Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/28/2018 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    My model is the Italeri 1/72 scale Fiat CR-32 Chirri." It represents an aircraft assigned to XXIII Grupo Caccia, Aviazione Legionaria. The unit was led by Lieutenant Colonel Andrea Zotti and based at Puig Moreno, Spain, June-July 1938. The unit formed part of the Italian contingent fighting for the Nationalist cause during the Spanish Civil War. I used the Osprey Fiat CR-32 Aces of the Spanish Civil War (Aircraft of the Aces 94) for inspiration; profile 28. I wanted to model Zotti's aircraft; he flew "3-4", but I only had the decals for "3-6". The model was built out-of-the-box except for the rigging. Took me 3-months to figure out I can't paint Italian camouflage with an airbrush freehand and another 3-months and a lot of Tamiya tape to manage that effort. I enjoyed the build; never worked harder to complete a model...
  2. 3 points
    Model built for a Local Boy Scout Troop to Honor a local pilots service. P-38J from 394th FS of the 367 FG. Pilot perished in the channel on July 20 1944. Pilot was 1st Lt William L Mushrush from Steubenville OH Minecraft 1/48th P-38J with True Details interior, Eduard tires and Karaya gun barrels.The Aftermarket stuff way surpassed the Minicraft kit. Uschi Lines for antenna into a filament spring( Which you really can't see🙃) Alclad Polished Aluminum over Gloss Black Thanks for Looking Regards Bill D.
  3. 3 points
    Gary and Jim are both mostly correct. But if it was personal risk only, it is a relatively simple ethical calculus. But when you consider the chance of also infecting others, (at the Convention or subsequently at home) you are in a sense asking them to take on the possible health consequences of a decision they were not involved in making. Each of us, when we risk exposure, are not just choosing for ourselves, but for everyone with whom we come in contact. And, to the observation: ‘But that means we need to avoid ANY non-essential contact and practice social distancing until there is a vaccine’ I would reply: ‘ Well, Yeah!’ This resilient organization has weathered at least one financial disaster ( when Treasurer absconded with the treasury many years ago). I have no doubt we will survive this, as well, if we want IPMS to go on. I know I do. Nick
  4. 3 points
    Hi, A few points and I will be quick. My comments are as a Modeler, IPMS Member, and a Vendor. Postpone the convention until 2023. Getting the already bought items like shirts, awards, etc for this years convention in 2023 would be a unique way to remember this time. So, all of it can be used and we all will have a great story to tell. Who here wants to take responsibility for someone healthy coming to the convention, getting the bug and either having the virus themselves or worse spreading it when they get home. Sure, some of you want to play fast and loose with it but until there is a therapy and/or a vaccine, it is a medical risk for everyone. In reality, while we all love to come to the NATS for the various reasons, it is not required to attend...it is for enjoyment. Yes there are many risky enjoyments that Many of us participate in. None of us will go flying without a preflight and none of us would go skydiving without checking the gear. If someone, with expertise told you there may be a hidden problem somewhere with the Plane or the chute rig, would you chance it?? No, no sane individual would. My wife and I are not in any of the risk categories for COVID-19, but our Doctors, including our Daughter who is a US Navy Doctor, say unnecessary exposure to others is to be avoided....period. To do otherwise is to take unnecessary risk.......and its is with your life people! Gary,GT Resin
  5. 3 points
    Another idea: Instead of trying to change three convention dates and contracts, just change one. Leave Vegas and Omaha as they are. If 2020 gets cancelled, move it to 2023. If the hotel is forced to cancel 2020, that gets us off the hook in San Marcos. That “ get out of contract free” card is only applicable this year, so can’t be played in 2021 and 2022. We keep those dates and contracts, and are free to sign a new one in 2023.
  6. 3 points
    This is the Platz 1:72 kit with Eduard photoetched interior panels, modified control columns, and True Details seats. I added wiring the seats, scratch-built the canopy piston housing and the canvas cover over the rear panel from CA-impregnated tissue paper, and cut the kit canopy. The wheel wells were detailed and the airbrakes were re-built and their bays were detailed. Anti-torque scissors were stolen from an F-80 photo etched sheet. The decals were sourced from 14 different sheets from Iliad, SuperScale, Fox One, AeroMaster, an Italeri B-66, and even a MicroScale railroad sheet. Weathering was limited to a wash and some scuffing on the non-skid panels. I finished it just in time for a club contest - but, since only four or five people finished their T-33s, the contest was moved to March!
  7. 3 points
    Let me re-make a point here. Where is it written that a person MUST care if they win or lose at the contest? I know several people who attend, put the model on the table, and enjoy the rest of the convention without another thought about the contest. They enjoy looking at a roomful of models without it impacting their self-worth. Winning an award is gravy.
  8. 3 points
    I finally finished this baby last night. My first competed build for 2019. It's the Tamiya kit built in Operation Iraqi Freedom (thanks for correcting me, Rob) scheme. I used mylar for the optics and a resin set from Red Zebra for stowage. I also printed out cardboard boxes for MREs from Freddie's set and assembled them for a neat look that breaks up the stowage on the tank. I added a boom mic to the tank commander with copper wire. I used the hairspray technique on this one and tried to bring out the NATO woodland scheme underneath like the original. It didn't work out too well in that the top coat was very tenacious and didn't want to come off easily. Final weathering with Wilder oils and Flory pigments. I also made use of an item called "ceramic wire" for the aerials. I'm pretty satisfied with this build. The kit is highly recommended.
