Boaz MyTurnASpace wrote: > My definition was more as "how much its assembly is different from typical > Bandai models".
Ok, let's rewind, and playback: Boaz: GC vs. EX Musai is a dilemma between "typical model" and "impressive display" Core: GC WB is totally typical... GC BZ is about as untypical as GC gets Boaz: how can you say GC BZ is untypical but not GC QM. Core: let's TRY to define typicality: blah blah blah Boaz: so you appearantly define typical as blah blah blah, mine is more as "how its assembly is different from orthodox Bandai models" Core: but GC WB is totally orthodox... So we are back to sqare one. Ok rhetorics aside, GC WB is totally typical. The parts division follows the same philosophy as the old 1/1200, 1/2400 WB and the EX Pegasus-like ships. Only, of course, there are many more parts since it's more than 27 times larger. Some of the coloring is achieved by plastic color, just like HGUC/MG models. Some of the coloring is achieved by pre-painting, somewhat like the system injection HG kits. GC QM is a little less typical, since a lot of coloring is done as pre-painting and there are a few more parts with side-cuts. But the parts division still follows closely a typical HGUC robot. So the assembly process is pretty similar. The GC BZ is very untypical, since more than half of the robot is pre-assembled. You do less than half the assembly work compared to a "typical" robot (even considering an armless & headless robot), especially if you compare GC BZ to the old BZ model. That is, assuming we understand how you define the word "typical". -- Dr. Core -------------------------------------------------- The Gundam Mailing List MK-II [email protected] Archives: http://www.gundam.com/gml Help: Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this in the BODY: help list
