Dakimbrell

This is simply not true in IPMS judging. While we may give the builder the benefit of the doubt, we do judge gross accuracy and often in the specific. GENERALLY SPEAKING....While an airplane with a crooked part may not be "good craftsmanship", it is also not "accurate". Tanks with floating tracks are not accurate, but it is also considered poor craftmanship. We may not judge specifics like the location of a unit marking or the shade of color, but we do judge accuracy. If not, then why put so much time into the effort? We could just pick the ones we think are pretty. Generally speaking, heavy rubble with a neatly cleared path for a tank's tracks shows a lack of consistency, which is a consideration in judging. Many times I have seen vehicles put into locations where it would be impossible to get into...or out of.... without a helicopter. This is poor craftsmanship and shows a lack of consistency. Dak

Mud has always covered a multitude of sins. So have tarps and other gear. That's merely part of the art of model building. True, but many still seem to think more is always better and go to extremes. The seem to think a big base leads to a winning model, which is rarely trueDak

While I get the point you are talking about local events and not the National, you actually support my position. I do not claim to know the methodology of every local contest, but I do believe the non-club members will see the people running the show entering, talking to other club members....or those from other relatively local groups... then judging, and some of them winning awards. If the non-members felt there was unfairness, collusion, or general impropriety, don't you think they would be talking about seeing club members appear to be colluding? If perception is important, then having those running the contest or entered in it doing judging always erodes the idea of impartiality. (However, not having the local club involved in the judging is disastrous...I speak from experience.) So it is doubtful showing names will upset anyone. We are adults...well, most of us...and it would be nice to be treated that way. I still do not know of any other type of competition which hides the name of the entrants. It is all small fish. Dak

What perception of impartiality? Few competitions of any type... if any... keep the contestant secret. (Besides a model contest, I can't think of any.) If the contest is decided by the general public without any checks, perhaps it would have validity, but it is not, is it. Don't you think you are being a bit insulting to imply that people don't trust the IPMS judges? At Chattanooga, it looked like there were at least 200 members judging. That is a pretty large percentage of the attendees. Yet, the implication is we can't be trusted. The general public does not care how we judge. How can putting the name in plain sight compromise this? There is no "perception of impartiality" based on hiding the names of the entrants; it is a myth based on no valid information. We divide up the judging teams to mix the different areas of the country. Most people judge outside their areas of modeling. Since no one model is awarded based on one vote, it seems pretty impartial. I am saying hiding the names is a waste of time and actually hurts the show. Putting names in plain sight would yield a high return on investment. Dak

Local clubs are often the first to deviate from the National rules. Some currently use the GSB system, while others impose rules stricter than the national. I have been informed one group in Texas prohibits drilling out machinegun barrels in Out-of-the-Box. I still can't see what the "risk" is in having names in plain sight. Can you please explain what this risk actually entails. Dak

I do not disagree, but it is not realistic and counts heavily (or should) against the builder when it comes to a contest. If I didn't want to do seatbelts in an airplane because I found it difficult, people would not be sympathetic. Dak

That's all fine, but it doesn't guaranty the models are truly anonymous. Nor does it prove there is a need for this function. It serves to only add another layer of work for the contest staff just when people are getting tired. There are plenty of safe guards to prevent merely voting the builder's name. If the general public has no idea how we judge (or even cares) and the contest entrants do know how we do it and also know one another, then hiding the name has no valuable function. All it does is make things more difficult for the judges and the contest staff. If you do not know the person named on the form, that person is in effect anonymous. If you recoqnize the models, it is not anonymous. If you do know the name, then you probably already know the builder and what he has entered. Additionally, many models have been entered and placed in other contests, further eroding the anonymity. Can anyone dispute this is true? Keeping the builder's name hidden does nothing but help isolate us even more us in a solitary hobby. We should be opening up and inspiring communication between members instead of putting up meaningless walls. Dak