  9. 3 points
    I've finally completed a kit! For me it's nothing short of amazing! 😊 This is the Trumpy Type 63 107mm rocket launcher. I've got the Revell-Germany MAN 5T Mil GL truck about to move to the paint booth right now.
  10. 3 points
    A simple graphic illustration of why Telford works for The UK but not here.
  11. 2 points
    Listen guys, this organization may be imaginary, but they've got standards! 🤣 Gotta love Star Trek, and the Reliant is one of my favorite ships. I really hope you changed that prefix code!
  12. 2 points
    From Faller, N-scale (1/160);
  13. 2 points
    Another step on my journey down the road of the old Aurora WW I kits. This is their DH-4. It comes with the four bladed prop instead of two and with the dual rear Lewis guns. That gun mount was disliked by the gunners as being bulky, hard to bring to bear and used up a LOT of ammunition. I added my usual basic interior, but the rest is OOTB.
  14. 2 points
    This week’s update on the PZL-23B covers the fuselage and wing details. I assembled the wings and then added the photo etch details like the entry steps and hand holds, wing joint covers, and aiming scales to the nose. The engine was then mounted. I needed to paint the base coat on the fuselage prior to mounting the exhaust as it runs along the fuselage. The underside was painted using light blue and the top was painted olive drab. The two color reference photos depicted a panel pattern on the wings. I duplicated this by adding a little green drab to the paint and painted the alternating panels on the wing tops. The main landing gear shrouds house landing lights. The kit provided the clear covers for them but no details behind them. It was just an open hole. I used a clear sprue from my scrap bin that was fit into the hole. I trimmed it flush then drilled into it with a drill bit to make the reflector. Then a smaller drill bit to make the bulb area and finally a tiny one to simulate the filament of the bulb. Stay tuned as next week as I apply the decals and final paint to finish this unique Polish aircraft. You can see all the details and photos from the start in my build log at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-pzl-23b-karas/
  15. 2 points
    Finally the last of my Christmas presents came in. This is several sets of 1/72 scale resin tracks for a few different tanks. I got these to replace the tracks on several of my older models that lost them for whatever reason. I also got the AMX-30 tracks to replace the horrible ones on my French AMX-30 from Heller: That's it until my birthday....
  16. 2 points
    I agree. Back in 2003 when I chaired the Nats in OKC, everyone I talked to said a slide show at the awards ceremony just couldn't work with programs available at the time. Guess what. We figured it out and the slide show came off without a hitch, WITH the program everyone had failed with before OKC Metro. Never be afraid to try something new and different.
  17. 2 points
    I heard "if it ain't broke don't fix it" from my Dad starting about age 12. He was a mechanic and that was his frame of mind: cars either worked or were broke, and if they were broke you put them back the way the manufacturer built them. He sent me off to engineering school, where we learned that the people who designed things were constantly innovating and making tradeoffs trying to make things work better, because their competitors were doing the same thing. It's not obvious to me that everyone who didn't win would leave on Saturday morning. Many attendees would have already made travel plans, bought banquet tickets, raffle tickets, tour tickets, have non-refundable hotel reservations, be waiting for the vendor clearance-sale, or want to take one more circuit through the contest room. A modeler with vendor-money left in their wallet isn't about to leave. As long as there is stuff to do on Saturday afternoon there is no real reason to pack up early. There would be a tendency for non-winners to start packing up around 3-4:00 PM Saturday afternoon to beat the rush, but you could minimize that by having some "big event" about that time: a big name seminar or a pre-awards happy hour that was already included in the price of registration, so that people would want to stay for what they had already paid for. I'll be the first to admit trying this would be an experiment; we wouldn't know if it would work or not. That is the nature of innovation: you study it as well as you can and make contingency plans, but in the end you don't know if it works until you flip the switch and see what happens.
  18. 2 points
    Work continues on the PZL-23B. This week the cockpit and interior are together. The kit comes with a few resin parts like parachutes and radio equipment. Putting the walls and cockpit tub into the fuselage was a little tedious keeping the sections aligned but everything fit well. I added some 32 awg wire for cables and wires to the equipment. One thing to note is the rear gun. I had built up the rear gunner seat with the gun but once it was installed in the fuselage it was difficult working on the kit because of how delicate the assembly was. I would recommend leaving the actual gun off until near the end. With the interior completed I am now working on the lower gondola and the landing gear. You can see all the photos and details from the start in my build log at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-pzl-23b-karas/
  19. 2 points
    Here is another 2020 completed build. This build started life as a Jimmy Flintstone resin body and interior and morphed into what you see here by utilizing a lot of scratchbuilding and kitbashing. I used more different materials on this from brass, resin, styrene sheet, old necklaces for chain, Bic pens for exhaust stacks and a little bit of 3D printed parts.
  20. 2 points
    The Hasegawa 1/48 AH-64D Apache longbow is now complete! As typical with most Hasegawa kits this one went together very well. The kit decals that I used worked very well and the IPMS 2010 convention decals worked out perfectly. The detail of the kit is very good by itself. The photo etch set add the super detailing and the Master Model chain gun is great. If you are looking for a nice kit of the AH-64D, this is the kit I would recommend. Thanks for following along. See you next week for the next build. You can see the entire build from start to finish in my build log at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-apache-longbow/
  21. 2 points
    The ancient Monogram HU-16E Albatross, built OOB. Markings are USCG early 1960s, from the Print Scale sheet. The mold dates from 1957, kit was real pain to build. I glued the “moveable” gear in the down position to make it sturdy, and added some lead shot to keep the nose down. Paint is Tamiya white and some of my hoarded MM “Coast Guard Red-Orange” from their discontinued Marine colors line. All the orange bands and black stripes were painted- lots of masking there! I was impressed with how well the Print Scale decals went down over the big rivets... DUKW is the Italeri kit, in USCG colors from the same period....also OOB. Photo courtesy of Pip Moss.....
