From: Phillip Atcliffe <Phillip.Atcliffe@u...>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 16:17:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Manufacturers and boxes
> On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 06:42:13 -0600 devans@uneb.edu wrote: Quoting me: > Phil, wishing that manufacturers would get over the > Well, I could go into some comments about standardization, marketing, I agree with you, mostly. BUT, I'd much rather have a larger box with empty space in it and the contents sized "properly", i.e., to a consistent scale, than to have the _box_ a standard size and the model therein made any old size. Sometimes, SF models are the last bastion of this practice -- that, let it be noted, died out in _other_ modelling genres years ago. The various Viper and Raider models are a case in point; neither the Monogram nor the Comet ships are in scale with one another. Nor were the original Star Wars X-wing and TIE fighter. And AMT were notorious for the peculiar range of scales that they chose for their Star Trek kits, odds examples like the TOS Enterprise and Klingon BC being the rare exception. They've improved somewhat of late, but not much -- of course, my wish for a 1/1400 DS9 (to be in scale with the Enterprise-C, -D and -E) is a bit unreasonable -- it would be over a metre in diameter! <g> Of course, a 15-inch one that's in scale with my Gamescience/Task Force/Galoob ST minis would be nice.... > On a related note: Just picked up BattleFleet Gothic(my caps), and Hmmm. From the sound of that, the US version uses a _much_ smaller box than the UK packaging, which looks to me to have a lot of empty space in it. And $60 is not a bad price compared with £40, particularly at the current exchange rate. Methinks the Evil Empire is being a little bit greedy over here.... (so what else is new?) Phil