WasatchModeler
-
Posts
47 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by WasatchModeler
-
-
5 hours ago, noelsmith said:
Highlander's comments.
1. Large groups of adult males registering as a 'family'. If not, then that is really an entry control issue.
2. Would be buyers going into the vendors room before they have finished setting up to grab a bargain. Again an entry control issue.
3. Vendors come to make money,agreed. But one has to ask why the majority of vendors trade at the convention. Why? Because the IPMS 'nuance' as you term it is for many their very best annual one place sales outlet. Allowing IPMS members just first hour access to the vendors on each day would not really impact on their footfall as I would guess that probably 80 percent of attendees are members anyway. So why shouldn't members have first bite of the vendor cherry so to speak? The vendors would have enough IPMS members clamouring for their goodies within that first hour to keep them well occupied selling before Joe Public would gain entry. So I don't buy that vendors would be financially affected in any way should members have first hour access. At Telford it works well and have not heard of any traders complaining. The only difference as far as I see is your Nats has a separate vendor room whereas Telford's traders are interspersed throughout the halls along with all the other exhibitors.
I imagine if the vendors were upset about it then they would have ended the policy a long time ago.
I applaud telford for coming up with creative solutions instead of just saying that it would never work.
I think we also need to take a serious look at what is the value in joining ipms. Do we seek to gain enrollment through incentives at nationals? What about those who don't attend? What's in it for them?
-
14 hours ago, CaptainAhab said:
I agree, I don’t think limits on vendors or entries is the answer, or on displaying models, it’s what we are about. But could there be other ways, I look at the cost to go to our convention and I’m always amazed, at how low it is all travel/hotel costs aside, at usually right around $50 bucks to register for a four day convention is dirt cheap in my opinion. Look at other hobby conventions, NMRA for instance is $195 for members (companion/spouse $100) and includes an early entry to some events. These are the questions I have;
Are the costs to vendors comparable to other like events, table costs, etc? Are table costs the only fee convention organizers for like events charge vendors?
The banquet is usually mandatory to get a better price on the facilities, so why is it voluntary for registration? If the current number of banquet tickets sold brings the facilities rate down what would double that do? If anything?
Access, I understand the reasons to let non-member attend, try to make them members, but what does a member get for registering that say day pass attendees don’t get? Besides entering the contest, judging and the ability to go to the banquet why register? Or for that matter join IPMS?
Good points
-
On 1/27/2024 at 1:58 PM, noelsmith said:
Gil, you have made some very salient points about our two annual events. The demographic and travel infrastructure is very different in the States to over here and naturally influences what is feasible at each. Europe certainly does have a good rail network, but even so I would guess that most of our visitors displaying still travel by road and ferry simply to be able to carry more.
Europe is developing more networks of high speed passenger trains. Maybe that is something that the USA needs for the future, not just up and down the East and West Coast areas but rapid two way rail systems as well right across the country in addition to the single line systems already in existence that could still be used just for slow moving freight. I am surprised that the US seems to be so far behind in this respect as high speed electric trains are non polluting too. Having used the Eurostar from London to Paris a few times I can vouch for how much more civilised it is to travel that way than flying.
Isn't flying across the country faster than a train?
-
7 hours ago, BWScholten said:
Still an apples to oranges comparison.
Distances is one of the main drivers for our attendance. Texas end to end is a longer drive than someone going to Telford has.
Madison will be a hard two-day drive for me, longer for Virginia.
We started saving for the trip; but I am in a position where I can shift money, a position not everyone is in.
What about if we had a convention in California then? If it was such a big issue then we would see double the attendance in Virginia than we had in Texas. The other thing that you can look at is per capita members. They have as many members as us with a tenth the population.
-
25 minutes ago, Ron Bell said:
I might have missed something, but where does the attendance figure of 10,000 for the two days of Scale Model World come from?
-
5 hours ago, CaptainAhab said:
Honestly, I don’t believe the goal is to make money, if anything it’s to break even, any profits are a bonus split between national and the chapter(s) hosts, luckily it seems we rarely lose money. So you could call that aspect a success.