  22. 2 points
    Folks, a couple of comments have been deleted from this thread because their content was more socio-political and less modeling in nature. The comments would have been better suited for "The Bullpen". Follow the forum rules, and model-on.
  23. 2 points
    I just got my first box of True North paint in. Haven't used it yet and know nothing about it beyond their website and a couple of telephone conversations with the company president. I'll let you know what I think about it as I start using it. About all I can tell you right now is that I'll be using it in my next Modelbuilding Guide ebook, I opened a couple of bottles and I like what I see, definitely thick enough to hand brush nicely, still thin enough to airbrush without being prethinned AND it isn't an acrylic. Oh, yeah, one more thing. The FS numbers are on the back of the label in font that's large enough to actually read. Odd place, you say? Well, it beats having it squeezed down to the point you need an Optivisor in order to read it on the front of the label.
  24. 2 points
    Dang Nick....learn the difference between a VALID question and a complaint.....All of us know how well our volunteers do. Gil
  25. 2 points
    I thought long before writing what I am about to write, but finally decided that I would do so even if I take flak for it, or risk crossing a line. I do not understand why this question was started here on the IPMS/USA website, or what it has to do with GENERAL MODELLING, All About Building Models. How does asking this question relate to building models? We are not supposed to bring politics into discussions on this site, but that is where this thread appears to be headed where people state their personal biases on what they do, or do not build and then make comparisons to current politics as justification. I do not believe that anyone has deliberately tried to be insulting, but I have read comments that I believe are biased and if I were thinned skinned could cause insult, and for that, and the above reason, I do not think that these types of discussions belong here on a modelling site such as this one. I feel that this discussion should be shut down before it goes any further, if for no other reason that it has nothing to do with modelling. Thanks for reading, John
  26. 2 points
    1/48 Accurate Miniatures Wright Patterson AFB P-51 NA prototype 1/48 Ta 1831/48 prewar Tamiya Zeke
  27. 2 points
    I've had this one done for a while and just got around to rigging it. Usual out of the box with a minimum interior added. The decals were way gone and I didn't want to spend stupid money for new ones, so these are spurious markings I cobbled together and a paint scheme that is an amalgam of several I have seen. The rockets were used to shoot at zeppelins and observation balloons, but most sources cannot site where one was actually shot down with them.
  28. 2 points
    Since when did abdominal laparotomy sponges become a household item? 😳 Does the Health Department know about this? 😀 Nick Filippone
  29. 2 points
    As a diorama judge for many years, my first question when I look at a diorama is "What story is it trying to tell me?" Those that make it very obvious, very quickly will have a greater chance of making it to the Final Three for that category. Another criteria is the consistency between items on the diorama. For example, if showing a desert scene, and 5 vehicles have matte finishes, but the 6th is glossy, I go read the entry sheet to see if the builder discusses why he/she did it this way. If there's no explanation, that inconsistency will make further progress more difficult during the rest of the judging session. The use of space is considered, but not as heavily as these two criteria. I hope these comments help you!
  30. 2 points
    OK, its not a real TNH, but the Tamiya 1/48 Panzer 38(T). The tank was developed in Czechoslovakia just before the war started. As a matter of fact, it wasn't even in service yet when the conflict began, so this example is rather spurious in its markings. The Germans thought so much of the vehicle they modified them slightly and equipped whole armored divisions with them (Rommels 7th in France for one) right up to the Russian campaign. The 37mm gun was as good or better as that mounted on any German tank at the time (with the possible exception or the Mk IV, but that 75mm was a short barreled infantry support weapon and besides that there were very few of them, even in France.) the armor was comparable and it was very dependable. The camo is typical per-war Czech camo. The little flag on the turret is from my imagination. I can't find many photos of pre-war Czech armor in Czech service, but it seems logical they would have some sort of national markings on their vehicles. I did this one strictly OOTB. These 1/48 Tamiya kits are just a delight to build. Fit is excellent and detail is very good. Tjhe length and link tracks are nicely done, but can be fiddly to get right and you can see a couple of my problem areas if you look closely. If you're not an armor builder but wonder what all the fuss is about with armor models, give one of these 1/48 kits a try OOTB. I bet you'll have fun with it.
  31. 2 points
    Personally, my preference for GSB isn't based on a lack of confidence in my abilities or any other personal failing (of which I have many!). While I do occasionally have that self-hating artist streak, I will gladly enter into both 123 and GSB local and regional contests. And, not to brag too much, I do have a decent collection of hardware from both, so I would say that I can at least hold my own in my area of expertise. For me, the crux of the matter is that I believe GSB promotes and encourages a much healthier attitude towards competition and towards the hobby in general than 123.
