shortly after we hear news they were going to reissue the hull parts from pack 1 and 3 and our hopes are once again raised... but alas, they are STILL wrong. Then they reissue the cockpit nose cone, but once again, wrong AGAIN!
I'm not mad, I'm just really frustrated. I put my trust and faith into a company that had a really wonderful reputation for the best and most accurate kits on the market and I feel like I've been let down. I'm spending $1800 on a kit that I have to do, quite frankly, alot of fixing to that I really was hoping not to. I could understand if they had a few little fixes that needed to be done, but I mean comon... stickers to use instead of actual detail? The motor in the MIDDLE of the boarding ramp?? REALLY?
This is why so many people are complaining and carrying on about this kit. I plan to carry out the entire build, but please don't think that we're just complaining to hear ourselves complain like so many other forums and builders do. We've got some legitimate reasons to complain about things, and just saying that "if they fix one thing they'll just find something else to complain about" is very demeaning and uninformed as to the validity of the arguments in question. We all expected something a bit better then what we were promised and feel justified to voice or disappointment over it.
If you bought a car with all the bells and whistles and then a couple of months into owning it, you discover that all those bells and whistles were just smoke being blown up your bottom, I'm sure you'd have a few choice words to say to the dealership as well!
Attachments
MonsieurTox
Master Member
Well I won't discuss the interor being not accurate since the original filming miniature did not have any interior.
The cockpit of the filming miniature looked like that :
I guess if DeAgo had reproduced it that way most of the guys whould have complained it is not accurate, there're not enough details etc...
Fortunatly enough they haven't used the FineMolds model as reference as it's plain wrong.
The 3D scan of the Falcon for the MR was incomplete and asked a lot of repaired to get a complete mesh. At this time 3D scanning was not as good as it is now.
$1800 is nothing in the world of Studio Scale 32" Falcon, and this is already awesome what you get for that price.
There's a ton of reference but there're still a lot of areas that has never been referenced.
You know I've built my first studio scale Falcon back in 2006, I have started a new one in 2010 that is still unfinished, over those 9 years I've spent more time than DeAgo will ever have to produce their kit and I'm still looking for parts. When I get back to it a few weeks ago I noticed I did several mistakes, some panels were not quite right in term of proportions, some notches were missing or misplaced. But there are hundred of them so it had to be expected.
And unlike the MR Falcon, which was limited to a few numbers of models which allowed them to use resin, the DeAgo is a mass produced model, this is ABS injected and most of the details are not separate pieces, this means no undercuts like it was on the original model, but for $1800 you can't expect having a perfect model with hundred of separate parts.
Of course there're several that are not understandable like the shape of the windows of the cockpit,t he missing notches corridor parts etc...
But that's not bad and that's modeling, there's always place for improvement even with the best model kits. It's up to you to make the corrections or not, but if you do you'll get something unique you'll be proud of.
To be honest the DeAgo Falcon shouldn't even be in the Studio Scale section...
The cockpit of the filming miniature looked like that :
I guess if DeAgo had reproduced it that way most of the guys whould have complained it is not accurate, there're not enough details etc...
Fortunatly enough they haven't used the FineMolds model as reference as it's plain wrong.
The 3D scan of the Falcon for the MR was incomplete and asked a lot of repaired to get a complete mesh. At this time 3D scanning was not as good as it is now.
$1800 is nothing in the world of Studio Scale 32" Falcon, and this is already awesome what you get for that price.
There's a ton of reference but there're still a lot of areas that has never been referenced.
You know I've built my first studio scale Falcon back in 2006, I have started a new one in 2010 that is still unfinished, over those 9 years I've spent more time than DeAgo will ever have to produce their kit and I'm still looking for parts. When I get back to it a few weeks ago I noticed I did several mistakes, some panels were not quite right in term of proportions, some notches were missing or misplaced. But there are hundred of them so it had to be expected.
And unlike the MR Falcon, which was limited to a few numbers of models which allowed them to use resin, the DeAgo is a mass produced model, this is ABS injected and most of the details are not separate pieces, this means no undercuts like it was on the original model, but for $1800 you can't expect having a perfect model with hundred of separate parts.
