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
    The best advice I can give you is to use a white primer. Almost any gloss white airbrushed in light coats will give you a good finish if you're careful about dust.
  27. 1 point
    You're right.....all of us who tout GSB are really just aiming to undermine IPMSUSA and ruin the Nats. It can't possibly work (because it's never been done). And of course you, like the NCC, want a fully written and detailed proposal to be examined and parsed (and then dismissed) because it doesn't look plausible on paper (to you). That can never be done, so people who want complete assurance that it'll work with no problems or adjustments will never be comfortable with any "proposal". As I said before, I'm not saying you're wrong, but GSB proponents are making it work NOW. But, since you think you have a better idea, exactly where are YOU implementing your SWS? Where are you putting your ideas on the line to be tried? If we agree that the 1-2-3 system (although it does work) is the least beneficial to IPMSUSA for future growth of our Society, then start working towards making a change where you are. You may indeed have a better way, but I guarantee that even if you crossed all your T's and dotted your I's in a "proposal"; it would be dismissed by IPMSUSA and the NCC just as quickly as GSB (or simply put out in a "survey"). Show them how good your idea is by making it work at a successful local and/or regional show. As for our show, Jaxcon, we're looking to keep growing our show so that we HAVE to "scale up" our GSB system. We're already 1/3 the size of the Nats and hope to hit 1/2 (1000+ models) in the next 5yrs. We currently judge those 600+ models in 4-5hrs with only 20 or so judges. So yes, I DO think that 4 to 5 times that number of judges over 2-3 days could judge 2000-2500 models. Until that's actually put to the test, you and I will just have to agree to disagree. Part of this debate and discussion has a LOT to do with breaking "traditions". As I stated above, IPMSUSA does NOT like to do that, and thus not only do you have to prove a new system will work, you have to overcome people's wanting to poke holes in new ideas and their loathing of change. Best of luck, whichever side you end up on, I've covered everything I can think of. Y'all can have at it the rest of the way! GIL
  28. 1 point
    IPMS Three Rivers does this at Tricon also. Contact info is: Name: Bill Dedig Email: WEDJR@AOL.COM Dave
  29. 1 point
    My name is Oliver. I am a new member. Heres what i working on. Happy to be part of the IPMS forum family. Oliver
  30. 1 point
    Glad you're here! Make yourself at home and post some of your work. Cheers! GIL
  31. 1 point
    Noel (and all): I totally agree with you, and IPMSUSA has JUST begun to try to step us in the direction of de-emphasizing the contest. They've recently mandated that beginning this year and at all future conventions the host MUST have as many Display Only tables as their venue can provide. Of course that is AFTER they've taken care of the contest area first, so it will vary from show to show. Still, up til now, "display" has been only an occasional afterthought. Now IPMSUSA is going to encourage guys who don't want to compete to bring their stuff to display. Personally, I've reserved 2 display tables for ANYONE that'll be dedicated vacuform and resin models. There are two major differences here in the USA as compared to the UK and Telford. First and foremost, our Nats is the way it is because it started out with a competition format and has steadily grown from there. It's a VERY successful show, and the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies to a great degree. Would it be as big and successful with less of a contest here in the USA? Perhaps.....but I'm not sure any host wants to take that financial risk since the current format is a "money maker". In other words, we're sort of stuck with what we have because it's what we've always done and it works well! The second difference, as I mentioned before, is our vast distances to our shows. Anyone in the UK is a day's drive from Telford. Even a lot of Europe can be there in a single day's travel time WITHOUT having to hop on a plane. That makes the transport of models and stuff needed for booths much more practical. I consider the upcoming Chattanooga show to be an easy drive, and it'll be close to 7hrs. I plan to drive to the Texas show in 2020, and that will involve two days of driving and probably no less than 20hrs travel time. The rest of the shows involve airplanes where you're lucky if you can carry more than one model on, not to mention the hassle of TSA security checks! Only in the eastern US, or possibly southern CA, where there's a greater density of clubs per state, could we possibly have what Telford has with club booths...but with no tradition of doing that, the "clubs" never really consider it. Rick Jackson NAILED IT in his post above. Just bring your models, put them on the contest tables and go enjoy the show for the sake of the show and don't worry about winning or losing! GIL
  32. 1 point
