Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Dakimbrell

  1. Dakimbrell

    Mud Hole

    This is the Hobby Boss kit with resin stowage bundles from Black Dog. The figures are from Stalingrad. The stowage bundles were painted just like the figures, or the figures were painted just like the bundles, take your pick. The water was done with epoxy resin with artist gel to create the surface ripples. Dak
  2. Of course we have to use some yardstick when judging in contests. However, I believe too many become obsessive about things looking neat and clean as a ideal. Too often they try to apply one standard across the board to all subjects and scales. Dak
  3. Well, part of the problem is there is a tendency for our group to obsess over neatness to the exclusion of all else. Which is why I tend leaning more and more towards just picking the model you like best at a contest, as the best way to judge. Dak
  4. Dakimbrell

    Gas Man

    This is the 1/16th Citadel Models kit. The rats are from Jon Smith. The trench elements are scratch. Dak
  5. This is the Citadel Models gas pioneer trooper with some Jon Smith rats. Dak
  6. Just finished the 1/35th Roden Holt 75. Not a super kit, but not as bad as I had come to expect. Definitely not for the novice. I did have to add the curtains from scratch. The figure is from D-Day miniatures. I was inspired by an article in the Models for Ukraine book, which I also recommend. Nice "filthy armor" as my friend Foster calls anything with tracks.😜
  7. While I agree it is not hard to ignore the figures for judging and have plenty of experience doing so, I just don't see there is a genuine reason to do so. Figures are judged using the same basic criteria we use for all models. If seen as a simple thing like a bomb or bed roll, these permitted figures are no problem to judge and no more of an advantage than resin or photo-etch aftermarket. We accept things as a polished finish on cars, metal foil, and Alclad which take skill. We even have come to expect them. We do not put them in special categories for judging. If you have the skill to paint an airplane cockpit, you certainly have the skills to paint the pilot. But you don't have to any more than you have to polish the paint on your car model. It seems simply judging one or two figures as part of the model simplifies the judging, too. Dak
  8. There are no rules excluding figures on a model from being judged as part of the model. Rule 15 limits the number of figures you can have before the model becomes a diorama, but does not say those on the model cannot be judged as part of the model. Dak
  9. That's all fine if the judges look at the documentation. I've had personal experience where they didn't. Still, some prefer a pristine model and others prefer a more realistic look. No one should assume the seam or sloppy paint is automatically poor craftsmanship Particularly when it is very obvious. Dak
  10. Well, you may be right, but looking at the base of the prop blade I see what looks like sloppy red paint. It may be a little of both. Not that it really matters. As I say, my real pout was to note that there are sloppy paint jobs in real life. Just because it is “sloppy” doesn’t always make it wrong. Dak
  11. My point was that like with seams, modelers tend to like thinks neat, but that the real world often isn’t. I remember seeing an F-4 Phantom at Tinker AFB, about 1978, that had the rescue arrow off register. It reminded of a decal sheet I had seen with some off register markings. Dak
  12. Looking at some pictures, I found the real thing was a bit sloppy on the paint job. If you saw a model like this, you gig it or praise it for realistic craftmanship? Would you be upset if your immaculate model lost to it? Dak
  13. Personally, I would love a 1/32nd kit of the Mitsubishi F1M floatplane. The Pete. It saw action all through the war. I would also like to see a nice selection of ground/deck crew to go with any 1/32nd Japanese aircraft. We have enough SS troopers to outfit 1st SS PD. A decent set of Japanese figures could do a lot to open up this area. Not just a pilot in flight gear. Some in casual poses would be terrific. Dak
  14. My contention is that a figure(s) on the model---tank commander, pilot, driver, etc.---are no different than the other items placed on the model. You say most are not interested in doing figures, but the same people will add extra gear and weapons. This is all extra stuff which is not directly part of the model. I can think of dozens of little extras people add which no one thinks as odd but put a figure in the mix and someone will start yelling "unfair". No one "judges" bedrolls and bombs, on a model, in themselves. However, it you put the sidewinder on crooked or have decal film showing on the bomb, it will be judged. If the paint or glue on the bedroll and jerry cans is bad, it will hurt the model. What makes a figure any different? Yes, that is the way we have done it for the past forty years, but why? A figure is basically no different than any other accessory. I agree, lots of figures can turn the model into a diorama. The current rules for that are fine and cover that well. But why should an entrant be penalized by having part of his work ignored or forcing him into a diorama class when it is just a pilot in the cockpit? A figure on a model can be judged the same way you would any other detail added to the basic model. This all got started when some complained about entries which were in effect dioramas were enter in main categories. There was an over-reaction, just like with bases and now figures are seen as some mystical magic thing which will give you an unfair edge. You are right that this should be taken up with the NCC and I will have to put this before them for future consideration. I started this thread only to find out what we were calling vignettes and dioramas because the rules do not clearly show a distinction. Dak
