Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/18/2019 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. 2 points
  4. 2 points
    My largest misgiving on this whole survey is that it put the cart before the horse. I stated such when work began, I said so when the questions were being written, and I'm saying it now. The first question that needed to be asked is "What does IPMS/USA envision the purpose of it's National Model Contest to be?" Does IPMS/USA want to simply pick the best models presented at that show on that day? (OR--Does IPMS/USA want to recognize well-built models and more or less ignore the rest?) If that's the goal, they already have it in the 1-2-3, comparative/triage judging currently in use. Does IPMS/USA want to aid modelers in their efforts to become better modelers? (OR--Does IPMS want to offer structured feedback and advice to the modeler in an effort to help them help themselves?) If this is where the aim is, look to the AMPS system. Does IPMS/USA want to recognize a modeler's body of work entered in a given show on a given day? (OR--Does IPMS/USA want to reward a modeler for their effort on that day?) If this is what they're looking for, check out the MMSI Chicago System. (As an aside, I note that several of the IPMS Open Judging systems in use on the local level--Jaxcon, Chattanooga, etc.--are a hybrid of all three.) Those questions needed to be asked before the survey questions were issued. They needed to be asked before the questions were written. Next, a rudimentary structure for said Open Judging system needed to be developed before the survey was released. Why? We now have four (maybe five by now) pages in this thread of "why". The way the survey is worded is akin to asking your kid if he wants baked chicken for dinner, or "something else". When the kid asks, "What's the something else?", the only answer you have for him is "I don't know, and I can't tell you until you choose it--it hasn't been defined." So, the kid either goes with chicken, something he knows and kinda likes, or--if he's adventurous--takes a stab at the pig in a poke, which could be pizza. It could be liver. Or, the kid could spend the next day speculating as to what "something else" is and go hungry. The smart kid goes with the chicken. What infuriates me is the President's Column in the July/August Journal, where Ron Bell stated that, and I quote, "We just thought it was time to get this issue settled once and for all and put it behind us, one way or another." (Emphasis is mine) What this tells me is that the E-Board has a closed mind and has no vision of growing and changing the Society with the times per the membership's wishes. This attitude, I believe, has caused people to leave IPMS/USA and go to AMPS and to other organizations (even forming other organizations--look to the South Carolina Modelers Association as an example), never to look back. I personally know at least a dozen former IPMS/USA members who left and won't come back. One (a former E-Board member, no less) once told me that he tried to change the system, but was met with, as he called it, "the IPMS/USA Good Old Boy's Stone Wall." When I asked why a stone wall, he stated that "it is cold, deaf, uncaring, and unyielding." Couple that to the IPMS/USA Chief Judge's attempts to color the current system as "The Best. Judging. System. Ever.!", and paint Open Judging as an effort to see that "everyone wins a trophy", and it indicates that the E-Board is using this survey merely as an attempt to look like they are listening to the membership without intending to change a thing. The motion will fail, then they will say "We've done that, it failed, end of story" the next time this same issue is brought up. In this thread alone, there's already an IPMS/USA Past President doing that very thing, looking back to a failed effort in 2004--as if nothing changes over time. I am a proponent for Open Judging, believing that a well developed, uniform system could yield good results over time. A well-defined, thought-out system CAN work--but it will require several things to happen. Most importantly, it requires a buy-in from the majority of the membership. If the membership doesn't believe in it, it won't matter what system is used--it will fail. It will take time and a lot of effort to change--it won't happen overnight, and will probably require a years-long phase in. Start at the local level, iron out the bugs, take it to the Regional level, work out the new bugs, then move it to the National level--where, undoubtedly, more issues will come to the fore and will need to be dealt with. Rome wasn't built in one day, nor will any sort of new-to-the-organization judging system. My vision for an Open Judging system extends to more than the Nationals--it needs to be a UNIVERSAL system, required to be used by ALL IPMS/USA Chapters at ALL IPMS/USA sanctioned contests, whether they be local, Regional, or National. Judges will need to have formal training and periodic re-training. Whatever system used needs to be applied consistently and reviewed periodically, updating it as needed. Without these things, all you will wind up with is an Open Judging version of what we have now. The current system is only required to be used at the Nationals--local contests can simply say they will hand out medals to every fifth pink model that comes through the door and call it an IPMS contest, if that's what the host Chapter wants to do. The word, and I've used it many, many times before, is Standardization. Have a standard, uniform, universal system that is required throughout IPMS/USA. "But, how can you require us to do anything?" Easy--it comes with the deal. You wanna be an IPMS/USA Chapter? You agree to the terms set out by