Original or reproduced kits?

[piginapoke]

Well, i got a nice bonus from work last month so ordered a kit from Super Hobby (S-37) and two from Answer (Mig 1.44 and Tu-128)

When the kits eventually arrived (Answer being particularly slow), they all appeared to have grainy, dark, poor quality covers. The pages of parts themselves are notably better quality than the covers.

The kits were first published 10+ years ago, so are these kits reproductions or did the originals always have poor quality covers?

It's the parts that matter ultimately, but it got me thinking.

[Butelczynski]

Likely those are original. Pictures would help.

[John Wagenseil]

The covers might be shop worn and faded, or printed on a different type of paper than the inner pages, a heavier but cheaper paper.

[John Wagenseil]

The covers might be "shop worn" or faded, or the covers might be different type of paper than the inner sheets, a cheaper but thicker paper.

[piginapoke]

I've just realised they were all from Hobby Model, but here they are. The closeup of the Mig text doesn't show the lower quality of the cover easily but the Tu-128 image certainly looks worse for wear.

I was more curious than anything about whether they were reproductions or original copies.

[Butelczynski]

I'm afraid they are knockoffs. Covers are clearly prints from photographs or more likely scans and not even particularly good ones.

[rickstef]

are the kits loose leaf?
or bound in a book?

[Isaac]

You never stated were you ordered these kits from?

Those are old models way more than 10 years. At least the original designs.


Isaac

[piginapoke]

Originally Posted by Isaac

You never stated were you ordered these kits from?

Those are old models way more than 10 years. At least the original designs.


Isaac

S-37 from Super-Hobby, the other two from Answer.

[piginapoke]

Originally Posted by rickstef

are the kits loose leaf?
or bound in a book?

Bound in a book