  15. Phil, et al, First, let me make clear I am not discussing the diorama rules. I think they are basically fine. You are over thinking the situation. I am just saying if the figures are on the model or with it on the base, (as defined by the rules) they should be judged as part of the model. We don't need special judges; plenty of people judge categories they aren't expert in building. Lots of models with a figure don't tell a story or depict an action and would never win in dioramas. Years back, some people complained it was not fair for them to compete against a model with figures. Certainly, adding the figure is part of the skill level, but you don't have to be a master figure painter to put one or two figures on the model. While adding figures adds detail, it also increases the chance of screwing it up. It can be a plus, or minus, just like adding any detail. A pilot, tank commander, and driver in a car are all just part of the model. If fairness is the issue, then why should I have to compete with car models that have been buffed to a super finish? Skill level, that is why. If the entrant doesn't want to add figures to the model, they don't have to do so, but those who choose to add figures are merely bumping the skill level up a notch, which is what we have always done. That accessories are somehow "different" from figures is a weak argument. As you can see in the pictures, the stowage items are molded in clusters and require careful painting as much as any figure. These items are made by a figure maker using the same resin. The only difference is the figure depicts a person. Yet, all these pieces would be judged at the contest. If a person has the skills to paint them realistically and neatly, they can also do a figure. Would you exclude these details from being judged? Adding all of this stuff to a vehicle or bombs and missiles to an airplane are things that are NOT part of the basic model. All could be left off and the model judged bare bones. If the figure is simply seen as part of the model, there is no more problem judging it than any other accessory. This is something with which judges have always had to deal. That's why we several--to reach a consensus. In armor, we already have Closed top AFV categories. There are few figures, if any, in these areas. We always look for the work that went the extra step and did it well. Now days we see a lot of models with lighting effects. In a few years there will probably be a need to create a special category for them. But right now, we lesser mortals have to compete with them. Time changes things. Dak
  16. The event that got the rules changed was an APC with a full load of troops, but in the regular modern armor category. And I am in agreement with that action. While yes, I would like the figures judged, I don’t want the tank put in vignettes because there is no story to speak of, which is important to those vignette and diorama categories. I am merely observing we exclude judging figures on a model, but not gear like bed rolls, jerry cans, food boxes, etc. Why are figures different? Because some past entrants complained it was “unfair” for them to have to compete against a model with figures. What is unfair about that? But what makes a figure different from a bed roll? Why is it ok to judge the bed roll and not the tank crewmen? Why is it ok to judge a bomb or missile, but not the pilot? I am saying the figures on a model are part of it and should be judged in the same way you would judge anything added to the equipment. An entrant should not have to enter diorama just to get a well done figure judged along with the model. This is not a disagreement with what makes an entry a vignette or diorama. Dak
  17. Guys, this is not my first rodeo. Like everyone, I like to spread my entries out to get the best chances of a win. I rarely do a prize cow (stand-alone) model, so I have to push the edge of rules a little. However, from the start, I endeavor to play by the rules instead of standing around whining about how unfair they are. This does raise an issue. I do models with figures, but many aren't much on story. The M1A2 is an excellent example. I put two figures in the turret; I like my figures and I would like them judged as part of the model just as someone else would like the stowage (packs, boxes, ammo, water bottles, and banana peels) judged. They are definitely part of my skill level. However, to do that means it must go into dioramas, but it is too weak on a story to win. It seems a bit unfair to penalize those who add figures to the models by forcing them into dioramas. Dak
  18. Well, as long as the same criteria is applied to other models, moving the W.12 is fine. But I’ve had stuff moved before when similar stuff wasn’t. Dak
  19. Yes, I’ve read the rules many times. A float plane setting in water is in its natural environment and the two crewmen are on the plane so it should be good in bi-planes. Dak
  20. My interest in this question was sparked by the 2022 National category list. In aircraft, there are two "Vignettes". I've been used to calling things large or small comp. So, I see we are now starting to refer small comp as vignettes which is fine. I do a lot of vignettes because I always have a figure with the model, but like Mark said, they don't always tell a big story. The Ducati motorcycle is a perfect example. I definitely want the figure judged as part of the scene. The bike itself doesn't have the finish to compete in the main motorcycle class. It was done to be an old beat-up ride. That the camels are vehicles and not figures, I would argue about now that I have had time to think about it. They are live animals which would make them figures. So, that puts them in 730. I had planned the Buffalo for Miscellaneous. The HB W.12 and Caudron shown here are both soft dioramas--i.e. no dramatic story. The W.12 will go in Bi-planes 103B, but the Caudron will go in 710B. Dak
  21. So, we are simply calling small comp a vignette. Ok. Although, I had not thought of the camels as a vehicle. To me they are just a figure. Two humans and two camels. Still small comp figure. Dak
  22. Have we ever reached a general consensus as to what makes a vignette instead of a diorama, or does it even matter? Here are some items to consider. Dak
  23. Trumpeter T-90A kit with Meng figures and a mobile phone user from Blast Models. Pigeons and other stuff are Miniart. Building was made from AK carving foam and Evergreen plastic. Everything seen here has been seen on the news. Dak
  24. Dakimbrell


    Texting a message just before throwing some Molotov Cocktails. I can swear the pigeons are Ukrainian. Everything here has been seen in news reports. Dak
  25. Dakimbrell


    Some updates on the T-90A diorama. Dak
  • Create New...