IPMS/USA. Period. Don't like it? Don't play. But that probably won't happen. If we talk about the Chicago System, some see it as "limiting the number of models on the table"--when, actually, nothing is limited EXCEPT the fact that the entrant, if the scored model in their group scores enough points, takes home ONE award for their body of work. AMPS, likewise, encourages the entrant to self-asses their work and only enter one model per category. Why? Because they will only take home the award for their model that scores the highest in any given category, so even by entering eight M4 Shermans into Allied Armor, WWII will only yield ONE medal. "But I want the feedback!" Usually, as the models are judged, the same faults are found on all the models entered by that person. How many times do you need to read "Watch the floating tracks" before you realize that you need to do just that? The examples above also serve a purpose--it eases the burden on the judges. They don't have to judge 500+ (or 1000+, or 10,000+) models, the judging goes quickly, and the end result is the same. This is why "Display Only" has been a standard category for AMPS for as long as I've been a member. Submit your best work for evaluation, put the rest in Display Only. The goal of the show isn't about "winning" or "losing", it is about showing off your work. But I am not optimistic that any of what I just wrote will come to pass. IPMS/USA has slowly evolved their contests into bloodsport--the winner take all, "I'm the GOD OF STYRENE!" attitude has eroded any semblance of friendly competition. Even the survey says it--Advantage #2 of the 1-2-3 system is stated as "models vie head-to-head for awards, creating a healthy (really?--me) spirit of competitiveness amongst (sic) our members." And why do we feel the need to compete, anyway? I get it--'Murica and all that. But a very vocal minority has taken an enjoyable pastime and twisted it into yet another way they can climb to the top of the pile, beat their chests, and wail at the moon... I will now go back to my position of a few years ago--Exhibition only, no contest, no awards. Make it about the models, NOT the medals. After all, everyone says they enter shows to show off their work, right? So, by their own admission, the awards don't matter--and following that logic, that means the method used to determine the awards likewise doesn't matter, but some will NEVER enter a contest judged by a system they don't like. Funny, that... Club stands, SIG stands, vendors, food, and friendship. Hang out with a bunch of like-minded people and enjoy the show by looking at, talking about, and sharing techniques for scale models. Screw the contest, screw the judges, and screw the awards... Ralph
  5. 2 points
    This was a bust I found on one of the announcement pages on FB. It's by Grimm. I tried looking for his info for this write up, but after an hr., I could find it. If I do I will make an edit and add it. The kit is one piece sculpt, very well done, in a gray resin - no bubbles, or seam marks. The figured reminded me of one of the villains in a Scooby-Doo cartoon, so decided to make him a ghost. Started with the black primer, and then was working on his navy colored coat. Then added a dark gray drybrush to the face, then added color to the barnicles, seeweed, and sweater. Another lighter gray - I want to make the glow coming from his face and OCL lighting on parts of the beard and coat. A little highlight to the coat and cap. I thought I took a pic of the ghostly glow, but didn't. The bluish,green glow color was made by drybrushing Citadel's Nihilakh Oxide where I needed it. I then highlighted that with V's Foundation White. I touch the Nihilakh Oxide and White to the rips in his coat to make it look like glow was coming out of them, and for a little added color. Thanks for looking.
  6. 2 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.
  7. 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/
  8. 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
  9. 2 points
    And yet again, when some low performing modeler berates one of our members with the painfully monotonous myth of IPMS rivet counters, our knee- jerk reaction is to rend our garments, beat our breasts, and fall on our xacto knives in shame. People will believe what they want to believe whether it is written on a bathroom stall wall or on the idiotnet. Nothing we can say or do will change that! Nor should we change. All IPMS has done over the past 50 years is give credibility to a hobby that was not taken seriously, help plastic modelers increase their skills and enhance their enjoyment of the hobby, demand that kit manufacturers take this hobby as seriously as we do and organize competitions that are as scrupulously fair as human integrity will permit! We have NOTHING to be ashamed of or apologize for. My personal experience of the people such as those whose uninformed comments you had to endure is that they are poor modelers whose work will not stand up under the most cursory of assessments. What we should be ignoring is the whining of these cry-babies whose skill level is so low that they are simply not competitive when faced with the standards of excellence that IPMS encourages and rewards in it’s members. Let’s all show a little more spine! Why should we seek an association with such narrow, hateful little minds? Regards, Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge
  10. 2 points
    Scale Motorsport has just announced a new super detail set for the Revell GT 40 kit. It is not on their web site yet, but it is up on their facebook page. No information about what will be included but if I know Matthew Wells(and I do) it will be outstanding! Glad to see new product coming out! It has been a while.
