Jump to content

Rusty White

Moderator-at-large
  • Posts

    1,065
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    40

Everything posted by Rusty White

  1. James probably has it nailed, but to be sure, it's best to ask the contest head judge. Rules differ considerably from local contest to local contest because IPMS doesn't sanction them.
  2. This isn't one of my better models. For this "box art" build, I used Elmer's glue dabbed on the nylon thread. They didn't stand out enough after the first application, so I did another when it dried. If you want them larger, just repeat. If I were REALLY wanting realistic looking blocks, I use a punch and die set and make them from plastic sheet. It just depends on how anal you want to get.
  3. Sorry John. I had to cancel Columbia , so all sales need to go through my web site. http://flagshipmodels.com/zencart/
  4. I finally finished my build up of Flagship Models latest model kit of the 14" long CSS Tallahassee. I bought the master patterns from Mike West at Lone Star Models and did a TON of additions and modifications to bring the kit into the 21st century to enhance the accuracy and quality of the kit. Let me begin by saying this is not a review, because I would be biased. I needed a photo of the finished model for box art, so construction began as soon as the kit went on sale. This was my (and Flagship's) first rigged vessel to build in resin or plastic, so I ran into a number of new problems to conquer. I designed a very extensive photo etched sheet for the kit resulting in a LOT of small photo etched parts and a ton of rigging to do, so I recommend this kit only to more advanced modellers. What you see here is built straight from the box with the exception being the base and pedestals. I'll have to admit the model turned out way cooler than I expected. As I said, LOTS of rigging involved, but the photo etched rat lines made a pain in the rump job a lot easier. The rail stanchions are all photo etched with holes to allow for nylon thread to be passed through and make the realistic looking rails. The ships wheel is photo etched and consists of four parts. Each cannon is made up of 18 resin and PE parts! That's what I meant by lot of small parts. The massive pivot gun contains almost 30 parts alone! Time consuming to assemble, but very realistic looking. Each mast is made up of 10 parts not including rigging. Each life boat is accurate in design and consists of 10 parts each.
  5. It was mentioned in the vendor information I was given at last years convention, except for me it $25.00 as I recall. I recieved my form in the mail several weeks later so I would get it NOW!
  6. Great looking model Gil. I love to see folks build vac forms. It just reinforces the fact that any kit can be made to look great with a little work.
  7. Warships turn into paint chipped rust buckets VERY quickly without regular maintenance. As an example, the CSS Arkansas was never painted. In haste to get her into battle, the Captain got underway before paint was applied. She turned into a rust bucket within weeks. So much so that many modelers and period artists think the ship was actually painted orange. When in fact it was so covered in rust.
  8. One thing most folks need to realize is the Testor Corp really doesn't discontinue their colors very often. 95% of the time they just put a new name on the color and hope it sells better under the new name. Camo Gray was discontinued. However, I found that Panzer Interior Buff is VERY close to Camo Gray. You just need to add some flat white to get Camo Gray.
  9. I miss enamel Camouflage Gray. My favorite "to scale" white. Anybody got some they want to sell?
  10. Yeah I know it was a trick question, but a legitimate in that the Merrimack never fought the Monitor. For those who don't know, the USS Merrimack (a Union sailing vessel) was renamed the CSS Virginia after being sunk by the Union to prevent capture, then rebuilt into the ironclad CSS Virginia.
  11. "... with history generally de-emphasized in the schools, they have nothing to drive them towards the subjects we hold so dear." I'm going to wander just a bit off topic and say de-empasizing history in our schools is the understatement of the year. I asked my daughter's HISTORY TEACHER to tell me the name of the Confederate ironclad (hint, hint) that fought the Monitor at the battle of Hampton Roads (hint, hint). She thought I was setting her up (I was, but I couldn't resist), smiled and reluctantly said; "The Merrimack?" I said, "The ship's name was the Virginia." She just smiled and walked away. The fact she took so lightly her ignorance of the most important battle in American naval history just amazed me. Back to the topic at hand. While the M&T is a great program to have, I understand the reasoning behind suspending our support. Hell, if the model companies won't even support/promote their own product lines as Gil says, why should we? When it's all said and done, it comes down to money, which IPMS/USA can't afford to spend without some noticeable return on our investment. It just isn't financially feasible for IPMS/USA to bear the full load.
