Leaderboard

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...

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.

A simple graphic illustration of why Telford works for The UK but not here.

http://culttvman.com/main/a-modelers-guide-to-painting-the-starship-enterprise-by-gary-kerr/ http://culttvman.com/main/a-modelers-guide-to-painting-the-starship-enterprise-pt2-by-gary-kerr/

This build is the Tamiya 1/48 scale P-47D Thunderbolt “Bubbletop”. It will be detailed with Eduard’s Big Edition photo etch set. For this scheme I will be using the brand new set of decals from Thunder Cals. This is their latest set featuring P-47D’s from the European Theater. I will be doing the “Ozark Queen” of the 84th FS/78th FG from the 8th Air Force. It was flown by Captain Alfred F. Eaton in the summer of 1944. You can check out the details of their new set on their website at https://thundercals.com/48006-78th-fg-365th-fg-bubbletop-and-razorback-tbolts-new-decal-announcement/ As typical with aircraft builds, it all starts with the cockpit. While the Tamiya cockpit is highly detailed out of the box, Eduard does add some placards and fine details that further enhance the cockpit. Once the cockpit was built up I started preparing the fuselage to install the cockpit. Eduard does provide an interesting add on. Typically the intercooler on 1/48 scale P-47’s has an opening that just goes into the fuselage and is typically open. Eduard actually includes all the duct work to the intercooler. It is difficult to photograph but I was able to just get a good angle to show it. If you want to see more photos and follow along check out my build log at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-p-47d-thunderbolt-bubbletop/

This week’s update on the Thunderbolt is for the detailing of the fuselage. The oil cooler vents just behind the cowl, like the intercoolers, has nothing behind them and the detail kit does not provide anything as well. I searched thru my miscellaneous photo etch extras and found some oil cooler grates and used these along with some styrene stock and added details behind the vents. Then I started on the engine. For the firewall I drilled out the lower intakes and added photo etch details. I then added some photo etch details to the engine cylinders and painted them aluminum. The fuselage was then assembled and now I am working on the engine mountings and the wiring. Also I am checking out a new paint source. The interior of the fuselage was painted with yellow zinc chromate. In order to replicate this color I ended up purchasing paint from Mission Models. The color is very accurate and the paint goes on very well. For this being the first time using this brand I am very happy with the results. Will need to try other colors later. Now onto the photos. You can see more photos and details in my build log at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-p-47d-thunderbolt-bubbletop/

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

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.

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/

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

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.

Two models completed in one year so far!! WooHoo!! 😁

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.

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/

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

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.

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.,

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

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

Trumpeter KV-5 built as a BeutePanzer. Because why not. Needs some minor clean up before paint. Added lots of pieces from the spare bin or items I recently picked up at local shows. Lionroar tow cable ModelKasten clamps Tasca jerry cans with scrap PE bracket Aber tow loops for the Tiger 1 MIG productions resin tail light Copula, Notek, horn, etc from Dragon bits and pieces Still need to make the brackets to hold the spare wheels and tracks. A couple of color studies:

Staying with the sculpts of John Dennett, I picked up his new release in the form of Ebeneezer Scrooge. This is the Alastair Sim portrayal from the 1951 film. The kit comes in just 2 parts ~ the bust and the base. The first decision was whether to do the figure in B&W or color. Despite the box art being in color the movie was in B&W. I spoke with the sculptor, who sent 2 colorized pics at the same time I found my own. This is the one I went with - Starting to add color - Then once again, I got into a groove painting the facial features and forgot to take WIP pics. I used a splatter technique on the base and then applied the woodland Scenics snow with a few layers of PVA. Thanks for looking.