I'm sure IPMS/UK’s convention is great, in my opinion any model event is great. My question is what makes you think Telford has “much more success”? Or other countries? Is it the number of models there, the number of people attending? I’m not seeing that other large scale model events have more success than us in those areas. It’s not fair in my opinion to compare Telford and our convention as to the size of the country, you can drive to Telford from anywhere in the UK in less than a day. The problem is defining success, what makes it successful can be different from person to person.
I agree, the fact the membership stays about the same has been a question for a long time. I would really like to see the actual number of that turnover every year, people leave and just as many people join, every year. I agree that retention is a good goal, what would be the increase in membership if they stayed members.
So telford gets about 10,000 over the weekend not over the week. I was looking at more of memberships as a per capita. Not the show. But it would be interesting to overlay the uk over Madison and see how many attendees attend.
-
41 minutes ago, ghodges said:
Cameron remarked (to my post):
Correct me if I am wrong. It sounds like you do not want our maybe care about having a bigger organization. Are you worried that if we are more inclusive that they will become the main event and traditional plastic models becomes a side event?
Seeing what other events, even visiting quilt con as I have, to be successful will make us more successful. What I hear is that successful to you is Catering to the current membership and making them happy. Not worrying about growth.
Yes, you are reading me correctly...
I am NOT in favor of growth JUST for the sake of growth....
I am NOT in favor of courting paper model builders, wooden model builders, RC builders; over trying to attract PLASTIC model builders. Each of the others have their own societies and clubs. Do WE have the right to go to them and expect THEM to change to accept us? No.... and thus if they want to join IPMS, they have to be willing to accept IPMS as a PLASTIC model group that either limits or excludes their participation at some levels (like the Nats contest, NOT at LOCAL club meetings).
I AM in favor of catering FIRST to the current membership, who PAID US to DO SO. Go figure! That is what I meant by tempering any future changes to be sure we're not throwing away what works or destroying who we are; which is PLASTIC model builders. And as a paying member, I expect our Eboard to take care of MY needs ahead of "potential" members who may or may not join. RETAINING current members is a higher priority than "growing".
I AM in favor of growth, but in two specific ways, and I don't care what the eventual size ends up at:
1) Look at what we can do to KEEP members from dropping/lapsing their membership and get past members who didn't renew to look at us once more and join again. In other words, look at what changes and perks we can offer to "IPMS" members, current and past. Grow IPMSUSA by first keeping more of our members for longer time periods.
2) Target the vast majority of PLASTIC model builders everywhere who never joined IPMS and may not even know about us. We made need to make some changes for them and offer more "bang for the buck" to do so, but at least they're a group with a like interest, as opposed to train hobbyists or your quilters (and I doubt you'll find crocheters welcome to display at the quilting show, by the way!)
Doing both of the above has the potential to substantially grow IPMSUSA from its steady 4000+ membership to probably 5-6000 or more, and is much more realistic because it targets people familiar with us as well as those with the EXACT same interest.
If that sounds like I'm a bit less inclusive, or even inclusive ONLY to PLASTIC modelers for growth, then you ARE reading me correctly! I am NOT for "diversity" for the sake of being politically correct and do not feel the need to appeal to other types of model builders, as much as I might enjoy and even envy their skills.
Gil
That helps me understand more. I never said that the way to grow is to be more inclusive to other hobbies like rc. You are right. That would not work. I am interested in getting more scale modelers interested. I was saying to go to other organizations and see what works well for them. Not ask the railroaders to join us.
Yes. Let's try to come to a solution that does not expel 2000 current members to gain 1000. But staying where we are is rarely a viable option.
What do you mean that we should not be diverse in order to be politically correct? Do we not want women to be welcome?
As far as running it like a corporation, we have an image for one that can be ruined by someone doing something wrong. That is why you have ethics committees and policies. Also, we can be held liable so there is that.
Hopefully that clears my position but I am eager to learn more about yours.
-
What defines a successful show.
If our only goal is to make money then we are successful. When you start to compare to other countries you can get a picture of how successful we are. Compare to Telford and they have much more success. And their countries population is much less.
Another interesting comparison is the growth. We have nearly the same amount of members as we had a decade ago.
