Messages

1

General Discussions / Rubicon USA Customer Service

« on: September 25, 2021, 10:08:26 am »

Today, I wanted to comment on Rubicon’s customer service.

Last Sunday, I was putting together a Pak 40 and a Pak 38. No problems with the Pak 40, but when I got to the Pak 38 I found a key piece was missing.

I sent a message through the Rubicon USA enquiry page, regarding the missing part, but I wasn’t sure it went through, so I also sent an email to an address which got me to Tom (I had previously worked with him on another missing item).

Remember, this is Sunday afternoon.

Less then an hour later I received an email with the USPS tracking number for the package containing the replacement part! It arrived today!

That is the best customer service I have ever come across in my almost 40 years in the hobby!

And on top of that I was still contacted on Monday by Eric in regards to the enquiry I wasn’t sure had gone through. He asked a couple questions, which I answered, but I also told him that Tom had already sent the part. Again, superb customer service.

Thanks Rubcon USA!

(Also posted on the Facebook Rubicon Community page.)

2

General Discussions / Re: Valentine IX/X/XI Instructions Question

« on: May 10, 2021, 02:42:50 pm »

Thank you!

3

General Discussions / Valentine IX/X/XI Instructions Question

« on: May 10, 2021, 02:09:38 am »

I’m mildly confused. As I’m building a Valentine IX, I’ve come to Step 4, Gun and Mantlet Assembly.

Based on the diagram, it’s indicating that both the IX and X versions should have a coaxial machine gun.

In reading about the Soviet Valentines, I’ve found that they were not particularly happy with the IX’s lack of the coax gun, while the X and XI re-added it to the turret. Is the diagram incorrect, or am I reading incorrect information?

Here are URLs to the information I’m referencing:

https://thedailybounce.net/historical/valentine-ix-a-tank-destroyer-with-claws/
https://www.o5m6.de/redarmy/valentine_ix.php

And here’s a pic of the relevant diagram:

4

General Discussions / Re: The visual appeal of 1:56 (28mm) scale figures.

« on: February 07, 2021, 12:42:19 pm »

Here, here!

5

General Discussions / Re: The visual appeal of 1:56 (28mm) scale figures.

« on: November 27, 2020, 12:50:09 am »

Steve, of Age of Glory Historical Miniatures, the U.S. distributor of Empress Miniatures, was kind enough to send me a couple of sample figures to compare with my Rubicon figures.

They are very nice, clean figures, but as you can see from the photo (Empress on the left, Rubicon on the right), the Empress figs are a bit larger in proportions when compared to the Rubicon.

I’ll definitely be ordering more Rubicon, but I think I’ll probably be ordering some Empress eventually, but I’ll segregate them in different units so the differences are not so apparent.

6

General Discussions / Re: The visual appeal of 1:56 (28mm) scale figures.

« on: November 05, 2020, 09:10:39 am »

That looks to be a pretty good match size and weight wise, maybe a little larger on the Empress side, but probably acceptable.  And, those are some fabulous paint jobs. Thanks for the posting!

7

General Discussions / Re: The visual appeal of 1:56 (28mm) scale figures.

« on: October 29, 2020, 12:12:49 pm »

I’m interested in a size comparison too. This is an image of some of their German Volksgrenadiers. They look like really nice sculpts, but only if I can work them in with the Rubicon figs.

8

General Discussions / Re: The visual appeal of 1:56 (28mm) scale figures.

« on: October 26, 2020, 01:40:02 am »

I hear tell from a FB post (I’ve been unable to relocate it though) that Enpress WWII minis are a good fit with Rubicon’s. I’m skeptical because their website doersn’t specifically indicate that they’re 1/56 scale.

Does anyone have any experience with the Empress line?