Icons vs Fan Made Studio Scale X-Wing

Discussion in 'Studio Scale Models' started by Corellianexports, Nov 22, 2003.

Tags:
  1. Corellianexports

    Corellianexports Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    1,341
    I have been pondering the thought of adding the infamous Icons X-Wing Studio Scale model to my collection of SW stuff.

    I just wanted to know what every one's opinion was of the Icons version as opposed to a fan made Studio Scale?

    Also, does any one know how much an Icons version might be worth and were there any made with signed (Hamill) plaques?

    Thanks [​IMG]
     
  2. STEVE THE SWEDE

    STEVE THE SWEDE Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,241
    Not 100% sure on this but wasn't the Icons version concidered to small compared to the original models?

    Steve.
     
  3. Boba Flint

    Boba Flint Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    1,390
    Yes it was smaller. The fuselage is nearly an inch too short. All the ones I have seen had sagging wings, paint chipped off exposing the resin underneath, and even fingerprints in the paint!
     
  4. Corellianexports

    Corellianexports Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    1,341
    The Icons version is too short by an inch in length?
     
  5. Treadwell

    Treadwell Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,325
    Yup!

    A well-made fanbuilt one is going to be more accurate and higher quality than the ICONS. Value-wise as a collectible, I have no idea.
     
  6. CaptCBoard

    CaptCBoard Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    930
    I hate to be nit-picky about this point, but--

    The ICONS model is short because it was cast from an original pyro model, not one of the hero models. The fuselage was 2 generations off the real deal, before it was cleaned up, and then production molds were made. So, despite the fact that pyro models are about 1/2 an inch shorter than the hero versions, the ICONS version suffered from generational shrink as well, but not so much that it makes it inaccurate. I'm not saying the castings are the best representation, I'm just saying that it actually is a reproduction in that actual ILM parts were used as the masters. So, is it 'studio scale'? Yes, because it is cast from original parts, but the process of making the reproduction caused minor dimensional differences. Is it a good model and worth the money-- no, probably not. But that has nothing to do with its size.

    Scott
     
  7. Corellianexports

    Corellianexports Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    1,341
    The 2nd generation shrinkage makes sense.

    I've seen M32 and M19 scope castings which shrank by about 1/8" in length, so it all makes sense. [​IMG]
     
  8. SSRN Seaview

    SSRN Seaview Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    705
    Well I have #826 of 1,977 and it was my very first prop replica and my first purchase off the internet. I bought it from a ICONS dealer for gave me a special deal for $1200 and had them on-hand for immediate delivery. I've had minimal sag and only on the bottom wings. About once a year I unplug them and straighten them out with a hair dryer. I believe most of the ones with sagging or droopy wings were exposed to sunlight as my stays in dimly lit den. Value... anywhere from $999 to $1200. From various posts, cracked plexi cases were common, mine is crack free. I also have the CC T-65 kit and plan to model this one in wings closed position.
     

Share This Page