Now Blue Oyster Cult is stuck in my head! Great build! Dave

The "moving venue" is, in my view, an excellent approach. As Kevin mentioned, attendance at the convention can be built in to the "family summer vacation". Wife and I have visited all fifty states/state capitols/multiple National Parks and Monuments, State Parks, beaches, mountains, prairie land, and historic sites of all kinds as we travel to and from a Nats. This is a definite advantage that the current system has over a permanent and fixed location, or even two or three fixed locations. I would suggest that having a fixed location would result in the need for the hiring of a professional staff to plan and execute many of the administrative functions at a convention. Some immediate effects would be 1. conventions become more expensive with higher costs being placed on the attendees, and 2. a huge burden being placed on the nearby IPMS Chapters who would, year after year, be called upon to provide staff to run the convention activities. 3. Fewer participants would attend from those areas farther away from the convention, an issue that we currently experience, but that would be multiplied year after year as those out-of-towners loose interest in returning to the same city, or 2 or 3 cities, year after year. 4. I don't believe any research has been done in this area, but a sedentary venue would most probably result in a concentration of attendees within a single day's driving distance from the event, and an unintended concentration of winning entries from that same radius of attendance. Over a number of years such an issue could have a very negative impact on IPMS. The current system allows for any chapter, in any part of the country to offer a bid for one of two convention dates, either two years out or three years out. In many cases, bid preparation results in a number of chapters working together, leading to cooperation in other areas among those chapters in issues not related to a bid. The current system creates opportunities for attendees in the nearby area to volunteer their time during the convention, serving in staff positions. The fact that the convention will rotate to another part of the country means that these volunteers will not be expected to serve every year in these roles, and that others who cannot travel long distances to conventions will have the opportunity to serve on staff. The current system does not favor those living in an area that is close to the convention site year after year, benefiting from lower transportation costs. That particular happenstance rotates through the IPMS population due, in fact, to not having a permanent location. Clearly, my personal preference is to continue the current system which allows for bids from any chapter, located anywhere, relying on the Host chapter(s) to plan and execute a successful and enjoyable convention. And, at the same time, providing attendees the opportunity to visit a part of the country they've not visited before, or visit that part again due to the variety of sites and activities which call for a 2nd visit. I'm very much looking forward to going to the Chattanooga Convention in July/August of 2019. Wife and I have not visited Nooga and we've already got a list of places to eat and things to do on our way there, while on site, and on the way home.

Alcohol! Two parts single malt scotch to 1 part water chilled to 17 degrees Fahrenheit.

Dak, you make a valid point. However, I would suggest that it isn't limited to the IPMS/USA. The current "I'm Offended" culture that has developed in this country has to be a major factor. Keep in mind that practically anything that exists has the potential to offend anyone, but it has gotten completely out of control. Consider the efforts to make the Washington Redskins football team change their name because 'Redskins" is offensive to one small tribe. Other people are offended by the use of certain words, while others by actual historical events. Look at the complaints that started with objections to the Confederate Battle Flag...actually the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia...and expanded to statues of Confederate heros and schools that were named for men who had virtually no connection to the Confederacy other than fighting for the South. Political views are now subject to similar bias. Liberal viewpoints are widely publicized, while those of a conservative bent are castigated or banned. I was unable to market an article to a magazine I wrote for because the model in question....a Peterbilt 377 with an American Bald Eagle w/crossed American & Confederate flags on the air dam....was refused because "it might offend someone". If I did that model today as an ebook, I would be forced to apologize for it, accused of being a racist and required to remove the ebook from the marketplace. And if you want to get an idea of just how hypersensitive people are getting...as well as ignorant...I very recently had a magazine article corrected by my editor because "I've never heard of it, so I'm sure no one else has ever heard of it!" What was it? Believe it or not, a Mexican Jumping Bean. Instead, the editor changed Mexican Jumping Bean to simply 'jumping bean", thereby identifying every bean on the planet as a jumping bean! And if you think all of the above is a recent development, it's just the extreme result. Tony Weddel, a deceased aviation artist and my friend, quit doing heavy combat aviation art back in the late '70s or early '80s because he could no longer sell the art or prints. Why? Because people didn't want to purchase art that depicted violence. Result? He wound up doing pretty paintings of aircraft against storm clouds or toned down combat...unless a client specifically requested heavy combat. That, by the way, leads to your comment about viewing scenes of violence in model dioramas. Incidentally, it's also the reason why I've never created a crucifixion diorama of my own....it would offend virtually everyone who saw it. I have no idea where this is going to end, but if you build models, dioramas, articles and/or books for a living, it's already having an impact on what you can produce without offending someone. And it doesn't matter if it's a group or a single person. Dak, in case you're wondering, I'm 76 and I have no more problem viewing real life scenes than you do. I knew a preacher who I offered a copy of my P-38 CD-ROM to, warning him that it had a lot of nose art images containing pinup or semi-nude figures. His response? It's history. It'll be interesting to see what kinds of responses I get to this little tirade. Richard

Anyway, here is my last acquisition I got last year as a Christmas gift to myself. I didn't post it above because for some reason the camera could not focus on the box and all my pics were blurry. This time, after considerable effort; I have a pic to show: I had wanted that since it came out. I figured it was time since I had Christmas money to burn. I hope to get started on it this year.

