Home > Discussion Groups > General

Message posting guidelines:

  • Full real names must be used at all times.

  • A valid e-mail address must be provided. (This is not optional)

  • Images must be posted at low resolution (72 dpi) and no larger than 760 pixels wide, and copyright/trade mark owners must be credited whenever reasonably possible.

  • Registration is compulsory if you wish to post messages on the Discussion Groups. For further information, please see the following message: http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=47207&messageid=1113822984

Please read our Community guidelines before posting.

By contributing to this discussion group, you indicate your agreement to the Terms and Conditions of Use.

Posts that violate the guidelines or Terms and conditions of Use of the Missing-lynx.com discussion groups will be erased, and repeated violation of this policy may result in termination of the violator's account.

Advertisement

 Return to Index  

Hobby Boss: a name you CAN'T trust?

January 6 2013 at 1:45 AM
  (Login D_McKeever)
from IP address 207.38.253.34

So what's the deal with this label. I had thought they consistently offered high quality kits. But Erik Christ has indicated that the Sdkfz 222 is dimensionally flawed. And pics reveal that the 1/16 Tiger release is, as the Scots would say, SHITE.
Are these anomalies, or should Hobby-Boss be viewed as one of those brands (like Italeri or Zveda) with a presumption of poor quality unless otherwise vetted?

 
 Respond to this message   
Responses

  1. Based on two kit's? C'mon man. - Shane Gowan on Jan 6, 1:56 AM
    1. Bad Leopard 2 kits - Michael Shackleton on Jan 6, 5:08 AM
    2. Re: Based on two kit's? C'mon man. - D. McKeever on Jan 6, 9:52 AM
      1. Not quite just a few - Al Bowie on Jan 6, 4:49 PM
        1. I concede my ignorance on that point - D. McKeever on Jan 6, 11:28 PM
     
  2. In defence of Hobbyboss (and Trumpeter).... - Rob Harvey on Jan 6, 8:09 AM
    1. Hobbyboss good to go! - FranK Blanton on Jan 6, 8:22 AM
      1. I really like their saurer kit - D. McKeever on Jan 6, 9:55 AM
        1. No you don't. - Kevin Johnson on Jan 7, 1:23 AM
          1. Nevermind - D. McKeever on Jan 7, 2:31 AM
            1. Then turn one on a lathe yourself. - Kevin Johnson on Jan 7, 3:03 AM
    2. The 222 kit - D. McKeever on Jan 6, 9:54 AM
      1. er... am I missing Something? - Chris Meddings on Jan 6, 12:15 PM
        1. Re: er... am I missing Something? - D. McKeever on Jan 6, 12:31 PM
          1. I see - Chris Meddings on Jan 6, 12:36 PM
            1. sorry for the confusion (NT) - D. McKeever on Jan 6, 12:40 PM
          2. Bronco has been known to correct their kits.... - Kevin Johnson on Jan 7, 1:26 AM
            1. I wish they would correct thier Comet... - karl van sweden on Jan 7, 12:33 PM
              1. and their H38/9 nt - Chris Meddings on Jan 7, 8:08 PM
      2. Erm... - Rob Harvey on Jan 6, 1:41 PM
     
  3. Actually every company is that way - david nickels on Jan 6, 8:28 AM
    1. not a fair comparison - D. McKeever on Jan 6, 9:58 AM
      1. i think it is fair - david nickels on Jan 6, 11:51 AM
        1. Let's agree to disagree - D. McKeever on Jan 6, 12:11 PM
          1. Agree there - david nickels on Jan 6, 12:34 PM
            1. Again, I was asking a question - D. McKeever on Jan 6, 12:43 PM
              1. problematic - Chris Meddings on Jan 6, 1:36 PM
              2. Tamiya's problems aren't just with old kits - Kurt Laughlin on Jan 6, 7:59 PM
              3. 'Scrutinized'? - Kevin Johnson on Jan 7, 1:13 AM
                1. even less - Chris Meddings on Jan 7, 3:57 AM
      2. And their half done new releases? - Al Bowie on Jan 7, 3:31 AM
     
  4. In support of Hobby Boss - Brian O'Donoghue on Jan 6, 8:44 AM
    1. An interesting train of thought... - David Byrden on Jan 6, 9:20 AM
      1. someone made a similar comment - D. McKeever on Jan 6, 10:01 AM
        1. Re: someone made a similar comment - Frank Glackin on Jan 6, 11:41 AM
          1. Semantics - D. McKeever on Jan 6, 12:01 PM
            1. Re: Semantics - Frank Glackin on Jan 7, 4:00 AM
              1. Re: Semantics - D. McKeever on Jan 7, 7:11 PM
                1. They do - Chris Meddings on Jan 7, 7:57 PM
      2. No - Chris Meddings on Jan 6, 10:27 AM
     
  5. Not that bad - Chris Meddings on Jan 6, 10:34 AM
  6.  
  7. No better - no worse - John Tapsell on Jan 6, 1:30 PM
    1. A voice of reason - Al Bowie on Jan 6, 4:56 PM
    2. Really? - David McKeever on Jan 6, 6:07 PM
      1. It's personal..... - Alan Mckenzie on Jan 6, 6:55 PM
        1. Re: It's personal..... - D. McKeever on Jan 6, 7:57 PM
          1. Much ado about nothing. - Christophe Jacquemont on Jan 7, 4:29 AM
      2. Yes - Really... - John Tapsell on Jan 7, 5:41 PM
        1. Re: Yes - Really... - D. McKeever on Jan 7, 6:54 PM
      3. The Flaw in your argument - Al Bowie on Jan 7, 6:03 PM
        1. Enlighten me - D. McKeever on Jan 7, 7:02 PM
          1. T28 - Chris Meddings on Jan 7, 8:01 PM
          2. Certainly - Al Bowie on Jan 7, 8:06 PM
     
  8. " DML always brings it with excellent quality and exacting accuracy" - Andy King on Jan 6, 5:33 PM
    1. My take - Shane Gowan on Jan 6, 6:09 PM
      1. thanks for this comment - D. McKeever on Jan 6, 8:05 PM
        1. I meant 222, sorry - Shane Gowan on Jan 7, 2:50 PM
     
  9. What about HB M1070 and Dana? - Jim Carswell on Jan 6, 6:58 PM
  10.  
  11. Great stuff guys - Dave coyne on Jan 6, 8:00 PM
  12.  
  13. Why don't you get back to us.... - Kevin Johnson on Jan 7, 1:06 AM
  14.  
  15. Choose your battle - Anthony Guarderas on Jan 7, 1:51 AM
    1. Research before you buy - Roger Cockburn on Jan 7, 4:40 AM
     
  16. You really should withdraw that comment... - Spencer Pollard on Jan 8, 3:26 AM
    1. Re: You really should withdraw that comment. - Mark O Hanlon on Jan 8, 4:32 AM
    2. Having lived in the UK.. - David Byrden on Jan 8, 4:55 AM
     
  17. All right if we cant behave then this goes - MODERATOR on Jan 8, 5:47 AM
  18.  


Terms and Conditions of Use
Report abuse