    Thanks Bill. All the sub assemblies have been completed. The missiles took quite a long time to paint and apply decals. I got this kit at a swap meet from a vendor. After a closer inspection of the kit, I noticed that it had been subjected to a lot of moisture. There was actually a light film of mold on top of the decal sheet. With a damp rag, it wiped right off. The staples were rusted on the instructions. The decals were a challenge. I experimented with pre-shading on the rudders, and elevators. I did something pretty stupid. I assembled the wings with the leading edge slates installed , WITHOUT looking at the instructions first. When it came time to attach the wings to the fuselage, they would not fit. After using a few #11 blades to carefully remove the slates and some sandpaper, the problem was fixed. I'll never do that again. Regards Christopher
  33. 1 point
    Comments that are critical of ‘finding the flaws’ and ‘ignoring the bigger picture of what the model actually represents’ ( I don’t even know what that means) frustrate me as an experienced and scrupulously objective judge. As long as we as judges are required to identify three winners and X numbers of losers in a finite amount time, we will need a system that is efficient while also is able to be fairly applied to all entries. While theoretically you could compile all the things done correctly on each entry, that would be too time consuming. So efficient knowledgeable judges will start be looking for where most builders make common mistakes. These are craftsmanship competitions NOT an assessment of how much enthusiasm the modeler has for his or her subject. Likewise, the judges are not trying to answer the question: ‘What is the artist trying to say?’ In modeling contests, as in war, the winner is often the one who makes the fewest mistakes. There is a very simple way for the builder to get past this first cut of common faults. Read the Competition Handbook and do what it tells you to do. Despite this, the common errors appear with predictable frequency- admittedly more at the lower level shows than at the Nationals- but they are always there. Most categories will thankfully contain the gross misalignments, the wide-open seams, sloppy paint work, the silvered decals. Once these are out of the running, the really hard work in a 1,2,3 system begins. Now comes the necessary nit-picking. Now some of the virtues of a G,S,B system become apparent. But under either system, there are going to be disappointed entrants. If you do not want to be one of them, you have two choices: build better models or keep your models on the display-only table. Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge
  34. 1 point
    Let me clarify... IF IPMS was to go to Open Judging, the category structure as we know it *should* be simplified quite a bit. Using the Aircraft class as an example: CLASS: Aircraft Categories: Aircraft, Allied/NATO, Prop (by markings) Aircraft, Axis/WarPac, Jet (by markings) Aircraft, Civil (by markings) Aircraft, Rotary Wing Remember, this is a gross simplification, should this system be developed, who knows how it will shake out? So, here's how it works. You build six P-51's--three from the 8th AF, one as a captures Zirkus Rosarius airplane, and one as "Thunderbird", the race airplane that took part in getting the film of QEII's coronation to North America. So, you have three airplanes in Category #1, and one each in #2 and #3. Why? The Zirkus Rosarius airplane carries Luftwaffe (Axis) markings, and "Thunderbird" carries a civil registration. Now, in Category #1, two models earn a Silver and one earns Bronze. You take home ONE silver medal. The other two earn Gold in their categories, so you will also take home two Golds. If you built all six as Allied airplanes, they would all enter into Category #1, and you would take home ONE medal corresponding to the highest award earned. So, say one earned Gold, three earned Silver, one earned Bronze, and one didn't quite make the cut--you take home a Gold medal, period. In this scenario, each model is being evaluated on its own, so it won't matter that you have different scales, or single vs. multi engine airplanes in the same Category. Whether you keep a numeric score or use the Chattanooga/First Coast rules, no model is compared to another. In my scenario, the ONLY time one model is compared to another is when it comes time to award Best Aircraft. In that case, all the Gold medal models are grouped and judges as we do under the current IPMS/USA system. Again, though, a lot of things need to happen before we get there. First, the poll needs to show that the membership supports a change. Then, the system needs to be devised, written, and approved. That's a far way off right now... Cheers! Ralph
  35. 1 point
    I follow the Air Force museum Face book page and they just posted this video of the cockpit of their 262. I was somewhat taken back by the simplicity of it. I suppose that is because I am more use to cockpits that have more Nav/aids. At any rate, enjoy.
  36. 1 point
    Very nice! That is so cool! Brilliant job Kevin!