  11. 2 points
    Two models completed in one year so far!! WooHoo!! 😁
  12. 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.
  13. 2 points
    This week the Raptor build is moving forward with many details. To start with the kit does not come with any weapons so I purchased some Eduard Brassin AIM-9X and a few AIM-120’s to load up the weapons bays. I finished the main landing gear bay walls then moved on to the exhaust. The photo etch kit supplies the inside details of the exhaust. Once installed they were painted then weathered with pastel chalk. The top part of the fuselage is also the top of the main landing gear bays. I added the kit parts then detailed them with more wire and cable mounts. I turned to the intakes by painting them white and adding the decals. I like that the intakes assemble on the edges instead of the middle. Makes the intakes look seamless. Finally I assembled the fuselage halves together. This was a bit tricky especially around the intake openings. But once I got it lined up and some minor trimming they fit well. Will need some minor putty in a couple of areas to smooth out some minor gaps. The next step is to address the fuselage and some overly thick RAM panels. See all the photos and notes from the start at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-f-22-raptor/
  14. 2 points
    Continuing onward this week I am working on the main landing gear bays. After locating reference photos on Google, I started by drilling many, many holes to install the numerous hydraulic lines. Using a .09 drill bit I drilled out the many locations where the lines go to. I then took 32 awg wire and ran the individual lines. I then added the electrical cables and routed them. Still have a couple of more lines to run then need to do all the yellow and blue connections and holders on the lines. Then I can weather and highlight the bays. See all the photos from start at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-f-22-raptor/
  15. 2 points
    Kudos for one of the Head Judges and NCC member for monitoring and stepping up to answer a rules question in a concise manner. This gives us an authoritative determination of the rule, as opposed to the rest of us offering our opinions. I hope more Head Judges follow this example! GIL
  16. 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.
  17. 2 points
    Here’s an original that I stripped and rebuilt as best I could, then re-painted.
  18. 2 points
    In an effort to collect Medusa kits whenever possible, I came across this kit at a not so recent JerseyFest (or was it the old Resintopia?). The kit came fro the Morland Studios. The kit comes in 6 parts plus a 60mm round base and the figure is scaled to 32mm. Following the card, I tried to copy the image. The small size of kit was a real trial to my limited abilities. The sculpted base comes in 2 parts, and they are made to attach together, but sitting on the round base, there was extra room. I decided to fill the black base. In the pic you can see gray Aves to fill the basesplitting the difference between rocks and sea. I also used V's Plastic putty to fill the seam between the monster/sea and the rocks. I made the tip of the snout of the monster shades of gray as if it was turning to rock, again a la the Clash of the Titans remake. Don't know how well that comes across being so little of the monster is seen. From there, I concentrated on the TINY details for the figure. There was no decal for the shield, so I tried my best, thinking of the Clash of the Titans remake, and painted on a scorpion. Finally adding some gloss to the scene, and gluing Perseus in place, I was finished. Thanks for looking. Size comparison to a Quarter
  19. 2 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.
  20. 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
  21. 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.,
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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!