  32. 2 points
  33. 2 points
    The first thing we need to do for our own PR is talk up modeling when ever you can. Modeling is a solitary hobby mostly done by yourself in your hobby room so a Society like IPMS/USA is a great way to make new friends and meet people with like interests. My own experience came over 33 years ago when I joined my local club and was the only automotive modeler in the group. Took some time to get in with the group but I helped myself by inviting other automotive modelers I met along the way - 6 to 8. Some stayed and some left rather quickly and life took it toll also. PR is up to all of us and we have a harder time now than ever before due to the need for instant gratification that seems to be the norm today. Having recently moved to Hawaii, I was invited to an neighbor's BBQ to meet families in our neighborhood. During a conversation on history I asked the neighbor if he built models and found out the he and his oldest son had just begun doing just that. So I offered to be a resource for questions. That is how PR should be done - get out and ask. Have a nice day and build a model. David Von Almen, Gentleman Modeler (now in the islands)
  34. 2 points
    Noel, IPMS/USA is what I consider a supply-and-demand organization where the contest is concerned. There are a lot of A/C categories because they are the most popular plain and simple. As an ex-head ship judge for the society, Nationals chairman, and ex-NCC member, I can tell you our categories are based on what shows up on a consistent basis. The head judges for each category have yearly records for numbers entered as well as the type of models. When I was a head judge, if there was a consistent and potential growing number of say, Martian aircraft carriers over a three year period, I would put in a request to the Chief Judge that a category or split be added to next year's contest to accommodate the increase in those models. If the request was granted by vote of the NCC, the category was added on a three year trial basis. This was done to insure that it wasn't a one time occurrence, and could be removed if numbers went down for three consecutive years. Under-attended categories also face removal by the same system. I realize this sounds like it would take some time to expand category numbers such as automotive, but that's the tried and true way IPMS/USA regulates its categories. Furthermore, the NCC must consider the cost to the host chapter when adding categories. Ideally, every category should have a sponsor which never happens; so the host chapter must foot the bill for un-sponsored categories from their profit margin. In short, "build it and they will come".
  35. 2 points
    Finished the Saturn Knight. Additional images can be found here: MK44 SaturnKnight And I got the family together for the weekend.
  36. 2 points
    Continuing forward I assembled the wings and detailed the main landing gear bays. I assembled the rear gun using the resin version and the photo etch gun sight and mounted the cannon gun sight above the dash. I then mount the wings. Found another issue when mounting them. The kit has spars to support the wings. I ended up cutting these off the kit assembly and attaching them to the fuselage. It was not difficult and the wings lined up very well to the fuselage. The engines came then. They were detail painted and then the copper intercooler for the intake was installed. The engines were then put into their cowls and mounted to the wings. The wings were then installed and the entire fuselage was painted with the base coat. Weathered and added the belly 37mm cannon and then the landing gear was painted and installed. Next up will be the camouflage painting. You can see all the photos and details from the start in my build log at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-ki-45-toryu-nick/
  37. 2 points
    Here are the final photos of my conversion of a Monogram F-105D kit into the prototype YF-105A, and here is the Build Thread And for a little comparison, the original Monogram F-105D alongside: If you check out the build thread, you will see that it was a long ride... Ed
  38. 2 points
    This week’s update on the F-22 is a small one. Between my oldest son’s graduation from college and life getting in the way I was not able to spend a lot of time on the bench. However I was able to complete the main weapons bay doors. The small doors had 14 parts and the larger doors had 50 parts each. The braces are 1mm X 1mm styrene stock and the hinge shaft is 28awg wire. Next I will be assembling the photo etch replacement missile bay doors and then priming all the doors for paint.
  39. 2 points
    It's now halfway through March and I'm finally able to post something finished. These are my two latest finished armor models . This first one is of the Military Wheels 1/72 scale Soviet SG-122. It's a 122mm cannon mounted on a PzIII chassis and hull and covered with a casemate. It was a stopgap project that only had a bout a hundred or so built before the SU-122 was accepted: The next one is the Trumpeter 1/72 scale Russian SA-6 Gainful. I made this as an East German machine that was repainted with the West German insignia after the German re-unification: My apologies for the poor pics. These look better in person. Well, that's all I have completed so far. Stay tuned, I have more to come.