-
56 minutes ago, patd said:
Only if you believe the social media. I would suggest that you attend the OJT class and do some judging and I think that your opinion would change after a few years of judging and get to see what goes on at the judging on Friday night, not all like what some would want you to believe.
I have judged 3 years so far and am a chapter president. Also, sometimes all you need to see is the final product to know that there is issues with the process.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ghodges said:
Vision..... that is a good question to ponder for the future of IPMSUSA.
To begin, I completely disagree with the "2030 Vision" proposed my ex-Eboard member Rob Booth. I disagree with its basic premise of growing and expanding the Eboard and also with the idea of being ALL inclusive and trying to appeal to ALL modelers, instead of targeting PLASTIC modelers. I also vehemently dislike its ideas of Ethics Committees and "periodic training" to educate the membership as to what they should think according to IPMS and to be an IPMS member. And it's not just a problem of "philosophy".... creating more board positions, more committees, and more tasks for both creates more work and the need for more people in a volunteer Society that has a tough time finding enough qualified people now. The entire thing is designed and offered as if IPMSUSA is some sort of corporation with "employees" instead of paying members, vast resources, and a much larger budget than it has.
That said, I agree that there HAS to be a solid vision proposed going forward that while allowing for change, secures and preserves the things that have served IPMS well and that have been proven to work. It needs to be simple enough going forward so that when one Eboard eventually steps down the next can easily pick up the reins and continue that work. And it has to be a vision with LESS direct control of of our membership, not more.
Consult "outsiders"? Why? What other group? Anyone else we might look at has a singular advantage over IPMS: they all have a vested appeal to ONE group. NNL serves CAR modelers and doesn't worry about pleasing aircraft and armor builders. AMPS attracts armor builders and isn't concerned with including sci-fi builders. A show like Wonderfest is targeted at figure and sci-fi modelers and only include VERY limited categories for "others" out of politeness, and not in order to attract them to the show. IPMS, on the other hand, has to try to appeal to ALL PLASTIC model builders.... and THAT in and of itself is a big disadvantage because most modelers just aren't interested in genres they don't build themselves. THAT limits who we can appeal to, even within the plastic modeling community itself.
We do indeed need a vison going forward. But FIRST we need to decide HOW big we really want to be, and then exactly WHO we want to target to join us. That will hopefully tell us IF we need to change and HOW MUCH we need to change. Then we can seriously consider our options that give us the best chances to achieve those goals.
But I can say that having been a member of what has been a solid, successful hobby group like IPMSUSA for almost 50yrs, that we need to be very careful not to destroy WHO WE ARE in trying to be something we were never designed to be to begin with.... a club that welcomes every sort of non-plastic model builder like the 2030 Vision proposes.
Gil
Correct me if I am wrong. It sounds like you do not want our maybe care about having a bigger organization. Are you worried that if we are more inclusive that they will become the main event and traditional plastic models becomes a side event?
Seeing what other events, even visiting quilt con as I have, to be successful will make us more successful. What I hear is that successful to you is Catering to the current membership and making them happy. Not worrying about growth.
Is there a way I can see the 2030 proposed vision?
-
On 1/22/2024 at 1:13 PM, patd said:
Interesting about Telford, Noel. It is on my bucket list for sure. Everyone who i know that has attended has just positive comments. Can't talk for all category judges but the aircraft judges spend some time moving models to the correct category. Every time we do we try to add a note on the judging sheet saying why the model was moved, so that also takes up a minute or two. Even when the category card says Aircraft: 1/48 Axis Radial you may find a P-47 parked there. As one of our team leaders says, "Reading is Fundamental!" The IPMS is not quite as draconian as Telford usually leaving the registration open almost until it is time to start the judges meeting. Not unusual at all to return from the judges meeting and find something placed in the wrong spot at the last moment. One of the larger problems is Basic Kit Build (the offspring of OOB) models not having the instructions included, if not the model has to be moved to the correct non-BKB category, (and a note left on the registration sheet) so they can still be judged.
As an aside at the judges meeting it is usually specified that you shall judge the model with a normal pair of reading glasses, opti-visors, electron microscopes, and surgical magnifiers are frowned upon. You do not need to see the atoms on the model to adequately judge it. Many venues do have poor lighting and sometime if needed a small pen light is used but no Leigh Lights....In judging usually (!) models are only handled by the team leader with gloves and only, if necessary, although the model is brought forward from the back row to be seen clearly and given a fair judging.
And apparently from this discussion they are bare handed and lifted to eye level as well...
-
On 1/19/2024 at 3:37 PM, CaptainAhab said:
Cameron, I have hired a good number of consultants and consulting firms over the years, and I always required all of them to show years of experience in the field/subject I wanted evaluated and/or studied, consultants are usually people with years of experience in their field and transition to consulting, firms are the same but may have a spread of experience. The same is true when it comes to us, the head judges for Madison will not be bring “new” or “old” ideas to the contest, they will be following the rules that were just posted for Madison. As Gil has pointed out, due to some of the head judges starting “cold” and really last minute by planning and organization standards, experience is important, and honestly I believe it always is.
Presenting ideas is a tricky deal, first my advice would be before you present at an open meeting, shop your idea(s) around, and not just with your immediate group of modelers, I’ve fallen into the same situation where I thought I had a good idea and presented it without thoroughly researching if it had a history of working or not already. Experience can be a double edged sword, it gives you a deep history of past and present, what has worked and what has been tried and didn’t work, what is feasible and what isn’t, and you can come across a little impatient and jaded when “new” ideas that you have heard before come up. It’s unfortunate you were laughed at, but hopefully you understand that we are not in an environment where there is as strict control, as there would probably be in a paid employees environment, over interactions between people. In my case I took it as a learning experience, and found that prior preparation and presentation techniques made a huge difference.
Experience is important but it is not the only value I would look at. Vision would be one we are lacking. Innovative is another. See ipms is consulting inside the organization instead of consulting someone like smc mmsi or others to get what makes them successful.
-
2
-
-
On 1/19/2024 at 11:48 AM, CaptainAhab said:
Nobody “works” for anybody in this organization! We are all volunteers, and as such don’t “answer” as such, to anyone. In any professional or volunteer organization I’ve been involved with committees are organized this way:
* A chairman, for the NCC that is the chief judge. The chief judge (chairman) has ALWAYS been approved and appointed by the president and e-board, and reports back to them on committee operations. It has ALWAYS been that they can be dismissed and replaced at the presidents/e-boards discretion.
* The committee members, for the NCC those are the head category judges. They report to the chief judge (chairman). The chief judge (chairman) appoints them and can dismiss and replace them.
* The NCC develops the rules and operating parameters for the contest and is responsible for all contest operations. The rules are updated yearly and GIVEN TO THE E-BOARD FOR APPROVAL, the e-board then can approve or not, ask questions, ask for changes, etc. Sure, they might get pushback and resistance, they had the ability to do the same.
That is how the constitution was written, BEFORE the resent changes. No committee I've ever been involved with had the entire committee reporting to the entity that organized it (e-board), it was always the chairman that was the go between. I don’t know how past boards viewed their authority, or used it, but it was there.
That is what I meant
-
10 hours ago, ghodges said:
Cameron asked:
"Isn't it common for committees to answer to the e board? To be on the ncc right now they are looking for people that have been there for 10 years. Where is there room for new thoughts? "
Yes... and up til now the NCC CHIEF JUDGE (not the entire committee) "answered" to the Eboard, and he served at the "pleasure of the President". HOWEVER, the NCC as a whole also worked autonomously without direct control or interference in the running of the Nats contest by the Eboards in the past. The Eboard in office last summer changed that by taking over the NCC, issuing orders instead of suggesting new guidelines, and some Eboard members directly told Head Judges (face to face) "YOU WORK FOR US". Thus, instead of working WITH the NCC, and using the Chief Judge to affect change (fire him if he doesn't lead in the direction you want to go), they decided to arrogantly dominate the entire NCC and that caused most of it to resign.
As for the 10yrs of seniority and "new thoughts...
With the loss of nearly every Head Judge IPMS lost DECADES of contest administration experience. The people they're asking to step up have to know HOW to run a contest, not just how to judge. AND, with the Madison show growing ever nearer, there's NO TIME to recruit neophiles and inexperienced volunteers to fill positions that need experienced guidance.
There's room for new thoughts.... but there's a time and place also. Right now the Eboard and the interim Chief Judge have to put solving the Madison judging crisis as first priority. After that, perhaps starting with the NCC meeting on the Saturday after the judging there, THAT would be the place to start making suggestions and offering new ideas. Until then IPMS better rely on what's tried and true and has worked up til now.
But what about your suggestion in the judging room that was laughed down (and was this at the Nats, or a local/regional show)? My guess is that it was an idea that's been tried and didn't work (and therefore was considered "silly"), but I'd like to know why you got that reaction. Would you mind asking it here? If not, feel free to message me separately and maybe I can help figure out why it got such a reaction. I can certainly sympathize with being made like feeling your idea wasn't even "worthy" of a civil or polite reply; which is a shame, though I tend to doubt it was intentional.
Gil
The ncc does work for the elected e board. They should have someone to answer to.
Bringing in people that have judged at us ipms nationals for a decade brings in an attitude of doing things the old way. In corporate speak we talk about diversity of thought. We hire an outsider or consultant to get new ideas. Bringing in fresh blood allows for a way to have them ask "why do we do it this way? What if we... instead we laught at new ideas saying that it is not possible even though other organizations are very proficient at it with similar numbers.
I was laughed at in my first nationals at the aircraft judges meeting. I think it was for feedback sheets or how you judge weathering. It was at Las Vegas.
-
2
-
-
Sorry I have been away. If there was nothing wrong with what was in the photo then it would not have gone viral. Perception is key. If the board just explained away that this is okay behavior then it would have gotten worse. There are merits on both sides about picking up models. Yes we evaluate 3d art. Yes 2 dozen models were broken that could possibly have been avoided.
Isn't it common for committees to answer to the e board? To be on the ncc right now they are looking for people that have been there for 10 years. Where is there room for new thoughts?
I brought up an idea at the judges meeting and was laughed at... so I don't imagine many members feeling open to bringing up their concerns.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, ghodges said:
Cameron: Despite the tone of some of the commentary here (including mine), we are not trying to blow off or ignore non-members on FB and social media, and IPMSUSA allows them there with the hope that they WILL become interested in us and join (though most don't).
The first problem with their commentary on our IPMS FB page is that many of them are offering opinions that are from the outside looking in and without any REAL knowledge of how things operate in IPMS or its contests. They're going on hearsay from others instead of commenting from their own experiences. Thus you have their ignorant comments, along with the comments from members and ex-members with IPMS experience adding to the overall volume of commentary, which at a glance makes any controversial topic look that much more controversial.
The second and more important problem is that the current Eboard has for some reason in the last year suddenly decided that they needed to pay more heed to FB and social media commentary. Unfortunately, since you often don't know how much of the commentary is done by members or non-members, that means they're actually giving heed to a lot of non-member input when their first priority should be decerning what OUR membership wants and thinks, not outsiders.
Can they have opinions as valid as ours? You betcha! However, what we've really been driving at in this and related discussions is the need for our Eboard to be SURE they're not over reacting to dustups on FB and social media (as they did after the Nats last summer), especially when so much of it was driven by ignorant, non-member posts.
If you check other posts in related topics you'll also see discussions on what IPMSUSA needs to do to get those non-members more interested in joining us. So please be aware that we don't really want to control what non-members say or do on the internet, but we are concerned about their having any sway with those running IPMSUSA at this time instead of we, the members. Cheers!
Gil
It makes for an interesting public relations strategy. It sounds like we do not want to listen to non members. In consumer relations, you do want to listen to both customers and non customers. If they are ignorant then why don't we educate them on why ipms operates as it does?
As far as the incident with the tank being held overhead, is that how you would want your entry being held? If that becomes the norm then people are going to think twice about entering in the future. One way of thinking about it is a knee jerk reaction but the other side is listening to people's concerns and taking action. One of the stigmas of the organization is inaction.
If the organization grows to a larger number then that could open up some new opportunities. The big concern is that if we stay where we are, as the organization dies off, (let's be honest about the average age of the org) then it will eventuality for with it.
-
Just made it through the discussion and have some questions. If most of the people on the Facebook page are not members, how do we get them to be members instead of trying to remove them? Why are they not members? If a large portion of members don't attend nationals, how do we get them to join? Why do they not attend?
Why are we trying to exclude people than listen to them?
It appears like growing membership is not a concern.
-
I am a bit confused. I was not in the room for the banquet but there was a 2nd place trophy in front of my entry. However, the website shows I got third? Which is right? Do I need to mail back a trophy or mark it with a sharpie?
Class was 106 radial BKB 1/72. I had the captured Zero.
-
On 7/28/2021 at 8:31 PM, ghodges said:
Just to clarify.....
In GSB there is NO "out-of-the-box" division, because there is NO NEED for it. OOTB was created to compare "apples to apples" in 1-2-3 competition. Since NO model is being judged against ANY other model in GSB, there's no need to consider whether it's OOTB or not. The degree of craftsmanship determines an individual model's award; and degree of difficulty and/or scope of effort CAN affect the overall judgement on craftsmanship.
The idea of OOTB not getting a GOLD at Jaxcon is not a rule but a GUIDELINE, and it reflects MY personal philosophy and experience in judging.
I totally agree that a model CAN be built "flawlessly" OOTB. But then the question becomes: does THAT level of craftsmanship (making no mistakes) command the awarding of the HIGHEST award? I tell my judges that IF they REALLY think it does, then award a GOLD.
BUT...stop and think...have you EVER seen an OOTB build go on to be nominated for a Best Of award? I haven't.....Sure, OOTB MAY win in a 1-2-3 category simply because it has less flaws than the others...but what does that mean overall, especially compared to other models in its genre with much higher levels of craftsmanship that may or may not have won their category?
This also gets to the very HEART of why I prefer GSB. In 1-2-3 it's very possible, especially in the biggest categories, for an extremely well built model to get NOTHING, simply because 3 or 4 "labors of love" with 1-2yrs of effort put into them to show up that year and ace it out of placing. In GSB ALL of them get recognized according to their merits, and no one model keeps another from getting an award.
If you're planning on trying GSB at your show, you can set your criteria accordingly. My only caveat is to keep in mind 2 things: First, the usual criticism of GSB is that they're "soccer awards" so everyone goes home feeling good about getting something. You have to set the bar higher than that. Second, while you do not want a GOLD to be nearly impossible to get, it needs to represent the EXCEPTION, and not the "norm". Think about the level of work you see at IPMS shows overall....there's a LOT of very well built models on the tables....and that's the norm.....so you want to recognize the builds that are better than that as Golds.
In my mind, a perfect OOTB build is the "norm" we ALL strive for.....but Golds involve more than that. But then again,that's just MY personal opinion, and is not only debatable, but carries NO weight at any other GSB show!
Gil
This^^^^^^^^^
-
On 7/26/2021 at 4:32 PM, ghodges said:
We've done GSB at Jaxcon for several years now...and with great success! That said, there's certain tricks to doing it as opposed to a 1-2-3 show....
1) GIVE OUT A NICE 2" MEDALLION! Do NOT use certificates or any other lower budget types of awards. GSB CAN involve a higher initial expense for awards, but that evens out over time as you figure out how many of each you need on hand from year to year.
2) DO NOT put a "year" on your medallions. This is so you CAN use the leftovers from year to year. That said, DO buy some sheets of large, white, self-adhesive "dots" that you can give to whoever wants them. Those can be stuck onto the back of any award and the winner can record whatever info they want to keep track of.
3) GSB IS NOT A WAY TO GIVE EVERYONE AN AWARD! It's a way to try to award more models that are deserving of SOME recognition, instead of limiting it to 3 in any category. when you advertise your show be sure to publicize your judging CRITERIA (see below)
4) IF you get 500 models on average at your show, I suggest ordering 500 medallions...75 Golds, 175 Silvers, and 250 Bronzes. Gold medals should NOT be easy to earn, and you (probably) should NOT be giving out more than 10% in Golds. Think of a gold level build as not just a winner, but a model you'd nominate for a "Best Of" in a genre. Silver level builds are generally those builds that would be in the top running to finish 1, 2, or 3 in that style show....BUT you can recognize as many of those as deserved. Bronze level builds can be thought of as those who "make the cut' in 1-2-3, but that are rather quickly eliminated once looked at closer.
