I was wondering if MRR ever gives a negative review. I noticed in their November issue a review of the Nscale Spectrum 2-6-6-2. I don’t disagree particularly with any one thing that was said, however, I thought they missed a few obvious points. First of all, why did they give Bachmann a pass on their poor coupler choice? Spectrum is Bachmann’s flagship line yet they put rapido couplers on an engine that retails for $275?!! If the other manufacturers can manage knuckle couplers on their Nscale engines, why can’t Bachmann? More importantly, why didn’t the review mention this? Also on the coupler issue, there are no easy pilot coupler conversions on this engine. Why didn’t Bachmann make this an easy conversion? If Lifelike can manage this on their Berkshire and mallet, Bachmann ought to be able to manage it also. Why did the review say nothing about the pilot coupler conversion problem? Finally, the quality on this production of locomotives appears to be all over the place. Remember the Mike’s Trainhouse fiasco with these? Maybe mentioning the quality aspect without having facts and figures would be irresponsible and might invite litigation. But the couplers are a HUGE issue on an engine marketed as a Spectrum and sold as “top of the line.” With all of this said, one wonders if the MRR staff overlooks flaws in other products also. Does MRR Magazine ever give a less than complimentary review to a locomotive?
I have seen some MR reviews in the past that have taken the product to task for issues with it. Generally, it’s done subtly, but you can tell that the reviewer is irked with it. Obviously, they can’t tra***alk their advertisers’ products too much, but I think on the whole that they are fairly balanced. If it’s a product that’s got a major flaw, or something that is REALLY annoying, they point it out. For the not so annoying things, I think that they point it out in a gentler manner.
It’s like the difference between Consumer Reports magazine and Consumer Guide; one has paid advertising and the other does not. Which one do you think gives the more unbiased evaluations?
I have not read MR long enough to be able to comment about their track record, but I would like to think that they would poke the ribs of companies that slip up. For example, I recall in the review of thne Athearn Challenger that the piston and valve rods are black plastic, not shiny metal ones. To me, that is a fairly significant boo-boo. On their premium line’s biggest engine, they used plastic that was the wrong colour? C’mon! Yet, the reviewer mentioned it as casually as he did the discrepancy between the scale driver sizes that all models have, and that are duly reported in each review…sort of matter of fact.
I would have thought the reviewer should say something like,“This is a surprising shortcut, and somwehat cheapens the overall appearance of an otherwise nicely executed locomotive.”
I’m sure it is a very tight rope that they have to walk. Still, I think they should have at least taken Bachmann to task in a gentle manner concerning the couplers. To me, couplers are a huge thing. Personally, I would have liked to have seen the reviewer rip them a new …uhm…you know … I’m not saying it would be the wise thing to do, but it sure would feel good!
As Eddie indicated above, MR will generally point out minor flaws in a subtle manner…but definitely will indicate they are there and that they, to at least some extent, troubled the reviewer. Overall, I find MR’sr reviews honest and any criticisms reasonably obvious to the careful reader.
MR will not trash a product in print. I heard long ago from an MR staffer that any really bad items submitted to the magazine simply don’t get reviewed, to avoid obvious problems. So, I guess if you don’t see a major item ever reviewed, watch out for it!
CNJ831
I’d like to see the manufacturers and MR get together for “previews” rather than “reviews.” The manufacturers would send a prototype, which MR could then do a report on, seriously looking for improvements which could be made. Then, the prototype and the report would go back to the drawing board, and the manufacturer would have a chance to correct things before going into full-scale production. Meanwhile, MR could publi***he article, and the manufacturer would get some pre-release excitement. A follow-up report could come out after the engines are in the stores.
Well, gee. Speaking as a former record review magazine critic, it seems to me the goal should be to say enough informed things about something so that the readers can make up their own minds.
Who really cares what a reviewer or critic’s opinion is? If you disagree with it then the opinion is worthless. If you agree with it then you really didn’t need it, did you?
Well in this case they pointed out the use of Rapido couplers. For those that use that coupler, and I still assume plenty do, that is a positive. For you it is a negative. Do you really need Model Railroader to tell you how you feel about Rapido couplers? I didn’t think so.
They pointed out how many (i.e., few) cars the engine can pull. What more can be said? “That’s not many cars.” Well thanks for that news but I knew that.
They also pointed out that like most articulateds this one is not prototypical in that both sets of drivers swivel rather than the rear set being rigid with the boiler. Not long ago an HO reviewer regarded that as a negative. By being built this way the engine can take a 9" radius curve. So is that a negative or a positive? What is most important to you? Do you need Model Railroader to tell you which is more important to you? To each his own.
“Back in the day” (and I mean late 1950s and early 1960s) Model Railroader reviews used to include very strong opinions on whether the price was high or low. Even then it was obvious that the revewers were having a hard time getting accustomed to prices that reflected higher quality or innovation. Reading those old reviews it is now hilarious to see what they regarded as too expensive! Price can also be in the eye of the beholder. If it is something you just have to have, such as the Trix NYC HO caboose, then the price is reasonable. If you feel a need to rebuild the thing to correct Trix’s mistakes, as in the case of their NYC and UP cabooses, then maybe the price is an outrage. But if someone tells me it costs $40 and needs t
What I have noticed is that MR reviews usually avoid value statements except at the end where they may have a throwaway line - nice model for the money or something similar. But as others have noted they do include information about it so you can make a judgement - things like pulling force, measurement differences from the prototype, colors, shortcomings in the instructions, etc. Remember they don’t have a test lab like Consumer Reports and they are not doing comparative reviews. I think of the review as more of an in depth look at the product than the manufacturer’s ads give - not as a buy or don’t buy recommendation.
Enjoy
Paul
The first time you posted this question I ended up deleting the entire thread because it digressed into accusations that Jim Hediger is “in the pocket” of our advertisers, and thus doesn’t do negative reviews. That’s simply ridiculous. I know, I have the experience here at Kalmbach Publishing Co., both in advertising and now in my roll on Trains.com. For those that will be inclined to not believe me, here’s my background:
I’ve worked here at Kalmbach Publishing Co. for over 11 years. For the first six-and-a-half years, I was in our advertising department, including serving as advertising sales manager for Model Railroader for a few years before coming to Trains.com. So basically, I can speak authoritatively on this topic. Believe me, Jim Hediger (nor any other member of the MR staff) never contacted me to see who was advertising, nor did they ever give me insight as to whose products would be reviewed in a particular issue. There’s a distinct separation of advertising and editorial at our entire company. If you ever get an opportunity to meet and spend some time with Jim Hediger, you’ll know that he’s a man of great integrity.
As for negative reviews, they do happen from time to time and I recall times when my advertisers would be mad for things that were said in product reviews. However, as mentioned before, if a product is simply too flawed, it simply won’t be reviewed.
I hope that answers your questions and explains what happened to your original post. (While rare, topics are typically removed because of blatantly erroneous information provided by a member or when members start arguing amongst each other.)
Now, let’s move on. [Locked]
Erik