Sweeps means to sweep a category. To take more than one award in the category. Open system is basically the GSB system. You can have more than three winners in a category. The general public does not know what we do to judge nor do they care how we do it. In any event, those interested enough in models also go to those venues that show the name and have no trouble with those events. Trying to find a name through registration is not simple. They are usually busy registering the incoming models and have little time to sift through stuff to find one name. And you will most likely make those waiting to register their entries pretty annoyed. What risk is there to having the name in plain sight? We have a well organized judging group. Many of them know one another. The teams are well balanced and trained. Many things give away the builder. So, what is the so called “risk”? In fact, it would probably make things seem more fair and open. Hiding the name implies something secret we don’t want the public to know. Also, the benefit of having names visible could pay off with more young women building models and entering contests. A young girl clearly seeing another girl’s name will understand this is not a male only event. If you want to impress the general public, this would be better than keeping secrets. Dak

Everyone has their own style. That’s what makes it art. Dak

😱😀

Absolutely true, but on a practical level, ALL the judges I have worked with flip the name over to make sure we haven't picked two by the same person. However, you still need to see the name to fill out the winners list on the judging form. And in the end..... And if you know the builder, you probably already know what are his entries. Since many stand around an talk about the works on the tables, by the time judging comes around many names are known. Unless you want to forbid people from talking to one another because the might divulge a name? I challenge the idea the public perceives or cares about the name of the builder influencing the judging. I attend at least one non-IPMS contest where the names are openly displayed and no one has any problem. The idea people object to seeing the builder's name has no basis in hard fact; it is merely a tradition with no real foundation. The majority of attendees are old hands who know or at least have a good idea how things work. If we are trying to build a more inclusive society and support the sharing of information, making names visible would make it easier to find people and talk to them about their work. There is no rule saying a person can't flip the name to find the builder, but as noted, it does risk damaging the model. I fail to see how questioning old and possibly out dated rules and systems are insulting? Why is it when anyone puts out a new or different idea, it is now "trolling" (used in a negative sense)? I have paid my dues in all manner of ways and have a simple right to express opinions politely, which I have done. Are we only a society where a chosen few can speak? I think posting the entrants name in plain view would be very popular and not the least bit prejudicial. Dak

Another thing I see, which is way too common, is neat rubble. For some reason many think rubble falls so vehicles will have a clear smooth path on the ground or pavement. The builder wants a big pile of rubble and blown up buildings, except for this clear track through the mess. If you want a dirty mess, don't make it look like someone swept up where the tank is rolling. Dak

On all the contest entry sheets, we fold our names under to make things anonymous. Isn't this silly? A Chattanooga, I watched dozens of people turning over the sheets to see who built something, The judges have to look to avoid sweeps. So why not just leave the name out in plain sight? It would make it easier to get to know other members, too. If the idea was to make it so the judges had no idea who built something and are impartial, it is a total failure. Particularly since so much stuff is on the web and in magazines. Lets stop this silliness if for no other reason than to protect the models. How many times do judges have to shift a model off an entry sheet to read the builder's name!? Thoughts? Dak

The “I have a bunch of models, so let’s put them on the same base” is a poor approach to dioramas. I wish more would read Shep Paine’s books. Dak

I think they made a big mistake and instead of going OOB, they should have created categories for models with work beyond the standard enhancements, which are mostly allowed in the OOB. The objective was to separate the super builders from the rest, and that would have worked the the same as the scratch-building and conversion categories. Yet, it would not have put restrictions on the general builders as does OOB. OOB is long passed its prime and should be eliminated. Dak

GSB works and there is no doubt. But does it work on a scale as large as the National is yet to be proven. Trying to implement a partial use as you describe would be a judging nightmare and in the end prove little, if anything. At any rate, it does not address the issue of OOB our living it’s usefulness. Dak

Most of these are still heads above the kits from the 50s and 60s which were the subjects of early OOB entries. There is nothing wrong with doing older kits OOB. But I can avoid competing against myself by putting my 1/35th DML Sdkfz 234/2 (done OOB) in regular open top AFV and the Sdkfz 234/4 kit in the appropriate OOB category. Dak

No, I am advocating the elimination of a category that has outlived it usefulness and original intent. While the scenario I suggested may not be happening exactly that way, the OOB categories are clearly being used as the way for many to spread out their entries (because of no sweeps) without having to build something different. I am not saying there is anything unethical about this, just that this is not what was originally intended. Why not simply eliminate OOB and create more regular categories? By doing away with OOB, we could simplify the contest and create more regular categories without an increase in trophy cost. Dak