  25. 2 points
    Now Blue Oyster Cult is stuck in my head! Great build! Dave
  26. 1 point
    This project has been an on again, off again on the desk for a while now. The kit comes from Zabravka Workshop. It comes in 6 parts. Looking around for a link to share, I can find none. (?) So I have no idea how to find them again... sorry. The parts are very nicely done in gray resin, and shows little signs of seam lines or flash. Ignore the little Medusa to the left. ;) A closeup of the base show a sandy base that reminds me of the volcanic sand that is actually tiny rocks. There are also a number of rocks added to the base which further expresses that volcanic feel. There are two spots for added parts - one is an assumed stone hand holding a spear, and the other being a torso of a stone Hoplite (?) holding a broken sword. I used the V. Metallics steel for the armor, and red to add color. Later on I would add some rust to make it seems like he's been there for quite a while. I decided on this Medusa to give her a regular skin color and natural tail colors. The chest and hip armor was painted gloss black in prep for the V. Brass, and the bow is V's Gold. To add a little snake to her face I gave her the slit pupils in the eyes. The weak point of the kit was the arrow. I was about to replace the shaft with something a bit more sturdy, but then realized I could lean the arrow into the bow and with a dot of glue at the point. This will straighten the shaft. Here she is with my ever present can of soda to give a size comparison. I added the diamonds that are seen on some constrictor snakes, and that completed the figure painting. As mentioned I added a few different rust colors from V's Rust Set to the armor of the soldier and spear. The base was painted in a Black Gray, and then washed with Citadel's Nuln Oil. When that was dry I added 2 highlight dry brushings of a medium and light gray. With that I was done. Thanks for looking.
  27. 1 point
    Ah, magic bow and arrow instead of magic boobie armor.
  28. 1 point
    There are a number of ways to do this, but: 1. The whole point of the system is that models are judged against an objective criteria instead of each other. This means that you can give out any number of any colour of medals per category (and yes, zero is a number). If you have four amazing gold-tier models in a category, you can give out four gold medals. 2. Since models aren't competing against each other and you can have multiple medals per category, you don't need as many categories in order to have like competing against like and a reasonable number of models per category. You could simply have a few categories, such as aircraft, armour, automotive, figures, etc. 3. One thing to consider is whether you want to judge every single model or a modeller's work within a category as a whole. By this, I mean if I enter eight models in a category, should I get one gold, five silvers, and two bronzes, or should I just get a single gold to represent my best work? There are pros and cons to each; the second way of doing both cuts down on award expenses and doesn't drag on the award ceremony, but it means that entrants have to put all their models within a category next to each other in a little group so you can tell at a glance which models all belong to the same person.
  29. 1 point
    Welcome Trevor! Glad you're here! Sure is nice to know that there are people like you doing what they can to keep hobby shops and plastic modeling alive. GIL
  30. 1 point
    Here's a tiny resin kit from TD Cast. This was a 2015 Wonder Festival exclusive. Included a couple w.I.p. pics this time around. Once again hand finished in acrylics and artist inks with a scratch built base. Thanks for looking!
  31. 1 point
    Tedious painting on the Ki-45 camouflage continues. I tried masking the pattern and realized it was actually easier to just hand paint the jungle camouflage. The base coat is Japanese Army light green and the camouflage is Japanese Army dark green. In the end I really like the look of this camouflage. I then painted the wing leading edges yellow and the white fuselage stripe just forward of the tail. For the wing landing light I painted the light bezel chrome silver and filled it up with acrylic gel to simulate the lens. See all the details and photos in the blog build log at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-ki-45-toryu-nick/ At this point I move the model to another table and upgraded the work bench area by adding work table to organize the work surface. Check out the updated photos of the working area on my blog at https://davidsscalemodels.com/gallery/the-studio/ The new workspace
  32. 1 point
    FYI, it is farther from my house to Chattanooga than from Scapa Flow to London. In the UK, they think 100 miles is a long way. In the US they think 100 years is a long time. Dak
  33. 1 point
    You have made some good points Gil. Our geographical dispositions dictate to a greater extent the show format. Telford has developed over many years to what it is today. For many years the UK Nats as they were then ran for over 25 years in a very similar fashion to your own annual event. The competition still remains the core of the show as does yours. It is just that our show has developed slowly into today's format and the US has retained the format that works best for IPMS USA. Telford, because of how it developed naturally gives more opportunity to show models out of the competition, whereas the US Nats may be a bit more constricted for display space. Regarding winning or losing, a bit of philosophy. Your model will be no better or worse when you take it off the competition table to when you placed it on the table!
  34. 1 point
    Hi, Gil. I'm not planning to have the panels open. That would take a lot of work I'm not up to doing currently with the limited amount of time I have at the work bench. I bought the CMK resin camera set with plans to do something with an RF-4 or F9F-8P (which is also in my stash & I think has the same camera setup as the Banshee). The person who did the panel open model published in the D&S book on the Banshee did a very good job but anybody familiar with aerial cameras would notice the error. In addition, there's no reason to have 2 oblique cameras on the same side or both sides in the case of what's included in the kit. A mapping mission would have a right oblique in the forward station on the right side, a vertical camera in the center station & a left oblique in the 3rd station. I know; more information than you probably wanted. As for the windows, I'll probably use Krystal Klear or similar if the kit parts don't fit well. BTW the 3rd camera appears to be an infrared line scan camera. I haven't been able to confirm that from what is in the D&S book or what I've found online.