  40. 2 points
    As one of the individuals involved, and as a proponent for Open Judging, I read the NCC's summary. While the mechanics of a possible Open Judging method were not fully developed at this time, I see several flaws in the NCC's assessment of how they believe Open Judging works. Here's my counterpoint to the NCC: There is no "Ideal" or "Standard" (other than the Contest Rules) that needs to be met in order for anyone to enter models. You can enter as many models as you wish as long as you pay the entry fee, the same as has always been done. Models are judged using the very same criteria set that is currently employed by IPMS. Rather than counting flaws and making cuts, each model is evaluated as to how well the modeler met the criteria. Nothing has been said about skill levels. Had these been mentioned, I would suggest that it would be initially left to the entrant to determine their own skill level. Once they've won Golds at their current level, they get promoted to the next level. But that's step 1,278. We're on Step 1. The judges would still be your peers within IPMS--It isn't as if IPMS will all of a sudden start using some "Intergalactic Model Judging Guild" to judge the show. Because the models aren't compared to each other, the judging can begin as soon as the first models reach the display room--they get placed on the display tables and are judged as they sit. Done properly, judges will be able to pick what shifts they want to judge, rather than having to cram it all into a few hours on Friday night. As soon as each model has the required number of judging sheets, it can be tabulated and the award determined. Class Awards, Best-of-Show, and Special Awards are judged as they always have been--all the Gold winners in a given class are compared and a "winner" determined. The work is spread out over several days. Start a Sign Me Up page or make other efforts to get volunteers to assist in tabulating the data, same as we do for other show volunteers. I'm sure there are folks who want to see how the sausage is made after the judging itself is done. IPMS/USA designs a standard, non-show specific Field Award (medals or challenge coins, ideally) to be used at ALL National Conventions. Order in bulk, the ones that don't get used this year are saved for the next year, or the following year, etc. Put that onus on IPMS/USA and the NCC. This will actually save money--ask me about the boxes of unneeded field awards left over from the 2016 Convention sitting in my garage. They cannot be re-used as contest awards--most of them will have had the plaques torn off and the wood used as model bases by the time they're all gone. In effect IPMS/USA tossed that money in the county landfill. Only the Class Awards, Best of Show, and Special Awards need to be designed and tailored to the current Convention's theme. That work will still fall on the host chapter. Not everyone wants a 'contest'. Many modelers want to be informed/educated, and many others certainly do just want to show off what they've done in a Display Only format. A model that doesn't win 1st, 2nd, or 3rd under the current system doesn't meet the IPMS Standard. While every model should have at least one comment, there is no requirement to comment on each model in the room. These comments are quick notes--"There's a seam on the right wing", not short versions of "War and Peace". Dragging out the "every model wins a trophy" argument is beneath you, Mark, and I wouldn't have expected to see it. Should the membership opt for Open Judging, it won't happen overnight. I estimated a five- to seven-year implementation plan when it was discussed, starting at the local level for a few years, then migrating to the Regional level. By the time it gets rolled out on a National level, most of the bugs will have been discovered and the wrinkles ironed out. Like anything new, it won't always go to plan--I doubt our current system was seamless and foolproof when it was first used, either. But the benefits of a properly designed and implemented Open Judging system--specifically the score sheet and feedback--outweigh the growing pains I know will happen. Ralph Nardone President, IPMS/Mid-Carolina Swamp Fox Modelers IPMS #33984 AMPS #2540
  41. 2 points
    Let me now provide the history of the preparation of this ballot It began after last year’s National Contest with the annual forum debate on open judging (GSB) vs. 123. I joined the discussion and innocently made what I believed to be a practical suggestion: attach a simple tear-off ballot to the National Convention Contest registration form, deposit it in a box at the time of registration and add them up. That was rejected by the IPMS leadership, but, to their credit, they asked a working group of those interested in the question to create a ballot that would be included in an issue of the Journal so members could vote. I was one of the group, as was Rusty White. Again, to the credit of the leadership of IPMS, we were to be allowed to prepare the entire ballot. Our goal was to prepare a dispassionate, objective description of each system. It would be brief, fair, balanced and unemotional. At the beginning of the preparation of this ballot, I offered to write the initial description of our current 123 judging system for this ballot. However, Rusty White, who, from the start, had arrogated to himself the position of working group leader, rejected this offer and unilaterally decided to have someone from IPMS administration prepare the portion of the ballot that would describe the 123 system for the voters. I can only assume that Rusty decided that I, who he perceived as having some deep-seated and unalterable pro-123 bias, would somehow scupper the attempt to create a fair ballot. No one else in the group was allowed any input in this decision.There was never any question about the group’s other members being able to be objective about GSB open judging. I, however, was apparently not to be trusted to be fair. The irony is that I worked as hard as anyone in the group to prepare an accurate and fair description of open judging. We argued back and forth to create what you now see as the “position paper” for open judging. I insisted, as did others, that it take the form you now see. We wanted to provide basic facts and let the members decide. The Forum can provide the platform for debate and comment. We did not want that discussion to take place on the ballot. Then, without any warning or preparation from Rusty, the entire ballot suddenly appears as you see it. The working group was not permitted to sign off on it in it’s entirety. We never would have! And that is because the “position paper” for 123 was everything the group wanted to avoid. It is not brief or fair or balanced or unemotional! It is electioneering ON THE BALLOT by the very people who will be counting the votes. If I sound like I am whining, it is because I am. I am trained as a scientist. I want facts obtained honestly and objectively. I also have great respect for fairness in any vote. This ballot, as presently constituted, is not fair and should be seen as an embarrassment to this organization! I worked hard on this project. So did the others. We deserved the opportunity to produce something we could take some satisfaction in, regardless of the outcome of the vote. That opportunity was taken away from us by the very person in the working group who assumed the leadership position for himself and got out- manouvered. Please don’t blame me. Thank you. Regards, Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge.,