Of course there're several that are not understandable like the shape of the windows of the cockpit,t he missing notches corridor parts etc...
But that's not bad and that's modeling, there's always place for improvement even with the best model kits. It's up to you to make the corrections or not, but if you do you'll get something unique you'll be proud of.
To be honest the DeAgo Falcon shouldn't even be in the Studio Scale section...
Julien's right, Studio scale is for Hasbro toy conversions and people who need to work out new ways of getting hold of Steve Nieson !!
-... . .- --..
Sr Member
Has anybody heard from Steve N?
I wasn't talking about using the FM for the interior... there really isn't any reference for the interior except what AMT did with the Cutaway and the actual sets. I was talking about the exterior details... At least FM had teh correct notches on the hull corridors!
Wrong... the initial scan was incomplete but had been extensively repaired by Dymszo. However, Starkiller's 3D mesh is complete and totally accurate which they could have used.
Wrong again... When we're talking studio scale anything that was used in the studio could be considered studio scale... so spending $20 on AMT/Ertl X-Wing kit is considered Studio Scale. The Kenner Shuttle Tydirum toy that went for $50 was actually Studio Scale. And of course there's the guy that built a complete Studio Scale Falcon out of paper. Studio Scale doesn't mean using every single kit part that was ever used. Most of those kits aren't even made anymore. Studio Scale means it's the same size and measures the same as the original prop. Now if you did use all the original kits, that would be a Completely Accurate Build to the original prop. $1800 can buy you a decent used car, a nice laptop computer, or 80" LED Smart TV. This is the most money that *I*, and I'm quite sure I'm not alone here, have EVER spent on a single model kit! This is like buying a Lamborgini instead of a Celica. You would expect a bit more quality and attention to detail.
This is probably the one model in the Star Wars universe that has had the most photo referencing of any model they made. Externally, everything has and should be covered. And all the interior could have been covered just by watching the movies a few times and pressing the pause button!
Oh I totally agree with you there. This ship has so many details it's difficult to make completely accurate, but with today's resources (see StarKiller's 3D mesh above) they really didn't have much of an excuse! When WE as hobbiests build it's just us alone that make and build the kit. DeAgo has been at this for over a 100 years with a team of people. There is no excuse for the types of mistakes and omissions that are present in the current kit. If the people building the 1:1 scale Falcon had the men and resources that DeAgo does, I'm sure it would have been completely built and ready a long time ago.
I can't? You mean the FM Falcon that was a mass produced ABS injected kit with all the details and retailed for $300 and contained thousands of little parts that you had to glue on separately was not actually attainable? What planet are you living on? I can understand that some of the parts are molded on the kit, I can accept that. What I can't accept is that there are way too many errors to overlook for this supposed quality and price point of a kit. Don't try to justify to me that it can't be done... it has been done and is totally within reasoning to believe that it could have been done again at a much higher degree of quality!
For $1800 I would expect that I didn't have to replace the included floor, bunk, lounge seats, lounge seat back controls, cockpit seats, nav computer, corridor floor, corridor rings, cockpit console, cockpit rear wall, STICKERS, gun turret well, hull corridor, boarding ramp motor and centralized piston, the list goes on and on. I understand that every kit that is massed produced has room for improvement, to allow the builder the ability to add they're own flair, but when it is blantently clear that the interior was an afterthought and seemed to be rushed to the point that they just wanted to say "Here's a 1:1 studio scale falcon... and look ITS GOT AN INTERIOR TOO" that's just lazy and weak IMO.
We are talking about a company that prides itself on its accuracy and replication of things. They've been in business for over a 100 years. They SHOULD have known better and did a little more homework before they released it. But in all fairness it *IS* the most accurate kit to date, but that's because no one else has ever done the interior on a studio scale Falcon before in Mass Production... it's like saying I've got the most accurate scale treehouse from the Simpsons because I did the complete interior and no one else has ever done that before.
Say what?? Now you're just incredibly daft... this is a Studio Scale kit... and this is the Studio Scale section... where should it go? The Costumes section?? Gimme a break!
Last edited:
MonsieurTox
Master Member
I was talking about the FMMF exterior, which is way off.
Dymszo is far from being a reference. They should have hired someone who really knows the Falcon from the MR team : Moe.