  35. 1 point
    Next up is the Italeri 1/48 F7F-3 Tigercat with Eduard photo etch details. The F7F-3 aircraft entered service late in the war in 1944. They were produced in day fighter, night fighter and photo-reconnaissance versions. They were originally designed to be carrier based but there were some issues that caused them to fail carrier qualification. They ended up being used by the Marines and did most of their service later during the Korean War. Starting off with the cockpit, the dashboard was detailed with photo etch parts. The photo etch seat was adorned with the seatbelts then mounted to the cockpit. While assembling the cockpit to the fuselage I noticed the kit did not have parts for the front a rear bulkheads of the nose gear bay. I used a contour gauge to measure the fuselage and cut out the bulkheads from sheet styrene. They grabbing so extra photo etch parts from my spares drawer I detailed the bulkheads . with a little minor shaping they fit right in. Another detail I did was to drill out the gun barrels of the nose guns for a more realistic appearance. See my build log for more detailed photos. https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-f7f-3-tigercat/
  36. 1 point
    This was a difficult build because it's a limited run style kit. It does have some very nice resin and PE details, but very few locating pins, fair to poor fit, and you really need to deviate from the instructions to get the best results. The kit decals are one of the better items included, though I only used the data, stenciling, modexes, and stars. The nose art and others are from an aftermarket sheet. Here's a link to the in progress shots on Agapemodels if you want to see how it was built: https://www.agapemodelersforum.com/index.php?topic=23336.0 I used AK metalics Aluminum for the overall finish and then did the varying panels with Alclad Dull Aluminum. The red is Testsors (small bottle) enamel thinned with lacquer thinner. I made the gun barrels from steel tubing. I'm happy with the result, but I can't really recommend this kit to others unless you have some experience with limited run kits, vacs, or resin kits. There's a lot of re-engineering and alterations needed to get the best result. Comments, questions, and critiques welcome, as always. Cheers! GIL
  37. 1 point
    A few weeks ago, this appeared in my inbox, and I thought about responding then; but then more serious priorities came up and I was unable to follow up on what I had wanted to say. That said, IPMS uses an unweighted system that is frequently unworkable at the local level. National judging criteria has been online forever; but my experiences been that nobody actually ever reads the national rules, and put them into practice. I have been a member of IPMS since February 1967, I have been to a lot of contests; I have judged many of them, including a Nationals a decade or so ago. As president of the Sacramento IPMS Silverwings Chapter for 10 years, I have done my share of running contests. I have also taken home my share of awards over the years. IPMS is one of the few competitive organizations that I am aware of that absolutely refuses to use some form of numerical standard for evaluation of competitor performance. Think of it, everybody else uses a point system to evaluate performance in various categories of competition, whether as professional sports, Olympic competition, such as figure skating, or whatever, they all use a point system. We do not. We use a system that is inherently arbitrary, inefficient, inconsistent, and mostly focuses on inconsequentials. Go to any collection of models in a contest, and it is an absolute guarantee that 95 percent of them will have obvious flaws, whether it is in alignments, sloppy painting, flawed construction technique; you name it. In many contests, models of differing scales are lumped together for no other reason that the number of entrants in any standard scale are likely to be insufficient to generate effective competition. All biplanes together; all airliners together, sci-fi, automobiles; whatever. Actual accomplishment is rarely considered. I would be the first to agree that modelers often attempt projects for which they all too often have insufficient skill, commitment, or patience to do the job properly. On the other hand, there are modeling venues, especially among older modelers, where some models might take years to complete, such as model shipbuilding, where built up hulls are laboriously constructed from hand cut frames; plank-on-frame exterior, rigging, and all the other features and accouterments of old-time men-'o-war take years of study and practice to do the job properly. Needless to say, we do not see much of that in our contests. In the contest itself, getting people to judge can be like pulling teeth. I can remember occasions where I personally judged nine categories of models in a single afternoon, often with one another judge. That makes for a long afternoon. It also makes it tough to get the awards announced, and getting people on their way back home before late afternoon. And Sacramento has long had the reputation of running the better-attended contests in Northern California. This next month, we will be hosting a judging clinic at our monthly meetings in order to get potential judges primed and ready to go, both at our contest, and elsewhere in our area. This is long overdue. If I could put one finger on where things go wrong, it would be that judges get hyper-focused on one aspect of model judging, typically looking for flaws rather than looking for quality of work. And by quality work, I am talking about balance. I have seen judges looking inside jet air intakes looking