  37. 1 point
    Thanks so much, Gil. Your photos confirmed the data I have. They're particularly helpful since they show some present-day birds. The -9DD is particularly frustrating as it has a straight axle, no half-yoke. I think I'll try to correct the models. Wish me luck! 🤔 Dick
  38. 1 point
    Like I said Duke, I really hope you'll be able to make it, so we'll start praying out here! Mike
  39. 1 point
    I really can't go out! There's nothing I can do with my hair! Great job Kev! I love all the little detail painting you did. Bill
  40. 1 point
    Welcome to IPMS/USA! You mentioned having been a mech on USMC H-34's in the early 1960's. Did that perhaps include the USMC H-34 squadron TDY at Danang in 1963? Our C-123 squadron was there on the other side of the runway, on a temporary duty six month "Joint Training Exercise" from Pope AFB NC. At the time we joked that our "joint training" was mainly providing live targets for VC practice AAA ....and at low altitude and about the world's slowest airplane to shoot at, they still had trouble hitting anything. But as we all know they got better, so the "joint training" must have been effective.
  41. 1 point
    Gil, In response to your question about a "sealed" exhaust fan. The model I used, Broan AEW110, does indicate the motor is sealed.
  42. 1 point
    This is an approx 1/3rd scale kit I obtained from Mark Warthling. It comes in 9 parts - the head/body, the stone arm, 2 sets of horns (long and short - I chose the short), a base and two name plates. The arm, base and one of the name plates are in translucent resin in case you want to light the kit. Once again it was a case of me jumping into things before taking the start image, but you'll see the clear resin along the way. I started with a tan primer, glued the horns in and then painted the face red. Reddened the face, and painted the hair black - When it came to the arm, I looked around and it was no where to be found. I contacted Mark, and for a little fee he was able to get me another. How can something that big go missing? I have no idea... Here you can see the translucent hand. Anyway, in the background you may be able to see I added a darker brown shadow to parts of the jacket. What I did to highlight the black hair was to use a little blue in it. All shirt references showed it was black, so I mixed a little blue into that to compliment the hair. You can also see the translucent base and the arm with primer. I also painted the zipper steel, and the little emblem on the pull the new Molotow Chrome. That stuff is amazing. Next was tackling the Dark brown leather collar and straps. You can see in the background the arm got it's coat of red - While I thought of it, I painted in the eyes. Hellboy had yellow sclera, with a light brown iris, and then the black pupil. With the squint the model has I just left of the sclera color... I fixed up the coloring on his head and now I'm happy with it. Hellboy is now complete. I didn't mention the base, but being translucent it calls out to be lit. Never having done lighting, I left it open for lights down the road. What I did tho, was dremel out more material in the symbols, and then seeing a miniatures trick I got some matte Mod Podge and mixed it with black craft paint until it was *dark*, then I painted thickly on (avoiding the symbols) the base. Does well with light blocking. It was crazy how many images I went thru before I found an definite image of the emblem on his sleeve. Only found one. Thanks for looking.
  43. 1 point
    More work done on the Tamiya 1/48 AR-196A float plane. I have completed most of the cockpit and installed it in the fuselage. The fit was a little difficult. The top of the cockpit walls fit fine but I had to twist it a bit to align it. If you ever go this route don’t install the cockpit to one side then join the fuselage. Put the fuselage together then install cockpit from bottom. I made a couple of shims to keep the cockpit floor square to the top. I then started on the engine. The part with the pushrod’s had one pushrod that was “short shot” in the mold. I trimmed the nub and scratch built a new one using some stock styrene rods. The photo etch details and wiring were added and painted. After reviewing some photos of the real engine I used 32 gauge wire to make the oil return line. I cleaned up the cowl parts (the seams and a little flash) then installed the engine. The photo etch set also comes with the front cowl mounts. It was tricky getting them mounted the correct height so they would meet the cowl edge correctly. Once I finish cleaning the outside of the cowl and the assembly mounted to the fuselage I will be starting on the wings. You can see all the build photos from the start at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-arado-ar-196a/
  44. 1 point
    Another great event Gil!! Congrats to you and your team for putting together another fine show!! Doug
  45. 1 point
    Attempting to get back to actively building with the old Monogram F9F-5P recon Panther. Planning to mark it as VC-61/VFP-61. Will have to finagle the markings from other sheets as the kit only comes with Marine squadrons. Good kit for its age. Not very many parts. Certainly not up to the detail of the Kitty Hawk Cougar or Banshee. I made 1 major error. I glued the upper halves to the lower wing before installing the lower wing to the fuselage. The instructions read to glue the bottom half of the wing to the completed fuselage. I think I've salvaged it by cutting the port wing off. It will require a little putty work to correct. Won't do that again. The initial primer work is done. Will assemble this weekend & shoot the 1st coat of Dark Sea Blue. Had hoped to have it ready for Blizzcon next weekend. Don't think I'll make it.