Never seen Starkiller's 3D mesh of the 32" Falcon.
You probably read me wrong, I said
So I'm not sure what you're talking about the MPC Falcon or what.
We're talking about the 32" Falcon, and yes $1800 is nothing for a 32" Falcon.
I think I know what studio scale is.
So no a 32" paper Falcon is not studio scale. It's studio size yes, not studio scale. Same goes with the DeAgo.
The MR Falcon did not use original kitparts but they recreated them as good as they can, with all the undercuts of the original etc... Not the case with most of the DeAgo parts which are molded like details are on a toy (like on the big Hasbro Falcon or like on the 1/144 Bandai Falcon, which is acceptable at this scale).
Unfortunatly you are wrong, some of the bottom pits are not covered and this is mainly due to the way it is displayed. Even MR who had access to it or Duncanator who repaired the original were not able to reach those areas.
Regarding the interior, as I said, it's not part of the original filming miniature so this is not a problem for me.
Having an accurate mesh is only 20% of the whole thing. Details are the most important on something like the Falcon.
This is not like offering a kit of a car or even a battleship for which official blueprints can be find for each details (down to the search lights etc).
But yes I do agree they did big mistakes that could have been avoided without spending too much time on it, they are so obvious, it's hard to understand why they did them.
You are comparing a model that is more than 50% smaller. I'm not sure you are aware of the cost of the molds, but molds that are twice bigger are not twice more expensive. They are a lot more expensive. And 300 parts is acceptable for a small model like the FMMF, but FYI there are close to 1000 different kitparts on the 32" Falcon. 300 parts... that's only the engine deck !
I'm living on the same planet than you, I'm just aware of the production costs and the reality of life.
Just by reading that ""Here's a 1:1 studio scale falcon... and look ITS GOT AN INTERIOR TOO" you should have know something was wrong... 1: studio scale Falcon... with an interior ? It was going to be fail from the beginning
I totally agree with you.
The general section. Like the Hasbro Falcon.
Not this is not a Studio Scale kit. This is a Falcon which is the same size than the filming miniature but with details that were invented (cockpit, interior etc), or that roughly looks like the original (from a certain distance).
I am sorry if you don't agree with that, I'm not sure if you ever looked to the other threads in this section but there is no other thread about those kind of model (not speaking about all the DeAgo Falcon threads). I'm sorry but when I see posts about interior floors of the Falcon in this section, I just think WTF ?!!
Look at this thread :
http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=107841
This AT-AT is EXACTLY the same size than the ones used in ESB, Jon used several of the same kitparts used on the original to detail his model, and where is it ? In the general section.
Starkillers mesh is 100% accurate to the sets and the prop. You can take any photo (screen cap, behind the scenes, sets, etc) and it would match exactly to what was seen. Take a look at his work here: http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=227052 or here http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=227052 or here http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=227052 or even here http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=230674 (for someone spouting their expertise on all things MF, it seems odd that you have never heard of his work).
No I don't think you do... you're mistaking Studio Accurate with Studio Scale... Scale is just the measurement of the original prop to the model you're building... if I were to make a 32" Falcon out of paper mache as long as it matched the original length and dimensions and looked somewhat similar, it would be STUDIO SCALE... accurate probably not, but it would be the exact same size as the original prop. STUDIO ACCURATE is when every single peice that was used on the original is used in the recreation. So... glad to educate you a bit on that subject.
I'd really like to know where you are getting this information because it is completely false. Dymszo (even thou I agree with you is not the best reference for tapping) had a week with the original model and was able to photograph and white light scan every single area of the original 32" model. Heck he even had time to Pantone match the colors with paint chips. So again, wrong!
Agreed... the interior was never part of the original prop... however with all the resources available today it wouldn't have been difficult to make it much more accurate then it is now.
You are comparing a model that is more than 50% smaller. I'm not sure you are aware of the cost of the molds, but molds that are twice bigger are not twice more expensive. They are a lot more expensive. And 300 parts is acceptable for a small model like the FMMF, but FYI there are close to 1000 different kitparts on the 32" Falcon. 300 parts... that's only the engine deck !