  12. This has been battered around quite a bit with good points made from both sides of the discussion; especially concerning the possible fee structure. This is where the forums shine. There have been no disparaging remarks, no one lost their temper and insulted anyone, we stayed on topic, no rudeness, just some excellent points to hopefully assist the E-board in whatever they decide to do. I personally want to thank everyone.
  13. The E-board is watching this thread. So if anyone has constructive suggestions about "display only", now is the time to speak.
  14. I agree with you in principle, the problem is there are already lots of registrants who aren't entering the contest (40% according to an earlier post). There are also members who enter the contest knowing they have little chance of winning an award just to display their work. If you give members (or are we talking non-IPMS members too?) a way to participate without paying full registration, how many of that 40+% will take the cheaper option? EXCELLENT point. My biggest fear is that display only could take models and paying competitors away from the contest in an effort to save some money, resulting in less cash at the registration tables. However, the upside will be that models taken from the contest as a cost saving measure, will still end up at the convention in (hopefully) greater numbers, making money to pay the bills. Just not as much, and from a different demographic. My hope is that if this occurs, the increase in display only entries will offset any potential loss to the contest. I personally don't think this will happen to any real extent. Competitors for the most part, enjoy the sting of competition and carrying home that hardware. It's part of our human nature. We won't know the eventual affect on the Nationals and contest until (if it succeeds) a few years down the road when we have hard statistics to look over. That's the reason for good record keeping. This may well be something future E-boards may need to deal with. First of all, all three of these contest do(or did in the case of Tamiya/con) have display or WIP tables. Another EXCELLENT point. I never considered WIP models. I say let's include those as well for the reasons you state so well.
  15. Mike, How can you question the wisdom and expertise of the federal government? They are protecting us. it is my understanding that the airlines, through their international trade association, are to blame for enamels no longer being shipped by air. And who regulates the airlines?
  16. I honestly believe if we charge the cost of registration to display, this proposal will sink like a rock. Sure, they get the goodie bag, decal sheet, convention pin, and a three day pass, but most of the registration cost goes into help paying for awards, goodie bags, overpriced union costs, (don't gripe union guys, as an ex-National Chairman I know of what I speak), office expenses, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitem. So why should non-competitors pay for those costs? Most non-competitors probably don't care about the goodie bag IMHO. That's why I don't see any reason to gouge non-contestants, and yes, at $40.00 each to display is gouging. A reasonable figure can be arrived at easily. If the facility charges for tables and cloths or set up fees, it's a simple matter to do some quick math to come up with a cost per table. The host chapter has all those figures. Charge THAT amount plus a free one day walk-in pass (that costs the Society nothing) plus 20%, and I guarantee you the cost will come in WAY less than $40.00 per person and we won't need to charge per model to keep it simple (right Gil?). If the non-contestants want a T-shirt or a goodie bag with a three day pass they can always pay for that at their discretion. As an ex-National Chairman, no one understands better than I the importance of treating the National Convention like a business, because it is. Now let's talk perception that everyone seems to be so concerned about. How does IPM$/U$A grab you? Try living that one down. Even us dumb modelers know when they are being gouged, (we would much rather be gouged by the model companies ) and future display only attendance will only suffer if we force a ridiculous registration fee on them. After the convention, if we need to make some pricing adjustments up OR down, we will know when we figure the final cost per displayer. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot before we start this.
  17. Mike, How can you question the wisdom and expertise of the federal government? They are protecting us.
  18. Is it me, or does "Legacy" confuse folks? "Single Media" I got immediately, but if the category were listed as Legacy I for one would be lost. So why include Legacy?
  19. David, Let me apologize for not being clear. There should be only a small charge to DISPLAY. I.e. the person SHOULD purchase a daily general walk through pass just like everyone else plus a small fee to display to help offset any costs to the host chapter. I just don't see any reason to charge someone full entry fees ($40.00 on the web site) the folks who enter the contest pay when display only models are not judged or eligible for awards. IF the displayer wishes all the amenities (goodie bag, decal sheet,3 day pass, etc.), they should pay the same entry fees everyone else does. I have no idea what the display fee (full table for SIGS, first five free, a fee for each model etc.) would be made by others. I keep hearing about an anti-IPMS bias. I've never seen it or experienced it. Except, possibly secondhand, from some AMPS and figure modelers. Me neither, but it does exist as you have said yourself. What better way to dispel the myths than to experience IPMS/USA personally? As I mentioned before, a small charge now could pay big dividends in the future.
