StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Here.

I have my doubts it will be the correct 115' version. The 88' measurement, like the Executor's 5-mile blooper, is too widespread.

You never know. Fine Molds do have a reputation for accuracy.

Good to see that Fine Molds is still alive. They released the Slave 1 a while ago, then nobody I've talked to has heard anything since.

Fine Molds is a pretty small company, so their output is pretty small.

A couple of test shots of various parts are available. Refresh the page if the images don't load at first. This looks awesome.

Firefox wrote:Here.

I have my doubts it will be the correct 115' version. The 88' measurement, like the Executor's 5-mile blooper, is too widespread.

I thought the 12.8 km blooper was more common, but yeah.

Anyway, it looks nice.

Damn. Apparently the model's going to be only 16.7" long. That's 100' in 1:72. Still too small.

Firefox wrote:Damn. Apparently the model's going to be only 16.7" long. That's 100' in 1:72. Still too small.

The quest for accuracy in models is sometimes more apparent in modelers than in model manufacturers...I have a "1/700th" scale kit of the ship in my sig, I've recently learned that it's about .045" too short, which is pretty considerable in 1/700th scale.

And I was sooo happy with it before I found that out.

Frank Hipper wrote:The quest for accuracy in models is sometimes more apparent in modelers than in model manufacturers...I have a "1/700th" scale kit of the ship in my sig, I've recently learned that it's about .045" too short, which is pretty considerable in 1/700th scale.

And I was sooo happy with it before I found that out.

I've had my share of such experiences. Aside from size discrepancies, the shape of a particular model can be way off. My Minicraft 1:144 Shuttle was a horrid piece of plastic, and not even covering it with putty and resculpting did a good job.

Hell, I'm in the process of fixing up an Academy 1:300 XB-70. The size is correct, but the windshield, inlets and nozzles are horrid. And don't get me started on the undercarriage.

Firefox wrote:Damn. Apparently the model's going to be only 16.7" long. That's 100' in 1:72. Still too small.

Well, even if it's a little too small scale-wise, that's still a pretty big model.

Firefox wrote:I've had my share of such experiences. Aside from size discrepancies, the shape of a particular model can be way off. My Minicraft 1:144 Shuttle was a horrid piece of plastic, and not even covering it with putty and resculpting did a good job.

Hell, I'm in the process of fixing up an Academy 1:300 XB-70. The size is correct, but the windshield, inlets and nozzles are horrid. And don't get me started on the undercarriage.

I would hesitate to recommend the Dragon 1/700 USS Arizona; despite some glowing reviews (inexpensive, comes with photo etch, die-cast metal turrets, highly detailed "rubberized" control tops and cranes, brass barrels), the bow profile resembles the Arizona in no way, and the forecastle deck is about half again as wide as it should be.
The bow can be easily fixed, the forecastle is totally beyond any hope of correction.

As to this Millenium Falcon kit, anyone notice that it looks like it's going to have a "poseable" upper turret? Playtime ahoy...

Probably going to be about 120 bucks or more, though.

$185 according to HLJ.