I agree with your premise, but in todays world the difference between most OOB entries and many in the regular categories is negligible, based on what I am seeing entered. People tend to go for the best kit available on a subject, because they want a nice looking model. While the regular categories do see some highly detailed and corrected models, more and more are, or are almost, out-of-the-box. And by almost, I mean adding things like a wire antenna instead of the plastic one from the kit, or perhaps new tool clamps to replace crappy molded on version. This is why I am suggesting OOB is obsolete. People like OOB because it allows them to diversify their entries. You can realistically do a nice Asuka Sherman in closed top AFVs and enter the exact same model in OOB Closed top AFVs. On the other hand, Dioramas are starting to fill up "bigly" and don't see much splitting. Dialing back the OOB would allow others to flourish. Craftmanship is the telling point on any model, in any category, not just out-of-the-box. Dak

I have addressed this question before, but here is a perspective from the Chattanooga show. We were working on armor and the particular category had three very nice pieces. The problem was which was going to be 1st place. The favorite was a very nicely detailed model and we were about to go with it until I noticed this beautiful work was flawed by a very basic item....the builder had not drilled out the M2 machine gun barrel. A truly trivial element, but it was inconsistent with rest of the work. A massive amount of work and such a simple thing overlooked. It got a 2nd, so it wasn't thrown out as some assert. We were a team of four, three regular judges and a trainee. The category was 1/35th armor so you expect a certain level of basic work. All three of the top models were very, very good. None of the models were thrown out for trivial details, each was looked at very carefully, but at some point we had to start splitting hairs. So, yes, we were very picky, but no more than we needed to find a top winner. Dak

So, over the past five years, how many OOB fifty year old kits have you built? What is the oldest edition of a kit you have done OOB? Dak, The Renaissance Modeler

Part of the problem here is that how you view models depends on what you build. I see this primarily based on armor models and what I saw this year judging some of the OOB categories. My point is that even the non-multimedia tank kits are so much better, they have now become the standard. There is no need for dollars worth of extras...that has become a myth. The 1/35th DML Jagdpanzer IV L/48 I am building needs nothing. The only thing I am adding are Fruilmodel tracks, two figures, and a wire antenna. However, the kit DS tracks look fine, and are light years ahead of the Tamiya tracks for the same vehicle. In fact, some of the detail is BETTER than can be acquired through the use of PE.there is no need. As I said, most of what I do these days are virtual OOB models, even though they don't qualify as OOB. That is a moo opinion. What a cow thinks doesn't matter.😁 I do not build OOB and generally find it impossible to follow those rules. It's not worth the hassle. Dak

According to the 2019 category list 730 was Figure Vignettes. Hardly any solstice for someone with a tank having a driver, loader and commander filling the hatches. It hardly seems fair to force a guy into dioramas when all he did was use the three kit provided figures in a prize cow model. (I agree you have to cut it off somewhere, but I think the line needs to be revisited.) This is true of virtually all the categories and always has been so. As noted, most people will start with the best kit available and rarely willing choose a fifty year old kit with weak details. How many Monogram 1/48th C-47s do you see in OOB, with those raised panel lines? OOB rules take up more space than any other item in the contest rules. That is a lot of clarification for something designed to be "simple". That is the best argument for its elimination. I agree trying to do OOB as part of a regular category is a nightmare. Modern kits are way to complex to easily determine if extra work or parts have been added. Some one could add all sorts of stuff and most judges would not know for sure, even with the instructions at hand. Dak

That pretty well supports my case for a skill level based contest. In a skill based contest, the entrant would get to choose at what level he wants to compete. Perhaps the way to go is regular categories and then super detail categories in place of OOB? These days, the OOB categories are pretty much the same level as the regular stuff due to kit design, so create categories for those who go way beyond the kit, but are not scratch builds or conversions. Something like using all the PE available and resin replacement items like tires and such. Dak

If most of the OOB categories were eliminated, those categories could be changed to allow a broader range of entries. Dak