  42. 2 points
    Interesting. In my opinion, the referendum implies an immediate change to our system. As such it will of course be rejected. Let me explain. I have been a judge at IPMS National Conventions for 20 years. I’ve also been the head judge at the Three Rivers IPMS contest for about that same length of time. Our show uses open judging. There is a common thread to the discussions on this and other forums regarding the GSB system. The topic is nothing less than radioactive. This is not intended to be an ad hominem attack on any individual or group of individuals, but again through years of experience I have some idea of how these things work. Mr. Dedig has a very good point. One could easily see his description of “Lobby Champion” in the definition of the 1-2-3 system. It is not so much a definition as an indictment. I will interject in the definition below. Definition: Currently, model entries are evaluated based only on the entries in that year’s contest - comparing them only to each other. Entries aren’t compared to any “ideal”, “perfect-model”, or “national-standards” criteria. Nor are entries judged, based on any perceived personal expertise of the entrant (“beginner/advanced/master modeler”). This is absolutely true, and the inherit weakness of 1-2-3 contests. Much of any judging team’s time is often spent finding the “best of the rest” to fill out the 3rdor even 2ndplace winners of a category. The first plane winner may be obvious, but the rest could have so many problems that the team simply adds up the flaws of one model vs. another to determine the remaining winners. This frequently results in models winning at a national level that would not win in the open (GSB) format. Is that what we’re striving for? I’ve heard the argument that this point doesn’t matter. The three best models on the table in that group on that night won. Well how about the larger categories with 20-30 models that typically attract very good builders? I know we tend to split larger categories, but occasionally that can’t be accomplished due to the finite number of splits available. So here some very good models will not place, where in the first example, some not very good models will. There are no “ideal”, “perfect-model”, or “national-standards” that I am aware of. But there are good and bad paint jobs, decal applications and basic construction. These can be dispassionately scored and the results evaluated. Perceived personal expertise of the entrant? We don’t do that now and would not in the open system either. Judges are your IPMS peers, who volunteer a portion of their convention time to support the contest. They follow the guidelines in our Modeler's Guide To IPMS Contests. On average, we get 204 judges each year to cover 2,350 model entries. They ‘score’ an average of 600 winning models. Want to require those 204 to spend three times longer at their tasks, to ‘score’ all 2,350 models? Currently, any judge can leave comments on any entrant’s model-entry sheet; want to require them to leave comments for all 2,350 models? Are you going to make the commitment to help accomplish that task? We do evaluate all 2,350 models now. Some take very little time due to obvious flaws. Depending on the open judging format, this may not be necessary in GSB either. A scoring sheet does codify the results and focus judges’ evaluations. It does take more time. But judges at Telford use one and I haven’t heard any complaints about that. I’m not sure why this would take three times longer. Also, comments would not be required. A recent Regional Convention that I attended (and judged) solicited comments from judges. Some were helpful; most were not. The scoring speaks for itself. If you score 3 out of 10 in decal application the judging team doesn’t have to comment that the model didn’t place due to poor decals. Recording results for just the 600 winners now requires 8 staff, transcribing scoring from just 200 sheets of paper, to provide entrant and model names for those winners. They work all Friday night and into Saturday until Banquet time. To do the same for 2,300 entries, are you ready to sacrifice your own convention time to help do that task? This could be an issue, but perhaps not. We have run two Regional Conventions using the GSB system in Pittsburgh. One serious advantage is that judging can take place at any time. Our shows were two day events and judging began on Friday evening and continued through Saturday. Teams came and went at intervals. For a National Convention this would be a challenge to coordinate. But it could be done with proper planning. At the other Regional I mentioned, the judging time commitment was no greater than the typical 1-2-3 event. In no way do I wish to denigrate the efforts of the National’s staff. You all do absolutely excellent work and deserve all the credit we could possible give. The virtually flawless execution of the awards ceremony is evidence of the work of this group of people. For cost efficiency and planning, the 1-2-3 system pre-defines the maximum number of awards to be purchased and presented: 200 categories X 3 awards in each = 600 awards. G-S-B method leaves open the count of potential awards to be purchased (from 0% to 100%), for approximately 2,350 entries each year. How many ‘extras’ of each award level should a host chapter plan to order, ‘just in case’? Just one per category (200 more)? Two or more per category? 2,350 awards – just in case? This is an issue. But does anyone seriously think that 0%, no winners at an IPMS National Convention, or 100%, where everyone goes home happy is realistic. This type of argument clouds the issue and exaggerates the risk. Many shows of late have opted for medals as awards. These are relatively inexpensive. Extras could be ordered and some may not be used. If there are not enough, have more made and sent to the winners after the event. This is not a perfect solution, but we could ask other societies such as AMPS or the figure modeling groups how they handle the logistics. Also, there are no categories in open judging. We group the models together along natural lines: aircraft, armor, etc., just for ease of viewing. Our convention attendees want a ‘contest’. How many ‘For Display Only’ entries do you ever see at any of our conventions? I don’t even understand this point. GSB events are no less a contest than the current system. “Critiquing entries to determine 1-2-3 vs G-S-B rankings is a distinction without a difference.” If this is true why is there resistance? “Want to be the one of the few entrants not even good enough to earn a Bronze award – ‘not up to national standards’?” Old line dating back to an unfortunate incident at a National Convention. Every model going home without at least a third place award feels precisely the same now. Our current processes are predictable and efficient. Our contest results and awards are a fair recognition of our entrants’ outstanding model-making accomplishments. The volunteer efforts of the judging corps are effective, without