Tagged: missing parts
December 6, 2016 at 4:48 pm #26893
I believe some of the photos used by DeAgostini are of a Master Replicas Falcon, which had the parts.December 6, 2016 at 4:51 pm #26894
Trading standards anyone?December 6, 2016 at 5:18 pm #26895
something has to be done they cant just blatently use someone elses materialDecember 6, 2016 at 5:29 pm #26896
@Cedwards000 This model was based off the work Steve D. did on the Master Replicas. He worked on both projects, so I believe all his reference and files were shared with Deagostini. Most reference photos on the magazine’s were of Steve’s pimped out version of his own MR. So yes, someone else’s material, but they have permission.
But back to the topic at hand. The longer Deag takes to respond to this issue the more everyone is going to get worked up and mad. Get out in front of this Deagostini and do the right thing!December 6, 2016 at 7:24 pm #26897
DeAgostini show the missing parts right on the first photo on there product page…
December 7, 2016 at 5:12 am #26903
DigitalJacksonParticipantDecember 7, 2016 at 4:32 pm #26910
Kokarri I totally agree but you have to agree that what we were promised is not what we received an exact replica of the studio model this most certainly is not or am I missing something ?December 7, 2016 at 7:21 pm #26914
Please have a read of the model-space thread, admin on there is saying that this is why there are aftermarket parts , erm no, aftermarket parts are usually replacement for original supplied parts , but with more detail or corrected profiles , not because someone screwed up and forgot to include the parts shown in various promotional and magazine pictures in the first place. Personally I think the factory have cocked up , so much for all the 3d scans etc etc
I also think this thread is being ignored , as admin has responded to several other threads ,(bury your head in the sand and hope we go away) if they are trying to resolve it , then its a case of :-
“sorry , we are looking into this with the factory to try to resolve it and we will update forum thread when we get a response ”
As a subscriber who has paid nearly £900 for a prop replica falcon (which externally this isn’t) as well as not receiving corrected parts once an issue with originally supplied parts was found,(hull plating, seats)I am very dissapointedDecember 7, 2016 at 9:18 pm #26916
Sorry @Cedwards000 I think I misunderstood your original remark. I am in 100% agreeance with you. This is no longer an accurate representation of the original studio “FACT”!
And it was correct when stated that aftermarket parts are for mods and additions, not to complete a model into it’s original state. It’s like completing a model of a P-51 Mustang, you get all the way to the end and there is no propeller. Then you’re told that’s and aftermarket part. I DON”T THINK SO! No difference!
Well, if they aren’t reading this thread, what avenue should we take, because this is not right!December 7, 2016 at 9:54 pm #26917
i think possibly like a lot of others judging from what iv read and heard that this is an issue possibly for trading standards £900 for something that is quite clearly not what was advertised is a lot of money by anyones standard and i for one whilst not an expert model builder by any stretch of imagination can tell the difference between the studio model and what we have recieved if i advertised my car for sale i would have to provide a pretty accurate description would i not i couldnt very well call it silver if in fact it was black and covered in rust in my opinion its pretty clear that we have been promised one thing and delivered something else i think someone mentioned trading standards in another thread it would be interesting to see what there thoughts were
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.