for scratch marks that no one can see without a penlight, looking way in the back, just to be able to find something on which to hang his hat in order to make a decision. At the same time, sloppy detailing in paintwork and decaling often go unnoticed. Environmental effects such as weathering are overdone or are inappropriate to the era and circumstances that the model is supposed to represent (paint chipping on a sea-borne, carrier-based aircraft? Really?) That is absurd! And it is also unfair. I see three or four so-called 'experts' hyper focused on trying to decide which is Number One, and which will be Number Two, when there are still several other categories of models that need to be judged, and judged efficiently. There are ways to do that, and do it efficiently; but it does require the judging cadre to be able to separate out the important from the accidental or inconsequential. Regrettably, this penchant for 'finding the flaw' has been baked into their consciousness to the extent that they cannot imagine any other consideration. At the same time, the meter is running, and people are getting impatient to pack up and go home! At the national level, we do have judges who know what they are doing; at the local level, not so much. After doing this stuff for more than 50 years, I have come to the conclusion that things will not get any better, because the untrained new guys are taught to ignore the bigger picture of what the model actually represents, and instead, they are told to get down into the weeds and add up the perceived mistakes and flaws in execution. Pretty sad, when you come to think of it. And that is one of the reasons why it is so hard to get people to judge contests. That may also be the reason why over the past decade or so, model contests have become progressively fewer in number, and have fewer attendees. Those modelers who attend contests tend to be older. Model making as a pastime tends to attract older men generally nowadays, even as the quality of model kits has never been better. But, with better and more detailed kits now available, expectations have also risen over what modelers expect of themselves by way of accomplishment. Nitpicking and flies pecking is not the way to grow the hobby. Whether the Gold-Silver-Bronze is a better one from the one that we have now I could not say for sure; but the one thing I can be sure of is that the existing system is not worth a damn, not the way it is being done now! At least with the GSB system, there is the hope and expectation that quality standards would predominate, or at least get a fair hearing. I do not see that happening with the existing IPMS system. Art Silen IPMS No. 1708
  38. 1 point
    Work continues on the fuselage of the Raptor. To start with the RAM panels on the fuselage are very thick. In scale they would be 4” thick! So I grabbed some 600 grit wet/dry sandpaper and went to work wet sanding all of them. The 600 did a nice job thinning them out. I then wet sanded with 800 grit, 1000 grit, and finally 2000 grit. This removed any sanding marks. Once the few photo etch vent panels were applied I looked into the paint scheme. Using some home experimenting mixology I ended up with the following colors. The lightest color is 3 parts light ghost gray and 1 part flat white. The median color is 9 parts dark ghost gray and 1 part gunship gray, the vent panels are gunship gray and I will be using neutral gray for the last color for the scheme. The final color “blobs” will be applied with an airbrush so I can get a good fade line between the colors. The paint on the actual F-22 has a color changing hue similar to a pearlized clear coat. This causes the aircraft to appear to lighten and darken depending on the angle of the light. I am still experimenting with different ideas on how to accomplish this. Once I figure out the process it will be applied as a final coat after the decals. I am now working on the landing gear. So far the nose gear is just about ready to install. I will attach the landing lights later so that the final pant coat doesn’t affect the clear parts. You can see this build from start to current progress in my build log at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-f-22-raptor/
  39. 1 point
    Very nice, the work is great
  40. 1 point
    Weekly update on the Raptor, I started on the weapons bays. First the main bays. I found a photo on Google that gave me a close look at them. Using 32 awg wire with black sleeving I shaped the harness and used CA glue to join them together. I was looking thru my scrap photo etch items to find something I can use for the harness ties. I taped the photo to the wall for reference then realized the blue painters tape was an exact match to the color of the harness ties! I then cut small strips and wrapped them along the harness. Once all the wire harness’ were built and installed I stripped some wire and used the bare wire to simulate the hydraulic lines. I made my own fittings and ran the lines to the individual launchers as well as left some hanging for when I attach the doors. I added some weathering and used a black colored pencil to color in some of the fine wires. Next I started on the starboard missile bay. Eduard provided some photo etch parts for the avionics and I then drilled and installed the wires for each. Still need to do some fine details on the missile rail then I can repeat the process for the port missile bay. You can see all the other photos in my build log at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-f-22-raptor/
  41. 1 point
    Beautiful work man! This is going to be a blast to follow! You did a sensational job on that front office. Way to go!
