Weighted tyres

Boy, there's a name some of us "model assemblers" haven't heard in a long while.

John Hairell ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com)

Mark's a practicing attorney... ;-p

That said, he's one helluva modeler and he's given much to the hobby. I for one can forgive him his eccentricity and tendency towards hype. His heart's in the right place.

Nah, he used 'could' not 'should'. Big difference in tone.

Mark is the last one to look down his nose at 'mere kit assemblers'. He'd never use terminology like that anyway.

What I don't get is why the term 'plastic' is still part of the IPMS name. With nodding exceptions to Luft '46, fantasy and Sci Fi subjects where scale and a provenance for accuracy might be problematic, the primary emphasis seems to be on precision scale models rather than models of a particular material. I've welcomed the multimedia approach in that context, since it allows for better approaches to accuracy by the use of materials best adapted to supplying the strength, dimensions and textures needed in a particular instance.

That said, all the aftermarket and highly detailed new kits are still being judged (officially) on the basis of errors in construction and finish. Realistically, a certain number of judges do in fact include elements of accuracy in their determinations, even if they are not supposed to do so. This to me is the best reason not to take the IPMS contest process too seriously, given the subjective nature of the judging process, even within the bounds of pointing out specific flaws in construction or finish.

I see the advantage of the format mainly as a spur to my trying to master technique, knowing that my work will be judged (even if imperfectly) and thus compelling me to do a better job or to stretch my skills. The deadlines posed by approaching contests also move kits across the bench a little faster, which is a good thing so long as I continue to acquire kits I want to build that are stacking up behind the kits I am already building. Since I seem to get a lot of satisfaction out of the hobby under these conditions, I don't see a need to avoid the competitions. However, there a lot of folks who would rather see accuracy and level of detailing included as criteria because that's what they think they do best and they want to get recognition for that. At some point, the whole contest process will probably change to reflect that, even if it means that there will be a degree of fragmentation within the hobby.

With regard to what we modelers 'should' or 'should not' be doing, the proselytes among us are mainly shouting into the wind. Modelers are far too obstinate and opinionated to do what they're told (unless underneath it all, that's what they really want to do). As you, I don't care very much about the larger public's perception of the hobby. Fergawdssakes, it's a hobby--it's what I do instead of watching hours of TV, or going to a bar and getting drunk, or practicing on the bagpipes all evening. As for expanding our 'membership,' kind words and acceptance to the newbies among us probably goes further to propagate the hobby than all the pronouncements on high ever can.

Mark Schynert

While I prefer the AMPS judging syetem because it is more objective I don't have a problem with IPMS's system based on quality of construction alone. The 1-2-3 or out sometimes bothers me because there are so many models on the table that deserve something and the judging then gets very subjective (the current weathering/painting fad tends to win over slightly better/more realistic looking models) This not sour grapes, I have yet to enter models and not place. I also don't build for contests (the rare exception being something like AMPS 2003 Korea special theme because I could build tanks with wild paint jobs, Kurt saw them). When it's contest time I just select from the shelves models I either want to display in public or fit a special subject theme. I don't care if I win and assuredly not everything I could win, I have my share of dogs or kits I simply slammed together as a break from AMS.

Mark,

Plastic in its generic meaning of a material capable of being shaped or formed still applies.

Also, the issue of judging the comparative quality of a three dimensional work of art by definition is subjective and fallible no matter what criteria is used (think "BCS" -sorry World, a reference to American collegiate football); otherwise it would simply be called "measuring."

Kaliste Saloom (IPMS #30703) Lafayette, LA, USA.

Evaluating accuracy requires judges that are highly knowledgable in the subject matter and/or extensive documentation. It's difficult enough already to get qualified judges and reviewing documentation for each model would take a lot of additional judging time.

As for level of detailing, that's recognized by having distinct OOB awards in IPMS/USA national and regional contests.

Yeah, I did - I was concentrating on the post at hand. Mark tends to get carried away sometimes...