overwhelming our available judges. Our current system isn’t ‘broken’ and doesn’t need to be ‘fixed’ – unless what you ultimately want is for every contest entrant to always be a winner! This is true. Except for the last sentence. I’m not even going to address that because it lacks serious merit. To sum up (a little late for that), the arguments against GSB on this forum seem to be more of an attack on an alternative. “This can’t possibly be done because…” Well it is done by AMPS, MFCA and local and regional IPMS shows. It is out there and it is gaining support. The purpose is to reward excellence and encourage improvement in modelling skills. I realize that we will never shift overnight from one style to another. That would be a recipe for failure. But to dismiss the open system out of hand, or continually attack it without considering its merits is also wrong. I think the National referendum should be something like this. “Would you like to see IPMS/USA experiment with the open GSB system at a future National Convention?” There are some excellent modelers who are also excellent judges and event coordinators who would support this. And by support I mean would sponsor trophy packages, offer to judge and help organize the experiment. Members could be solicited from the end of the prior convention, for let’s say a six month period to indicate if they would participate in an open judging experiment and approximately how many models they would enter. These models would not require any more space since they would be entered anyway. The distinction would be that a certain number of tables would be segregated for the purpose. Since we would know approximately how many models would participate, would could evaluate the number of awards to order. If it fails, it fails. At least the question would be addressed and long standing argument, both for and against, settled. At this point we honestly don’t know whether the topic would be accepted by the membership or not. I do know that after judging at our show, even some diehard opponents to GSB have been won over. They have said that our system is actually easier than they ever expected. Isn’t it time that we fairly approached this topic on a national level? Barry Numerick
  43. 2 points
    I think what's interesting is that the 1-2-3 description actually is written as a NEGATIVE towards GSB! Here are some examples: 1) " Entries aren’t compared to any “ideal”, “perfect-model”, or “national-standards” criteria". Strictly speaking that's true, but they make it sound like having a standard to WIN an award (NOT enter the contest) is a bad thing. Every club that does GSB KNOWS that to be false! And there IS a Standard in GSB... Those same BASICS! 2) "Judges are your IPMS peers"... Seems to imply that GSB uses wizards or outsiders from the GSB galaxy to judge at those shows. Nope! Turns out it's ALSO your "IPMS peers"! 3) " Recording results for just the 600 winners now requires 8 staff, transcribing scoring from just 200 sheets of paper" (etc)...Implies that GSB judging would be IMPOSSIBLE at the Nats because of the logistics of how 1-2-3 is done. FAILS to point out that EVERY GSB system used or proposed does NOT use that 1-2-3 system of recording. IF GSB were ever to be used at a Nats, the system would be entirely different. 4) " How many ‘extras’ of each award level should a host chapter plan to order, ‘just in case’? Just one per category (200 more)? Two or more per category? 2,350 awards – just in case?" This next paragraph rightly points out the differences between the number of awards needed between the two systems. However, it WRONGLY implies that you could NEVER know how much you need! This is dealt with by EVERY GSB show in the nation EVERY year; so it IS something you can "learn". Would GSB be a "higher cost" system? YES! But then THAT is the crux of the debate: Should IPMSUSA look to reward MORE deserving builds than they do now? And with the profits that are being made, IPMS CAN afford to by some more awards! The debate, and the PURPOSE of this survey is to try to determine if the general membership thinks that's a good idea or not. 5) " Our convention attendees want a ‘contest’ "; THAT is a BLATANT assumption, and actually not true! There's enough of a question about that to lead to this survey being done! It also implies that GSB attendees aren't looking to "win" (as opposed to "contest" attendees). Baloney! GSB contestants want to win as MUCH as they can; they just prefer to do so while NOT "beating" anyone else, and (when they do win) not limit anyone else's ability to win. 6) " How many ‘For Display Only’ entries do you ever see at any of our conventions?" What has THAT to do with models in a CONTEST, be it GSB or 1-2-3? People who want to compete enter the show, be it GSB or 1-2-3. Those who prefer to display do that, no matter what format is being used there! 7) " Want to be the one of the few entrants not even good enough to earn a Bronze award – ‘not up to national standards’? MISLEADINGLY implies that a Standard that determines WINNERS (not the ability to enter the show) is somehow mean. Well, how does it feel in a 1-2-3 show to go home EMPTY HANDED and not knowing if you even made the cut? BOTH systems still have "losers"...but GSB will have FEWER "losers" than 1-2-3! 8- " Our contest results and awards are a fair recognition of our entrants’ outstanding model-making accomplishments" BLATANT BALONEY! In ANY 1-2-3 category with 10-25 entries at the Nats there are 7-22 that go home with NO idea of how they did!! There are HUNDREDS of outstandingly built models that go COMPLETELY unrecognized because the judges decide that there are 3 there THAT day that are "better". The "fair recognition" is ONLY truly fair for the top 3 winners! There's a LOT of advantages for 1-2-3 in IPMSUSA, and the system has some positives that make it preferable to many. There was NO need to write the above in such a negative way. Instead of touting the positives and advantages 1-2-3 offers IPMS members, it's written to PUT DOWN GSB. As the IPMS USA Chief Judge, I could understand if Mr. Persechetti wrote an enthusiastic support for 1-2-3. However, he chose to write it as a condemnation, and actually showed his ignorance of GSB in doing so. I'm greatly disappointed and disgusted with his lack of character and honesty in this matter! Gil
  44. 2 points
    Here's a couple shot of my Billiken MechaGodzilla 2 kit. This is a vinyl kit that includes white metal parts for the "fingers". Once again hand finished in acrylics and Tamiya Weathering System palettes. Thanks for looking!
  45. 2 points
    Staying with the sculpts of John Dennett, I picked up his new release in the form of Ebeneezer Scrooge. This is the Alastair Sim portrayal from the 1951 film. The kit comes in just 2 parts ~ the bust and the base. The first decision was whether to do the figure in B&W or color. Despite the box art being in color the movie was in B&W. I spoke with the sculptor, who sent 2 colorized pics at the same time I found my own. This is the one I went with - Starting to add color - Then once again, I got into a groove painting the facial features and forgot to take WIP pics. I used a splatter technique on the base and then applied the woodland Scenics snow with a few layers of PVA. Thanks for looking.