  42. 1 point
    Thanks, Bill, With a meeting theme for March of "anything green," a yellow, orange, white, metallic red, and metallic purple vehicle assembly will fit right in. So I'll be bringing it! Ed
  43. 1 point
    Just a quick post to let y'all know that my latest Marmo Modelbuilding Guide will be available within the next few days. #9 in the series, this one focuses on the 1/32nd Revell AH-!G HueyCobra. That's right, the one first released in 1967 and still the only 32nd scale kit ever produced of the original AH-1G design. The Guide adds a Cobra Company aftermarket cockpit and rocket pods, along with a scratchbuilt revetment wall to form a Viet Nam vignette. One more thing. The Guide subject wears the familiar SEA three tone camouflage. As far as I've been able to determine, only four Cobras ever carried that scheme.
  44. 1 point
    Greetings The two replies offer more "definition " than anything in the original posting. Thank you Barry and Gil for clear and detailed information. Your replies shall be 100% more effective in informing members of some of the details regarding "Open Judging" and 1-2-3 Judging. As President of Three Rivers IPMS, I will do my best to ensure our club members are reading this forum and actively involved in this discussion. A. IPMS E-Board please try for an open mind regarding this subject.The survey looks to be a step. B. Thank you Gil and Barry for your time. Regards Bill Dedig
  45. 1 point
    Sweet! That sculpt really captures his upbeat/laid back attitude. Is that shirt real, or painted? I cannot tell from the pics! Greta looking build and a nice homage....which reminds me.... GIL
  46. 1 point
    Well, it's the second day of a new year and yesterday I actually finished a Shelf Queen of four years. This beastie fought me like the Boeing 737 did but I am more thrilled with the finish of this model that the other. I present to you my first model of 2019, the Heller 1/72 scale C-118 transport plane: It feels good to start the year with this thing out of what's left of my hair. Unlike the Boeing, I think I'll be taking this to contests. It most likely won't place, but it's gonna look great on the tables! Thanks all for looking in, comments are welcome!
  47. 1 point
    Bingo! Between the contest rules and the Modeler's Guide to Competition (as Nick reminded us, it is the document formerly known as the Competition Handbook), most questions should be answered well in advance of any model show. Rules. Huh! What are they good for? Well, absolutely everything... They get updated at the National level annually (more or less), and most other IPMS-sanctioned contests base their rules on the Nationals rules, so you need to read them in advance of any contest. Ask questions. If the rules don't suit you--if you have some fundamental disagreement with them--you have the option not to play, or ask for some "Display Only" space. More and more shows offer it these days...you may still have to pay an entry fee, but you can still show your stuff. The information is readily available. As Brad Hamilton told Jeff Spicoli in the movie "Fast Times at Ridgemont High", "Learn it. Know it. Live it."
  48. 1 point
    Okay, after a bit of free time for the Hobby Room, I was able to finish these last two armor models that were so close to the finish line. This first one is the 1/72 scale ACE Italian Lince armored car. It turned out to be all wonky and misaligned, but it is finished. I'm not sure what else I could have done with this without making it a major production, but at least I have all four wheels on the ground: This next one is another one that gave me fits. I just decided enough was enough and I finished it off. This is the Riich Models 1/72 scale M-992 armored artillery support vehicle: That's all for now, and for 2018. Stay tuned for more next year. Thanks for looking in, comments are welcome.
  49. 1 point
    Old figure I finally finished. Mostly painted with oils. Dak
  50. 1 point
    This little figure has been unbuilt on my shelf seemingly forever. It's Freebooter's Bad Fairy. I took one of my orchid mounts where the plant unfortunately died, and used it as a "nest" for the fairy. Everything was painted with Vallejo acrylics - except for the Wings where I used Green Stuff World's Chameleon Colors. Thanks for looking.
×
×
  • Create New...