Thread started by Flip on scalemates.com
Phil Marchese
This kit is from well before 1971 unless there was one not shown. It dates from 65-67 timeframe at the night of the Revell WWII a/c releases.
This kit is from well before 1971 unless there was one not shown. It dates from 65-67 timeframe at the night of the Revell WWII a/c releases.
29 September 2014, 20:16
scalemates
what is it based on? currently it is linked to the Civil variant of 1990
what is it based on? currently it is linked to the Civil variant of 1990
29 September 2014, 20:21
Phil Marchese
Tim, I was referring to the original tool date of 1971 , not the civil version.
Tim, I was referring to the original tool date of 1971 , not the civil version.
29 September 2014, 20:26
scalemates
euhm still haven't got a clue what you want to say. Does your remark mean that the link shown between this kit 04309 and the civil version is wrong?
euhm still haven't got a clue what you want to say. Does your remark mean that the link shown between this kit 04309 and the civil version is wrong?
29 September 2014, 20:28
Phil Marchese
No. I m saying the date of 1971 at the far left , top line for the new tool maritime patrol bomber should be in the mid-1960s.
No. I m saying the date of 1971 at the far left , top line for the new tool maritime patrol bomber should be in the mid-1960s.
29 September 2014, 20:30
scalemates
ok, makes it confusing when you say "this kit" and add put the comment under the 04309 product
ok, makes it confusing when you say "this kit" and add put the comment under the 04309 product
29 September 2014, 20:31
Phil Marchese
IThat is exactly why a product timeline should follow your original rule of only one new tool and each new tool be a new timeline.
IThat is exactly why a product timeline should follow your original rule of only one new tool and each new tool be a new timeline.
29 September 2014, 20:38
scalemates
You post a comment of product A under product B, and I have to understand that you talk about A and not B? That is confusing, and your comment about "original rule" even more 🤔
You post a comment of product A under product B, and I have to understand that you talk about A and not B? That is confusing, and your comment about "original rule" even more 🤔
29 September 2014, 20:41
Phil Marchese
The example was about the timeline update and my comments were about the timelines. You used the FW200 as the example of the new timelines so I when to see it and made comments about the timelines and obviously the timelines are still concusing .
The example was about the timeline update and my comments were about the timelines. You used the FW200 as the example of the new timelines so I when to see it and made comments about the timelines and obviously the timelines are still concusing .
29 September 2014, 22:07