  20. Anyone bringing models for display only should be treated no differently than someone entering the contest. I disagree somewhat with this. See why below. They should have to be IPMS members, and they should register for the convention as contest participants do. One reason IMHO, we are expanding the Nats with display entries is to show outsiders and non-competitors what IPMS/USA is REALLY like first hand. So I would support non-members and members alike to display. Mixing the two groups together could lead to a greater understanding by our members dispelling the various "myths" that have been floating about on the web. IPMS/USA membership isn't for everyone, but I believe displaying models should be. After a year or two, maybe some non-members will change their perception of IPMS/USA and join up. I would really like to see the SIGs show up and display as well. I agree it would be an impressive sight to see all those models. This is also an excellent opportunity to dispel all the anti-IPMS stuff floating about the Internet to non-members.
  21. "This is not difficult to implement. All we have to do is add a line to the operating parameters specifying that space must be made available for display only models from convention registrants, that this must be publicized in all convention literature and that a record must be kept of how many there are in each of the major categories, such as a/c, mil.veh, etc. We could try this for four years and see how it goes. However, before I made such a move, I would want to consult the rest of the eboard, the NCC and maybe a couple past/current convention chairmen. No promises, but I'll ask." Thank you Ron. I agree. Can't ask for more. Revising the Operating Parameters is important in that it represents IPMS/USA's commitment on a year to year basis, tables/space be made available so non competitors can depend on display space/tables being available every year. It will take years to build and grow the display entries. Personally, I would like to not see the commitment length of time not mentioned in the OP to show IPMS/USA is committed to display entries. It could still be dropped in the future if the idea just doesn't work out, but I also understand some compromise should be allowed for.
  22. Mark, I applaud your enthusiasm for providing display space for the Nats. However, in order to maintain and guarantee display space for future conventions, the E-board must step in to make table and space for display of models a mandatory requirement for future National conventions. I'm not exactly sure how to go about this, but I don't believe a Constitutional Amendment (pain in the rump) is necessary. I would assume a simple revision to the National Convention Operating Parameters needs to be addressed. I checked out the Constitution and By-Laws and it seems to be covered under Article 5 - Meetings, Section 3., National Conventions, B. National Convention Operating Parameters set by the Executive Board. If the subject could be put on the national meeting agenda for a vote, perhaps we could get this done. Maybe the appropriate E-Board officer will offer some guidance here, because I agree it would be an important addition to the Nats that would attract more participation and diversity (competitors and non-competitors) to the event. As I mentioned above, some coordination will be needed so we can keep track of what is entered year to year via a "display entry form" for records to be kept so we can add or subtract table numbers as required. If we don't hear anything from the E-Board, I'll start a new thread to discuss this to see just where this goes.
  23. Personally, I enjoy the competition of the contest and it should remain as part of the Nationals. However, I see no reason why the Society can't begin slowly building the "display" aspect into the event. Start small and slowly build display number of tables as required year to year. Records need to be kept just as we do for the contest entries. This will enable the addition or subtraction of the class (i.e. a/c, ships, armor, figures, etc) table numbers. So display model registration would be mandatory for this purpose and a small fee charged for each model displayed to pick up the cost of the tables and area/room for "display only" entries. It will take time to build the display numbers, but display could and should be considered as a mandatory part of future National Conventions. Just my opinion.
  24. "...we can't predict the turnout for all the categories. If we could figure out how to handle the variability better (and I don't have any great ideas), I think we could free up space for display-only areas..." Good luck with that. :smiley29: We have been trying to predict turnout numbers by category for 20 years at SoonerCon and there is still nothing predictable about entrants in the categories.
×
×
  • Create New...