I am a regular Mk35 kits buyer and like to visit their website often. Besides that, I get their newsletter with new products and offers. I really think they made their own master and mould to make that kit, that likes terrific by the way, as more of their other buildings (including some other bunkers) they made before. I specially remember a farm with wall (b018) that I am longing to order and with a very nice wall texture that must require a lot of work mastering, so why won't they be able to master a little bunker of Normandy wall? Or the point is that as Mr. X made that model of bunker no one could produce that same model in the future? We got too much Pz. IV ausf. anything from lots of producers that just put the choice in the hand of the modeller. My 2... Regards all M. C.

Come on that's gotta be a joke. Every French guy buying some magazines since some time should know that "39/45 magazine" published an enormous quantity of German Bunkers plans in the late 80's (I still have them in my cellar) and that those plans should then be available to any half blind researcher. And then, it's honestly of a quite poor competence to scratch build such bunkers. Furthermore, any person owning a car or even some feet can freely walk the coast from Dunkerque to Nice and find quite a few of those items littering the French beaches. In the light of the much more original stuff MK 35 is now doing, I don't see them destroying their "image de marque" with something as lame as copying a bunker model from another company, that's just pure logic.

Here are some photos Jacques sent me showing his original master, the Hobbies kit and side by side with Mk35 piece showing similarities. Here is MK35 reply I hope both parties can sort this out. As for Armorama we just bring you the news.

Photos of prototype Tobruk Bunkers, scrole down http://www.strijdbewijs.nl/hinder/bunkereng.htm

Nice link thank you Highway.

Fellas and gals, The so-called "mock-up" of the questionable kit is a poor attempt at hashing together something to give themselves credibility. As the designer and mouldmaker for Kurton Products, and other building kit makers, I can tell you that the so-called master in the photographs was slapped together, and in no way could function as a mould master. Firstly, look closely at the construction. It is backwards. When making a master of a bunker your master will be just like the mould. inside out. you build a bunker using miniature boards to obtain the proper texture of a poured concrete bunker, which means pouring your plaster INTO a hollow, board lined master. When the plaster sets, you can then demould the "positive" master. This is then glued to a sheet of glass or plastic, "dams" of cardboard or wood are then built around the master and the rubber mouldmaking material poured in. After the rubber is cured, you remove the mould dams and peel the rubber from your master. The photographs published here only prove that MK35 have no idea how to make a master. Thus proving the allegation that they copied the Tobruk kit from the actual kit by reverse moulding. Although the exact reproduction of the battle damage from the original kit is proof enough of their plagerism. They did alter the tank turret though. FYI, there can be NO copyright on reproductions in miniature of historical items or items of nature. I paid a nice sum to an attorney to learn that, when I began designing kits. My cobblestone streets have been reverse moulded all over the place, and sold at model meets and shows. Too bad for me. Sniperbait66

Hi Alfred, I can see what you are saying, the mock up doesn't look very ocnvincing to me but then I know nothing about casting moulds although what you say makes sense. Is it possible both manufacturers were working from the same original picture or is the damage on the first bunker something that was unique to it and not referenced? If so that would be a very strange!! Al

Hello Al, I've been making mould masters for over 30 years. What MK35 portrayed in their photo reply is a complete fraud, that's the only way I can put it. It was hurriedly hashed together to Cover their hindquarters, and no casting can be made from a taped together bunch of cardboard and balsa. It isn't a functional master, it's backwards. Their reverse moulding the earlier product isn't really illegal, but it does show a certain lack of Credibility to continue denying what they did, as if they were President Bush, or another crooked politician. NO WAY that battle-damage is a designed in feature from photographs. The placement is too exact. The only difference is the turret hatch, and perhaps the entire turret. This makes what they did legal in the copyright sense. They only needed to change their COPY 10% to avoid copyright infringement. Why they didn't fill in the original damage and create their own, only THEY can answer, but that would require "wasting" more of their valuable time to reply, yeah, right. I don't trust "Snotty" people. Why in the world they printed their "CopyrightMK35 " on their joke photos is beyond understanding. It's like catching a child (or politician) with their hand in the cookie jar, they will insist on their innocense to their dying breath, even though they can't remove their hand from the jar because it's full of cookies they won't drop! It's kind of a Tempest in a teapot really, or "Much ado about nothing". Although MK35 has proved they have NO credibility as far as I'm concerned. Al

To MK35, I believe in Father Christmas. But not MK35. No excuses can cover the EXACT placement of the portrayed battle-damage being on BOTH the earlier kit and the MK35 copy. Next case please. sniperbait66