Jump to content

Dakimbrell

IPMS/USA Member
  • Content Count

    548
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Everything posted by Dakimbrell

  1. One of the problems we have is that every contest is different. One year a category is sparsely entered and the next it is murderous. This makes it hard to clearly discuss the subject because we are all remembering different events. There is also the individual concept of what looks good. Popular now is pre-shading and highly accented panel lines. They do make the model much more striking, but are they truly authentic? In some cases yes and some no, but regardless, the model will be judged against what is in the category and not strictly the opinion of the judges. Back in the late se
  2. Generally, I agree. Even VERY accurate kits would look odd if blown up to full size. But what about things like equipment in the wrong time? I once saw a modern dumpster used in a WWII diorama and it really bugged me. Should we ignore things like that, and if we do, where do we draw the line? (Sidewinders on a Zero?) Except in gross colors, I would never judge colors because there are too many variables. Accuracy seems to mean different things to different people and I think this is part of the problem. To me, judging accuracy does not mean putting calibers to the model to check leng
  3. When is craftsmanship more important than accuracy? (Putting seat belts in backwards simply because they look good that way.) How do you tell the difference? How do people feel about a model "looking good" but being totally inaccurate in multiple aspects?( An A6M5 Zero, armed with Sidewinder missiles, in Dutch markings, being flown by a Russian unit in the Battle of Britain) At what point should the builder take aesthetics into consideration. (Yes, the color is right, but it is just ugly.) Should aesthetics be more important than trying to make the model accurate? (Like putting a Ford engine i
  4. I've done the seminar several times. One thing most people forget is the remarks are mostly guidelines, not gospel. As the models are culled for the winning top three the judges get more picky and they have to do so. When a highly detailed model is discovered to NOT have something so basic as drilling out machine gun barrels, it looses a chance at first place. This is also why it is important to put remarks about "odd" elements of the model. The judges may not know about the one passion pink Me-109G-6 R/2 in JG300 during the last three days of April 1945. For example, look at this very ug
  5. True and well said, but the glue glob is still a point of accuracy as well as craftsmanship. You can argue the water rushing in a hole sank the ship or the torpedo making the hole sank the ship, but it is all related. When you look at the big winners at an IPMS event, it is always a well built and highly accurate model. Dak
  6. An extra antenna is exactly the type of accuracy issue which is not and should not be judged. Time and again it has been shown various small changes cannot always be clearly documented. Also, research has shown changes to production did not come in clearly defined points. That is the point of not judging colors, and details. A glob of glue is still also an accuracy issue. Most vehicles and aircraft do not usually have a big glob of glue holding on a part. This is both an accuracy and craftmanship issue. Jerry cans and packs do not magically attach to the side of tanks. They require rope,
  7. What we consider as good craftsmanship is based on what we consider accurate. Based on what I see win at events, this is simple truth. I fail to understand why this concept upsets some. The rules are clear and accuracy does count for some element of judging, but not all. Nor should it. We spend thousands of dollars on reference material and more on the aftermarket items like P.E. and resin, not to mention the "right" color paint. Whole companies have been based on producing the most "accurate" item. One of the most common questions posted on any forum, anywhere, is "What is the most
  8. So, you are saying a large seam down the spine of an airplane and floating road wheels on a tank are “accurate”? There is no need to do most of the things we consider good craftsmanship if it is not to make the model more accurate. It is easy to judge filling a seam and not so easy to judge the shade of paint and the do not judge the colt for that reason. However, no matter how good it is built, I doubt people would give a top award to Hartman’s Me-109 done in bright pinks. We also know A6M5 Zeros did not fly in Dutch markings during the Battle of Britain. The Battle of th
  9. When we talk of accuracy, or rather not judging it, we generally are referring to checking to see if something is the exactly the correct length or width, the right color and things like that. We do look at things like gravity. A Panzer crewman holding a tool, is one thing, but holding the jack of a Tiger tank on his shoulder is pure fantasy. As much as I know about Tigers and Panthers, I doubt I would ever try to criticize detail points without a detail book and even then it would be iffy. Judging a shade of color is the most absolutely asinine thing to worry about. Still, we do look acc
  10. Dragon kit with some minor additions to make it an earlier production version. Figures are from Warriors and D-Day. Used Fruilmodel tracks. I'm taking this to San Marcos next year. Note all the foot prints on the vehicle. Dak
  11. 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, h
  12. 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
  13. 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 havin
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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 likel
  19. Everyone has their own style. That’s what makes it art. Dak
  20. 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 perc
  21. 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
  22. 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 pr
  23. 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
  24. 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
×
×
  • Create New...