What's an allowance?

Just got the Tamiya engraving set. Stupid expensive at $30.00 a blade, but far and away the best panel line engraver I own and that is saying a lot. I have a drawer full of panel line scribes. The difference is that these give you a flat bottom with square sides and no ridges on the top. They are so expensive because they are tungsten carbide and are very sharp. Don't bother buying the special handle for them. They fit in a pin vice with the proper collet. I use my large Tamiya pin vice and really like it because it has a decent diameter and with the knurling it is easy to control the angle of the blade. As to the cost, well they are $30 from Tamiya but if you shop around and buy them all together(so you only pay one shipping fee) and they can be had for less than half that. Oh and although my photo shows all 4 blades they are only sold individually and each one comes with the case for all of them. Not sure why but that is the way it is.

Seems I'm a broken record in this area with my Airfix locomotives. I get one a year and do them. Nice kits of interesting subjects and they are something different to build. This one is of a Battle of Britain Class locomotive used in the 50's and 60's. Each engine was named after a fighter base, or ace or something linked to the Battle of Britain. This one is the Biggin Hill, a fighter base around London. One quirk is that the name plate on the engine side should have an RAF blue background and not red. Other releases of the same kit have the blue, but I got 'lucky' and go the wrong color. The decals were old and yellow, so they spent sometime in a sunny window and then a coat of gloss coat to keep them from shattering.

After seeing this figure on the Nats table.....Had to have one.....

Real Life has kept me away from the workbench over the last 7 months, but more free time recently allowed me to finish the Accurate Mini kit of the Vindicator.

The M42 Duster is finished! It will go into the GJ VAMC display case later this week, at which time I'll take some photos of our 2 cases and post them here. The Duster was a challenging build, but turned out pretty nice! I added an M60 instead of the .30 cal MG and also a few pieces of stowage. Weathering was purposely kept to a minimum, and all the interior photos of the turret I found showed that everything was painted OD. The decals (except the stars) were from that Tamiya kit that I have now disposed of. Please check out the photos and tell me what you think.

I did find the Batmobile on eBay for a decent price. My local Hobby Lobby has listed the Tamiya Gama Goat for $12.49 on clearance. I bought two. They were regularly $49.99 so it was 75% off.

Rusty says it best and I wish I could instill that attitude in all my model buddies. While I go to contests and enter models I no longer worry or care about not winning. I still chat and discuss when something wins that I feel shouldn't have (as all modelers tend to do). My theory or mentality is that if I win I was fortunate enough that 3 fellow model builders (hopefully) thought my entry was better than the others presented on that day and time. If I don't win.....Guess what? I will still build models to the best of my ability and will still enter contests until I can no longer build.

Latest finished piece.

Personally, I've never thought of them as smelling pleasant; just stronger or not so strong. And, I've always used enamels and lacquers which have the heaviest fumes. That said, I do have a "fondness" for the smell of paints, thinners, and glues; but I think it's simply because I associate them with the fun of model building; not with any direct olfactory stimulation. To paraphrase Robert Duvall in "Apocalypse Now"...."I love the smell of Dull Coat in the morning".... GIL