Ok... this is where I think the confusion and crossed wires are between us. I'm not talking about using all the original kits here to make the Falcon Studio Accurate (see definition above). I'm talking about the basic details that shouldn't have existed in the first place. I'm talking about using the already available sources like the FMMF for a frame of reference along with all the other photos and various screen caps that are available today. If you see the same thing on 5 different sources (eg: hull notches) then it's pretty darn sure that they should actually be present on the model! If you see big differences you go to the source and if it's there, you put it there, if not don't! Not rocket science here. If they had looked at screen caps from the movie itself they would have had better resources for reference then just slapping something together and say to heck with it, let them fix it themselves.
That's what's most upsetting about this kit... here we have a company who's reputation has been founded on research and accuracy doing a kit that has been researched and accurized over and over again for the past 35 years by people who have dedicated their lives and free time to doing so. Robert Brown started the ball rolling with his research and let's not forget Curtis Saxton, Brian Young, Chris Lee, Brian Daley, our own SofaKing and Steve Starkiller. All of whom have dedicated more time and effort into trying to explain, identify, and solve the mysteries of the Falcon then anyone else on Earth. Then of course you have the excellent work in identifying the various kits and parts that were used on the prop that started here on this site so many years ago. All of the problems would have been avoided with this kit if they had done the research and did the parts right to begin with rather then just leave it to the builders to do it themselves. It would have saved them money in the long run, cut down on customer complaints, provided a one-stop reference for all the community, and would have been a selling point in and of itself. It feels like an insult that they didn't do any of the work that they've poured into their other kit offerings (the ships, cars, and trains) and just threw this out there and said "Hey geeks, give us your money, look what we got for you".
Yes it is... (see definition above)
It has nothing to do with where it is, it's where he started the post. Sure it should be here in this section, but again, your idea of Studio Scale and Studio Accurate are skewed. Hopefully this time you'll see what I'm talking about.
Last edited:
pwrdby6hamsters
New Member
I agree with LrdSatyr8 and share many his concerns on this.
It may be the case that $1800 is nothing in the realm of scale models, but in this case it is irrelevant, since it was De Agostini that set the price and the expectations. They stated that there would be no difference on screen from the replica and the original. Another place they claim that it is almost perfect is in the first painting video produced by De Agostini and hosted by Steve Dymszo. In it, Steve stated that they got it about 99% accurate, to which the company flashed 99% on the screen several times. Since they produced, edited and own the copyright of the video, they own the claim. So again, it was not me that set the expectation, it was the company.
If you buy something on amazon or ebay and the seller states that it will have this and that for $500 dollars, the seller set the expectation and the price, You buy the product because it was a better price through him. When you get it and it does not fit the description, do you just say oh well, $500.00 is nothing for this type of product, so I guess I will live with it? Or do you try to contact to seller or Amazon/Ebay to hold the seller accountable? Or at least you would give him a bad review because he was not entierly honest with you, right?
De Agostini needs to be a lot more careful how they describe their model. I believe they got in over their heads with this model and do not know how to handle people scrutinizing the parts to the degree that has been reported.
-Power of the 6 (and sometimes 12)
It may be the case that $1800 is nothing in the realm of scale models, but in this case it is irrelevant, since it was De Agostini that set the price and the expectations. They stated that there would be no difference on screen from the replica and the original. Another place they claim that it is almost perfect is in the first painting video produced by De Agostini and hosted by Steve Dymszo. In it, Steve stated that they got it about 99% accurate, to which the company flashed 99% on the screen several times. Since they produced, edited and own the copyright of the video, they own the claim. So again, it was not me that set the expectation, it was the company.
If you buy something on amazon or ebay and the seller states that it will have this and that for $500 dollars, the seller set the expectation and the price, You buy the product because it was a better price through him. When you get it and it does not fit the description, do you just say oh well, $500.00 is nothing for this type of product, so I guess I will live with it? Or do you try to contact to seller or Amazon/Ebay to hold the seller accountable? Or at least you would give him a bad review because he was not entierly honest with you, right?
De Agostini needs to be a lot more careful how they describe their model. I believe they got in over their heads with this model and do not know how to handle people scrutinizing the parts to the degree that has been reported.
-Power of the 6 (and sometimes 12)
Last edited:
