Highlander

Good work.

Over the years I have migrated from Squadron and Sprue to several European and Asian suppliers. And to eBay. It seems that my tastes have changed to more esoteric and harder to find subjects -- many of which are no longer in production. And some of which are unobtainable in North America. Plus, I'm in no hurry to get much of anything; I have so much started and lots I haven't yet begun. The lack of urgency on my part is a good thing ... my last order from Japan took nearly 6 weeks, but the price was less than half than what I would have paid if I could have located the model in the US and shipping was free. And I've purchased several Fine Molds kits that are unobtainable in the US. I can't remember the last time I bought from Squadron though I've bought more recently from Sprue. Neither has the range of stock that I am looking for, although Sprue is better. In the last year I have ordered from Hannants, eBay from Korea and Japan and China and Hong Kong, Eduard direct, Hobbylink, Track 48, and Roll.

Love the color choice on the wagon. You'd didn't try layering sheet styrene for the surf boards? Or you did try it?

I talked to a buddy who often attends shows, enters the contest, and also buys a table. He is a small scale "vendor". Someone attempted to buy him out several shows ago, but the amount offered was so low that he refused. He was then bought out at his most recent show, about halfway through, and was very happy, because he got to wander the model room instead of sitting at his table for hours. When he heard that there could be restrictions on being bought out, regardless of when it happened, he was not happy. His position was that he paid for a table and that he should be able to sell to whomever, for whatever amount, and whenever he wants to. He stated that he was there to sell, not to miss sales in order to make the show organizers happy and then to return home having missed an opportunity to clear his table. Just saying.

Welcome.

Love Falklands War subjects.

Welcome.

I wait 48-72 hours. And I live in a very dry climate. Why? Because the consequences of messing with uncured Future -- or any paint or coat -- far outweigh the inconvenience of waiting one more day. At least for me.

After being encouraged that the new ship OOB category was a innovative and welcome step -- and pleased that it would be monitored for future expansion -- I now witness, almost immediately, the old argument arise: But, what if I (fill in the blank) and that is not literally in accord with the OOB Rule XXX -- or if I propose an reinterpretation of the literal reading of Rule XXX -- then, would it still be OOB? As pointed out, if one chooses to build OOB, that it what they choose to build Should they choose to build non-OOB, will they then be permitted to enter it as OOB? I have heard the argument by a contestant that, if something is pictured on the box art, then it is part of the box and building that thingy in the picture complies with the OOB rule. I have observed someone using the box itself to construct some thingy and then enter the completed model OOB. The hypothetical question on the number of aircraft on a carrier deck appears to be anticipation by an experienced judge of the arguments that are already appearing. He used the word "backlash", anticipating the hissy fit some hypothetical modeler might throw if he does not get his way. "Backlash" seems somewhat close to the word "blackmail" -- as in, "If I don't get my way, then I will make your judging experience really unpleasant.". What, exactly, is the problem telling a contestant, "Sorry, Bud. It wasn't in the box. It was not one of the exceptions listed in the OOB rules -- which have been published for a good long time. Therefore, it is not OOB. So it was moved over there."?

Hola! Glad to have you.

Let's see of I am reading this correctly. We now have an IPMS registration structure. A registrant pays the registration fee, can enter models, can buy banquet tickets, can purchase tours, can avail themselves of the vendor room, can roam the contest room, can buy T-shirts and tattoos and whatever else the Nats is selling. For all 3-4 days of the convention. We now have a daily walk-in structure. The walk-in can pay a daily fee and wander through everything and buy stuff in the vendor room for one day. The walk-in can't enter models in the contest or buy banquet tickets or go on tours. Maybe he can buy T-shirts and tattoos. So now, some are proposing a third structure. The display registration structure. There is much discussion about the fine points of what a display attendee will pay and what he will get. I assume a displayer will get to wander around and buy T-shirts and purchase stuff in the vendor room. Will Nats decide that the displayer can't buy a seat at the banquet or buy a tour? After all, he is registered -- why shouldn't he have full access to the convention for the entire time his model is on the display table? Will he pay the same or less than a contestant? If he pays less, will he get everything but entering the contest? And, if he pays less, why would someone who doesn't want to enter the contest --- whether they actually display or not -- pay more? And if we let him in for free, why would anybody not registering for the contest pay anything? Not to mention who is going to organize and police and correct two levels of registrants? And if we allow non-IPMS members to register for display, are they going perpetuate a perceived anti-IPMS bias because they don't get to go whole hog? Those are all rhetorical questions, BTW. It seems to me that some of the discussion is pushing a bunch of carts way ahead to a few horses. What started as a discussion of whether displays should be encouraged is turning into the philosophy of IPMS competition to constitutional amendments to requirements on the Nats organizers to computations of floor space to fee structures -- from very different points of view. Like many off the cuff discussions, plans for skyscrapers are being advocated when the reality is in the sod hut stage. What much of the discussion seems to assume is that someone else is going to make all of the fine details happen -- in accord with the druthers of the proposer. The concept of a display only option with separate registration does bring up a core question. Is IPMS National for IPMS members, plus a provision for the general public to have a look -- or is IPMS Nats a recruiting tool to bring in modelers who want to participate without actually being IPMS members? Or is IPMS Nats a venue to be all things to all people? Sometimes good ideas are tabled because so much baggage gets piled onto them that they become unfeasible and unworkable. My thought would be, at least in the beginning, to set aside some tables and let full National registrants put out display models. And publicize the display option. And the sponsoring chapter can add whatever it might want to further structure the display tables.

Two quick reactions: 1. I haven't ever heard of a major convention where non-paying, non-registrants get to participate. If someone gets to use the venue and see the product and wander about, they should, IMHO, pay the freight. If for no other reason than to offset the expense of record keeping. 2. 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. Who do their own thing anyway. I do know that there are anti-club folks, who build but don't want to be part of a club. I know of some IPMS members who build extensively, participate in contests, but are not club members.

I really appreciate the feedback. I will check on the positioning of the side panels on the top of the floor versus between the sides. I don't think it will solve the problem, however, since the side panels seemed to have fit into notches on the side of the fuselage floor. And, even without the side panels, my dry fit indicated the resin floor was too wide. There is apparently a Jaguar resin kit out there, circa 2000, which has a good reputation, but I have been unable to locate it. Thanks again.

I have once again had an experience that is causing me to dump a kit and put modelling on the back shelf. For some time, I have been attempting to move up from OOB to building kits with some aftermarket...to increase the detail and realism. It has not gone well. I started a Hasegawa 1/72 SBD-3. I purchased a True Details "SBD Dauntless Cockpit Detail Set" -- for "Hasegawa Kits". I just spend the afternoon tediously sawing away at the resin and, after a bit, cut out the cockpit floor. I test fitted it between the fuselage halves and .... it is way too big. I don't see how I can possibly add the cockpit resin sides to built the cockpit tub and have any chance of getting it to fit into the fuselage. No matter how much I sand. I then noted that the True Details instruction sheet states that the detail set is for the SBD-4. That information was not on the exterior packaging at all. This is making me wonder if the cockpit size for the Hasegawa SBD-4 is significantly larger than for the SBD-3. I doubt it, but I don't know. This is not the first time that I have had a similar experience. So, in general, how bad is fit and accuracy in aftermarket aircraft offerings? And, specifically, does anyone who had built the SBD-3 with the True Details cockpit have any suggestions?

Hey, Gil. First class response.

Amazing tour de force. I handle my uncompleted kits a little differently. I leave them in their boxes. On their sprue trees. Much neater.

It caught my attention as well. As pointed out, flyers are probably less likely to bring entries than are drivers. However, it has been my observation that -- down to the club level -- there is a significant fraction of IPMS that is there for social contact. Such folks contribute to the stereotypes of the guy who knows everything about models but has never actually built one and the guy who is only there to talk military history to the guys who just like hanging out with convivial folks who enjoy the ambiance of modeling. And I know a guy who is a great modeler; he racks up win after win across three regions. However, he is inexplicably intimidated by the level of competition at Nationals...he has attended a dozen but has never entered a model. But those who enter the contest should all be thankful for folks who attend but decide not to enter. Cause they provide a significant portion of the financial requirement for a successful Nats.

I suppose that what I consider as over weathering is looking at a model and seeing only the weathering. Well, not only the weathering. Rather, seeing a plethora of techniques -- washes and highlights and chipping and filters and pigments and mud and rusts and oils and every other technique in the tool box of finishing a model. No subtlety, but a tour de force of everything the builder can throw at the model. I was moved to start this thread when I saw a piece of armor in a magazine and observed that the original base color was completely covered. One could not determine the color of the underlying base coat due to layers and layers of "weathering". Assuredly, it depends upon how it is pulled off. But it seems to me that finishing techniques, in some cases, have become an end in themselves.

I have noted in various magazines, advertisements for books and videos, Youtube videos, and on the contest table that models are becoming more and more weathered. In some cases, IMHO, the model is so heavily weathered that it is unrealistic. Now, I know that, actual equipment got pretty gritty and grimy in actual practice. But this is something entirely different. I'm guessing that, in the cycle of building techniques, that when a new technique becomes fashionable and spreads through the modeling community, it gets applied with increasing vigor and enthusiasm. And, it can become the new norm. And, I'm also guessing that there is a perception that heavy weathering increases the chances of placing in a contest. Whether that is actually the case or not. I know that my perception is that a completely clean entry is not going to do well against a modestly weathered entry with similar construction quality. So, am I right. I weathering a roaring fad? Is it here to stay? Is it overwrought? And does it enhance one's chances in a contest?

Impressive.

I would also love to have a KC-10 Extender, even though that is considered more of a tanker, but it was also used to haul cargo too. I worked on acquiring the KC-10. It is specifically a dual-purpose A/C -- carrying cargo and refueling. It is a bit different than other AF cargo aircraft because it loads cargo from the side, not a rear or front ramp -- so cargo has to be raised and lowered from it. BTW, the C-46 is a favorite of mine. I saw what may have been the last operational models, flying for ROKAF back in the early '70's.

Great subject. Great markings. Great results.

Yes, it was my first IPMS Nats. My younger son won a first place in a Junior Figure category. He leads the family at placing at Nats. IMHO, the folks who advocated and ran that convention are out of the club and/or out of the hobby or both. I have no idea what the current thinking is about Nats in the Albquerque club.

I must defer to actual experience.

David, I think you have taken my comment about the family involvement in the wrong context. I think you're right. Having said that, selection of a venue can definitely impact the attendance and the type of attendees. If IPMS's sole focus was on the solitary model builder then the Motel 6 in the middle of the desert would be fine. What do have against Twentynine Palms? I would venture, however, that there is an unstated, or even stated, rule that Nats must have some sort of family activity. And that is is weighed in during the selection process. So, a chapter, say, in Boise (which I would eagerly go to) or some other small to medium city, won't bid because they "know" they are not going to be competitive. ... There is an entire range between Motel 6 and a Disneyland adventure and when looking at competing bids, it would not be unreasonable to consider this aspect. ... Yes. An example of a non-traditional destination city might be Salt Lake City, which I find full of family things to do. Activities there aren't in a neat package, like Disneyland; one has to make the effort to get out and find them. Like Omaha. And the upcoming Columbia. Ever been to Ninety-Six National Historic Site? I heard some complaining about Loveland because there wasn't much family activity on site ... when the Rockies were an hour or so away, Denver was just south, and Cheyenne was a bit north. There may be a regional difference here as well. I'm from New Mexico, where a 7-9 hour drive is the minimum to get to any sort of larger city. So, a couple of hours from Columbia to Charleston is trivial. Your point is well taken, though. My personal answer goes like this. I won't go to Omaha or Columbus or Dayton. Been there done that, don't need to go back. Same with Loveland. My choice and I am not disparaging others who would. Would I go to Anaheim, Vega or Seattle? Oh, heck yes! A contest in or around DC or New Orleans? Absolutely! To me location is a critical component. The contest is important, but I want to see something I haven't seen before or I want it to be within driving distance. If I am going to spend a couple of grand, I want something beside a contest. Here we are in general accord. There are some places I wouldn't go to ... not because I've been there, but because the getting there is such a pain. And, if the main convention hotel is sold out and the alternatives are problematic -- like Columbus -- I'd cancel. And did. But I will go back to Omaha. And would go back to Loveland ... because Nats is Nats and because I find a lot to do along the way and while there. I absolutely agree with you that a new city that I haven't explored is a great attraction ... like Seattle or Vegas or DC or New York. New Orleans would be great -- I've been there a half dozen times and we are considering going back again this spring. I do think that IPMS has been tending to repeat locations ... Phoenix, Columbus, Omaha, eastern Virginia. That could become a long term problem. And there are many locations that beg for a Nats -- San Diego, Seattle, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Boston, New York, Pensacola, San Antonio, Minneapolis, and on and on. I am always in hope that some new location will put in a bid.