  46. 1 point
    Here it is. Finished it back in early December. The Paper belly tank is from the 1/72 Italeri P-47N kit Paint is RAF Dk Green over RAF sky gray. Modelmaster enamels with Testor's dullcote. Decals are Superscale 72-886 First time for me posting pictures on this forum. Thanks for your feedback back in October. Got 3rd in our local P-47 contest.
  47. 1 point
    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.
  48. 1 point
    This model is another model from deep in the stash. I remember buying the model from the Buy and Sell section of a forum. The sculptor was Chris Lynch, and looking at Boba's size, I'm guessing it's around 1/10th scale. I have no further info on it. Even doing a web search, that title gets exactly 1 hit from a guy on a Star Wars Models website who had it listed on his "wants" page. It's not from one of the movies, but maybe a comic or some book? The kit came in about 10 parts. Boba's body and the bird; Boba's head, his two arms and rifle, the two sand people heads, a gun in a holster, some bag that had no apparent place to go, and the two parts of the birds restraint. It also came with a length of cord, and a length of "pleather". The resin was mostly in good shape, but it did need a little work. I didn't think to take a pic before starting, but here we are with most of the parts attached - The bird was tackled first. With it supposedly from Tatooine, I figured it was to blend into a sandy, rocky background. So the bird was made up of browns and other neutral colors. I figured the model needed a splash of color, so blue was added to the bird's crest and around his eyes. This color choice will come in handy later. The ground work is just a dark sand and and an orange ocher Next turning my attention to Boba, I started filling in the colors that I remembered. There was a few times where I had to look up exactly what color went where. At this point I also painted in the Sand People heads with Iraqi Sand and White Aluminum for the metal parts. Around their mouth was a brown leather color and the bottom of the mouth looked really dark. I ended up painting it a German Gray. The blaster was painted with VMC Gunmetal, and then highlighted lightly in silver. The silver was also used to create the scratches around his armor. It was here I thought the bird needed a little more color, so I took the Cavalry Red I used for his gauntlets, and highlighted the birds feathers. This is where I left it for the day. A few days later I was back and it was time to finish up Boba. The first thing to do was paint the backpack. Here's where a little indecision came in. He seems to have changed his uniform between ESB and ROTJ. In ESB his back pack was mostly green (also green gauntlets), but in ROTJ the backpack was more colorful including an ocher color, a red, and even blue! So to harmonize the model; the red is the same color as the gauntlets, and I reduced the saturation of the blue by adding black, and then I lightened it by adding the gray from his jumpsuit. While this was drying, I glued in the restraints to the birds collar. When the CA on that dried, I wrapped the pleather around the collar, and then according to the line diagram that came with the kit, around the saddle horn and back to the other part of the collar. I dipped the cord in Citadel's Agrax Earthshade, glued it in loops and then just hung it around the Sand People heads. This was another model I could fiddle with forever, so instead I called this one done. Thanks for looking.
  49. 1 point
    The stencil for the scales hasn't arrived yet, but I'm finished with her besides that I couldn't resist a few pics. Now, I'm reconsidering even needing the scales ... Thanks for looking.
  50. 1 point
    Here's a little bust I was doing while l waiting for the paint and/or glue of Medusa to dry. I took this sculpt of Det. Columbo as a sort of sketch, as it's a bit rough, so I just left it that way. The bust didn't come with a name, so remembering his famous line to solve the case - "Oh, one more thing..." So that's what I'll do when I create a proper base for it. I agonized over the 5 o'clock shadow - too much too little - and back again. It was the first time I did it with paint. (vs. pastels). The other hard part was, after all the time spent trying to make eyes centered, was to have his one eye accurate and a little off. The inspiration - All done . Thanks for looking. CCs welcome. (On the shelf with the other lil busts)
×
×
  • Create New...