  46. 2 points
    The "moving venue" is, in my view, an excellent approach. As Kevin mentioned, attendance at the convention can be built in to the "family summer vacation". Wife and I have visited all fifty states/state capitols/multiple National Parks and Monuments, State Parks, beaches, mountains, prairie land, and historic sites of all kinds as we travel to and from a Nats. This is a definite advantage that the current system has over a permanent and fixed location, or even two or three fixed locations. I would suggest that having a fixed location would result in the need for the hiring of a professional staff to plan and execute many of the administrative functions at a convention. Some immediate effects would be 1. conventions become more expensive with higher costs being placed on the attendees, and 2. a huge burden being placed on the nearby IPMS Chapters who would, year after year, be called upon to provide staff to run the convention activities. 3. Fewer participants would attend from those areas farther away from the convention, an issue that we currently experience, but that would be multiplied year after year as those out-of-towners loose interest in returning to the same city, or 2 or 3 cities, year after year. 4. I don't believe any research has been done in this area, but a sedentary venue would most probably result in a concentration of attendees within a single day's driving distance from the event, and an unintended concentration of winning entries from that same radius of attendance. Over a number of years such an issue could have a very negative impact on IPMS. The current system allows for any chapter, in any part of the country to offer a bid for one of two convention dates, either two years out or three years out. In many cases, bid preparation results in a number of chapters working together, leading to cooperation in other areas among those chapters in issues not related to a bid. The current system creates opportunities for attendees in the nearby area to volunteer their time during the convention, serving in staff positions. The fact that the convention will rotate to another part of the country means that these volunteers will not be expected to serve every year in these roles, and that others who cannot travel long distances to conventions will have the opportunity to serve on staff. The current system does not favor those living in an area that is close to the convention site year after year, benefiting from lower transportation costs. That particular happenstance rotates through the IPMS population due, in fact, to not having a permanent location. Clearly, my personal preference is to continue the current system which allows for bids from any chapter, located anywhere, relying on the Host chapter(s) to plan and execute a successful and enjoyable convention. And, at the same time, providing attendees the opportunity to visit a part of the country they've not visited before, or visit that part again due to the variety of sites and activities which call for a 2nd visit. I'm very much looking forward to going to the Chattanooga Convention in July/August of 2019. Wife and I have not visited Nooga and we've already got a list of places to eat and things to do on our way there, while on site, and on the way home.
  47. 2 points
    Alcohol! Two parts single malt scotch to 1 part water chilled to 17 degrees Fahrenheit.
  48. 2 points
    Found a model of the Spook almost a year ago & finally finished it. The colors are not according to any scheme. If you do a google search, you'll even find him wrapped in a British flag & bowler. The blue is Tamiya Flat Blue; the cape & mask are Model Masters Gunship Gray; his hat band is Model Masters Light Gull Gray; and his hair is Tamiya rattle can primer. I mean, he's 57 years old. He has a right to gray hair. The glossy finish is Future or whatever they call it these days. Had to show that I could actually finish something even if it did only have 4 parts.😊
  49. 2 points
    Dak, you make a valid point. However, I would suggest that it isn't limited to the IPMS/USA. The current "I'm Offended" culture that has developed in this country has to be a major factor. Keep in mind that practically anything that exists has the potential to offend anyone, but it has gotten completely out of control. Consider the efforts to make the Washington Redskins football team change their name because 'Redskins" is offensive to one small tribe. Other people are offended by the use of certain words, while others by actual historical events. Look at the complaints that started with objections to the Confederate Battle Flag...actually the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia...and expanded to statues of Confederate heros and schools that were named for men who had virtually no connection to the Confederacy other than fighting for the South. Political views are now subject to similar bias. Liberal viewpoints are widely publicized, while those of a conservative bent are castigated or banned. I was unable to market an article to a magazine I wrote for because the model in question....a Peterbilt 377 with an American Bald Eagle w/crossed American & Confederate flags on the air dam....was refused because "it might offend someone". If I did that model today as an ebook, I would be forced to apologize for it, accused of being a racist and required to remove the ebook from the marketplace. And if you want to get an idea of just how hypersensitive people are getting...as well as ignorant...I very recently had a magazine article corrected by my editor because "I've never heard of it, so I'm sure no one else has ever heard of it!" What was it? Believe it or not, a Mexican Jumping Bean. Instead, the editor changed Mexican Jumping Bean to simply 'jumping bean", thereby identifying every bean on the planet as a jumping bean! And if you think all of the above is a recent development, it's just the extreme result. Tony Weddel, a deceased aviation artist and my friend, quit doing heavy combat aviation art back in the late '70s or early '80s because he could no longer sell the art or prints. Why? Because people didn't want to purchase art that depicted violence. Result? He wound up doing pretty paintings of aircraft against storm clouds or toned down combat...unless a client specifically requested heavy combat. That, by the way, leads to your comment about viewing scenes of violence in model dioramas. Incidentally, it's also the reason why I've never created a crucifixion diorama of my own....it would offend virtually everyone who saw it. I have no idea where this is going to end, but if you build models, dioramas, articles and/or books for a living, it's already having an impact on what you can produce without offending someone. And it doesn't matter if it's a group or a single person. Dak, in case you're wondering, I'm 76 and I have no more problem viewing real life scenes than you do. I knew a preacher who I offered a copy of my P-38 CD-ROM to, warning him that it had a lot of nose art images containing pinup or semi-nude figures. His response? It's history. It'll be interesting to see what kinds of responses I get to this little tirade. Richard
  50. 2 points
    What's an allowance?
×
×
  • Create New...