Hey Ron...First off...I think you'll enjoy build scale cars, if you like 1/1 cars. OK..to try and answer your questions... Personally... I strip all the chrome(using concentrated laundry bleach...Clorox is what I use) from every build that I do. The Chrome that's applied to most of the the kits are way too brite for the smaller scales. I will leave the chrome for 1/12th and larger builds. To re-chrome....I shoot a Black or Blue High gloss base coats. Alclad II has Chrome that has a little learning curve. You can use Alclad polished Aluminum as it works good too. I also use ALSA Mirror Chrome which has a small learning curve but does not rub off when dry. If you want to leave the chrome and just touch up where it was cut from the sprue...then you can use a small paint brush( 3 0 or smaller) and a dab of Model Master Chrome Silver #FS 17178. Model Master has another chrome paint but it's not as good. I've used both and this one works the best between the two. Put a small amount of paint in a mixing pallet and add a drop or two of Lacquer thinner. Don't mix it in just let the thinner hit the edges of the paint and then load you brush and apply to the spot on the part. NOW...since MOLOTOW has come out with 3 paint pens and a refill bottle...all one has to do is just touch the part with it and it's rechromed. But...the small down side of it is..it takes at least 3-4 days for it to dry. It's is remarkable how well this paint looks when applied. If you can work with the dry time...then Molotow is the way to go. You can do a search on the web and watch a a few videos that's out there on it. Well Ron...I hope I've shed a little light on the chrome thing for you. Just remember there's no right or wrong..it's what ever works best for you. Gary

Thanks....! We've been going to Vegas once or twice a year for the past 7 years or so. There's definitely no shortage of fun, that's for sure! We usually stay at The Cosmopolitan or Palms.

This weekly update has the final assembly of the Draken as well the competed photos. I used the kit decals and they were great. They applied easily and worked well. Next using the photo etch parts I detailed the HUD and installed it. I added the dash gauges that sit on each side of the HUD then I painted the frames of the windscreen and canopy. I gave both pieces a nice polish and installed them. Finally the drop tanks and the landing lights were installed to complete the model. This was a nice build. The fit was very nice and assembly went well. The kit utilizes some nice decals. I really enjoyed this build of this unique aircraft. The entire build from start to finish can be seen at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-j-35-draken/

Thanks again John.

David, FWIW, this survey has nothing to do whatsoever with IPMS/USA switching to GSB. It is merely an informational survey that the E-board asked several members put together to provide an accurate and up-to-date accounting of the memberships' judging preference. It's been a good five years since the last GSB/123 survey was done and the E-board felt it was time for another. IMHO, it should be done every five years since the membership constantly changes.

This one came from DcDevitt Studios exclusively for member of his Patreon page who opted for a certain level. Troy does some outstanding work. Anyway here he is. First is the raw resin. Thanks for looking.

Engine assembly and detail is complete. Now I can get started on final assembly.

Thank you Peter @StrikeEagle, for your complimentive words. Glad you like the build log. ______________________________________ Now there was a matter of a partial house within the display boundaries. Assuming standard whole 'feet' measurements. I was able to get a good estimation of the house size. Decided to include interior lighting. Using an electronic ciruit which squences 5 outputs (LED lights). So, I divide the house into five rooms. Also added thin Perspex for windows. It was a bit tricky making the roof. Because the Masonite is 2.5 mm thick, I had to use wood putty to fill on the bevelled gaps. Included a painted figurine into the front enclosed verander. She is now overlooking the construction of the model Tested and created the sequencer circuit. Every 10 seconds one room light will turn off while an adjacent room switches on. This will appear as if someone is going from one room to the next.

Moving forward after some corrections the cockpit section is almost done. I scratch built the fire extinguisher and painted the cockpit section the correct color. I then started work on the crew area. The photo etch comes with the support cables for one side of the crew seats and I used 32 AWG wire to replicate the other side. The molded in seat belts were removed. I will make new seat belts out of cloth tape. I am working on making the turn buckles that go from the top of the seats to the supports. Need about 20 of them. Still have lots of details to add to the crew area. Build log at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-mh-60k-blackhawk-soa/

Many aircraft have lights. On WWII aircraft they used a series of lights for night time recognition and many have various lights for formation flying at night. Many times these are represented on models as mold lines or molded in the plastic. I came up with a tutorial on how to make these more realistic using Acrylic Gel Medium and Tamiya clear paints. You can see the tutorial on my website at https://davidsscalemodels.com/tips-and-tricks/recognition-lights/ Here are some pictures to see how they look:

The Sun came out for this day only...and I got a few outside pics shot.

Did you notice that the men working on the models dressed properly to go to work? White shirts, ties, and jackets even in a paint shop. :smiley14: Fast forward a century and reflect on how workers (or people in general) dress today. :o Ed