"Al Superczynski" wrote

Don't we all.

KL

"Al Superczynski" wrote

That's the main reason I haven't bothered with IPMS contests in years. To win, it _seems_, the model must either be OOB or have every panel and door opened to show the guts inside. I prefer exterior detailing/correction (which can be quite extensive) but there just doesn't appear to be a place (in IPMS) for that anymore.

KL

It may seem that way but it's not the case as evidenced by the photos of the class winners in the last IPMS/USA Journal's convention issue. Maybe that was true when you quit going to IPMS/USA contests but it's not true anymore if it ever was.

I didn't state (or intend to state) that every armor/aircraft builder is a "detail nut."

However it is undeniable that aircraft and armor guys are not interested in "custom" creations to the extent that the car guys are. And with that bent toward customs we tend to see an "anything goes" approach, where it doesn't matter if the real car ever existed (nor does it seem to matter if the custom job is even feasible on a 1:1 car).

Also, my statements against the presence of automobile seatbelts were to show why they are not INCLUDED in most kits. I further stated that the variety in marque-specific (Ford, Chev, etc.) designs might be what has precluded the aftermarket photo-etchers from supplying these items for the detail guys. But seatbelts can be convincingly replicated by those willing to do the work.

At this point, though, the modeler would have to ask himself how many other "obvious but missing" components he should begin scratch-building (such as door handles that actually have an opening for a hand!). And I tend to think that armor/aircraft kits tend toward better realism (partly because they cater to a more experienced crowd) while car model companies (and many car builders) have a "close enough" viewpoint. (This doesn't include high-priced, adult-oriented kits like the Lamborghini that someone mentioned, OBVIOUSLY.)

HD

Al, you're getting deeply into understatement there. Back when "Car Modeler" began he wrote columns that were so far out there I still can't find the relevance.

Bill Banaszak, MFE

That's pretty much how I build too, and I haven't felt particularly disadvantaged in contests. In Region 9, anyway, the aircraft with exposed engines rarely win anything, because the extra work simply creates more opportunities for misalignment, seam exposure and so on. There's a similar problem with aircraft heavy with exterior stores. I can't comment on contests in other regions because i don't get there. This is the distinction between competition and artistry that rankles some, since even a moderately well-done exposed-engine aircraft can be really fun to look at, even if not competitive under existing criteria, and it does require a lot more work.

Mark Schynert

Agreed, and that's the fact that few people think about when they lodge this desire. There are certainly some people qualified to judge details for certain types of aircraft or automobiles, but if you get away from the products of the major aircraft-producing companies since 1939, that talent becomes almost non-existant for aircraft. Can't say about cars. Still, AMPS manages to incorporate accuracy into its judging process, and armor is hardly a less complex subject historically. I don't see any advantage to judging accuracy with regard to aircraft models, but those who do have an argument that isn't going to go away.

The OOB thing really rankles me, because it actually penalizes the detailer, by making the OOB models also main-category eligible. I see no advantage to it unless OOB awards are only made to models which otherwise would not place. Of course, my problem is strictly personal, in that I seem constitutionally unable to add a few exterior bits to almost anything I build, even if it's just aerial wires. 'Almost OOB' awards? :-)

Mark Schynert

Maybe they should apply a degree of difficulty factor to rate the attempt made. Opening up an engine cowl and pouring in the detail work would count for something even if the job was a little less than polished - in comparison (for argument's sake) to the easier job of building the identical kit with a stock closed cowl with no imperfections in workamnship.

That would seem to be a fair enough approach. It would tend to encourage anyone interested in winning to eek out a few more points by putting more into their kit and how it's presented.

WmB

To reply, get the HECK out of there snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net

"Hamilton Davidson" wrote

I know. I just added that for emphasis.

Yup.

KL

"Al Superczynski" wrote

I didn't mean to pick on the guy either (but some people felt the need to "defend" a little more than the initial offense warranted . . ). However, saying he's "better than Merriman" doesn't really count for much.

KL