5) DO NOT TRY TO USE ANY SORT OF POINTS OR "SCORING" SYSTEM!!! There's plenty of experienced judges out there who know what to look for, and there's no need to reinvent the wheel here! Use the regular 3-person teams. They START by taking a vote on what they think the model should get after viewing it for a few minutes. If they all agree, they make that award and move on. If not, they discuss their differences, iron them out, and make a decision then. Golds and "No Awards" are easy and fast as one is outstanding and the other has easily spotted multiple problems. It's the bronze and silvers that take more time....
Here's a copy of our "pocket judging guide" we give to our judges for GSB....you can make adjustments for your show as you see fit, but this works well at Jaxcon....
JUDGING STANDARDS- a simplified handheld reference
GOLD- VERY impressive, you’d nominate this for a “Best Of” Award,
Flawless finish, superb detailing beyond aftermarket,
Head and shoulders above other entries around it, not an OOTB build,
Have to search hard to find any flaws. This should be a RARE, but not impossible award to achieve!
SILVER- Extremely well done, NO flaws at first glance
(though some small ones are there) Would probably be in
the final cut of a 1-2-3 show, extra but not extensive detailing,
great looking finish with excellent weathering if applied, a “cut above” the majority of entries
BRONZE- Well built, but some very MINOR flaws are easily visible,
NO MAJOR BASIC ERRORS, not more than 3 minor flaws
of differing kinds, would “make the initial cut” in a 1-2-3 show, pretty much blends in with the crowd
POSSIBLE DISQUALIFIERS- Many flaws immediately visible at a glance, even if small, major alignment problems, easily seen seams, plainly silvered decals in several places, fogged/glue smeared clear parts, sloppy paint demarcations/details
6) Use "display zones" instead of categories. These LOOK LIKE categories, but can be much more general and broader since no model is competing against any other sitting beside it. The zones merely show where people put their entries AND also allow you to divvy up the judging easier.
7) Keep in mind you'll still need the usual "special" awards....7 Best Ofs for the various genres, Best Junior, Best of Show, Most Popular, etc.; as well as any others your club wants to give away. At Jaxcon we have a Best Camo, Best Gloss, Best Detailed, and Best NMF awards.
8- You CAN limit the number of medallions you need by awarding the BUILDER instead of each individual model. BUT, be aware that this also does NOT encourage people to bring more models, since if they bring 5 planes, they'll only get ONE award in that genre. It also (in my opinion) defeats the entire purpose of GSB....which is to award MORE DESERVING builds as compared to 1-2-3.
Those are just the highlights. If you email me I can send you more detailed info. Hope this helps!
Gil
This is great advice. Thinking of trying out one of these.
-
9 hours ago, MikeN said:
Hi, another question is, for those attendees that will fly to San Marcos, given the current airline restrictions to carry cabin bags only below seats (no utilization of overhead bins allowed) how modellers will move their works, its of course fragile stuff, dare to document them? Will this restriction reduce entries on the tables? How about vendors?
Cheerio
MikeN
What's this? I just looked on delta's website and didn't see this
-
Sure it is a lose lose situation but if there is a small nationals they might be able to break even rather than make a profit from it.
I hear a lot of people say why they should cancel but What if we put our heads together and see how we could make this work in a responsible way?
-
1 hour ago, dmorrissette said:
Considering the people that are wearing masks and wearing them wrong, I suspect it does little to no good. And the fact most people are wearing them for extended periods of time and breeding who knows what funk, we'll see how it plays out
I do like the ones that look like Jesse James though...
Dave
I thought there was laws against breeding in public.
-
1
-
-
I am going. I think it should be the individuals choice whether to attend. I also plan on spending plenty there to help out the organizers. My wife said it is ok
-
1
-
More Resignations
in News and Announcements
Posted
So it is just a generational thing and nothing can be done?