Hi Kev,
Having done a few reviews myself, I know how much work can go in, especially coming up with a new slant and the historical background to make it different and interesting (yours is over a broad spectrum, not like mine). I have met you and have seen your reviews, nothing hidden just a passion for models and the hobby.
I too have always paid for my own models (with the exception of one on a build thread, that I was proud to do and open with the fact) and base the reviews on what I see. I know I am partizan on what I review, everybody knows which war I fight in. If you don't look at the vbench.
Sometimes there might be a slight historical anomaly, none of us are perfect (and I have seen the best sculptor make mistakes in my area, can they be experts in everything!) but the models are always photographed clearly with no doctoring. If I bought a model that was a howler I would be the first to get stuck in. Sometimes the lack of comments and views are thunderous.
Most times, in my comfort area, if there is a slight flaw, I don't see this as an issue, maybe because I have the know how to tackle this if needed. Now this might be a flaw and naivety on my part not bringing this forward and thinking everyone is looking through my eyes and if this is the case, then I publically apologise. One I remember was a Victorian Naval figure with a moustache, I just thought add the beard. Anyway with mine there are no rivets, so no counting needed. I can count to ten and a half, if I have my socks off and my flies undone
.
The viewer can always make up their own mind. I have never ever been appraoched to do a review, I have done this off my own back, I have even purchased models from reviews and build threads and glad I did.
I can understand from the buyers point of view (I'm one myself, as you are Nap) if something is being hidden for personal gain or misrepresented. The prospective buyer also has the right to voice an opinion, challenge or correct a flaw or historical inaccuracy. If we put up a review then we should also take the good, the bad and the ugly with sticking our heads above mealie bags.
The initial area for historical flaws or questions should be figure news. This tends to get by passed, by lovely figure and nice release.
If flaws are missed, then maybe we should highlight the historical inacuracies or blunders, if known by the reviewers. The quality of the casting cannot be seen sometimes without undercoating, well not in my case. In the end we review on what we know. If we don't know then we should reply I don't know, I will find out etc.
Going back to the original question that caused this thread, I would like to know from Keith and Kev and I respect these guy's as men men of integrity and be honest lads....
and I'm only talking about the rifle here. Is it a case of I've jumped in too quick here without knowing all the variants for this period.......... and I don't know and I cannot answer that because I did not sculpt it and I don't know and the year, issue and lenght of the weapon.
So we will settle for hand shakes at dawn gentlemen.
cheers
Richie
