Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by ghodges

  1. Welcome Karl! Sounds like you may have a few "gems" in a stash dating back that far, and plenty of fun things to build. Settle in and make yourself at home! GIL
  2. I'm going to mention the one thing NOT mentioned thus far that was applicable when the OOTB categories were created, and that is still applicable today: the builder's perception. OOTB was created because the "regular" builders had the perception that the ONLY way to win at the NATS was to be able to scratchbuild. Remember, back in those days there was NO aftermarket....no resin, no pe, no 3D printing.....so if you wanted to super-detail a model, scratchbuilding was the name of the game. People wanted a category where they didn't HAVE to do that....so the OOTB categories were created. While it's true that the kits are better today, the PERCEPTION of the builders is that you still need to do some sort of extra work to have an true chance at winning in a "regular" category. True or not...THAT is still the perception by a lot of builders. Thus, the OOTB categories are STILL relevant, since they give builders the perception they have a better shot at winning without having to go head to head with the honchos. The proof of this (as mentioned above) is in how well populated those categories still are at every Nats. The idea of competing on a more level field of play is not obsolete, despite the rise in kit quality. OOTB should not be eliminated until the majority of builders feel that they can go head to head with anyone and have a chance of winning, and they stop entering in the OOTB categories and switch to the regular categories. In short, when OOTB dies of its own natural causes due to lack of particpation. As long as there are 1-2-3 contests where models are pitted against each other, that perception of wanting to compete against builders of a like skill level will persist, and OOTB is the simplest way to do that in 1-2-3. GIL
  3. Very neat build Ron! I wasn't aware they actually hung a radar dome under that old Stringbag...credit the Brits for getting every pence worth from an obsolescent pre-war biplane! GIL
  4. That's a heck of a collection and I have to agree with your analysis that he may have had more colorful planes in his career than anyone else. I knew about many of these, but to see ALL of them together really completes the story. Great looking builds and cool history too. Might I suggest you elaborate on this a bit and submit it as an article for the Journal? I have to believe that a LOT of our members would love it! Thanks for sharing! GIL
  5. Excellent progress and some sharp looking detailing! GIL
  6. Excellent build, and a cool variant not often done! Congrats, and thanks for sharing! GIL
  7. A tip of the hat and hardy WELL DONE! to Mike and his crew! This was my 30th Nats, and certainly one of the best I've ever attended. They deserve kudos for pushing for displays....they now hold the record for the most contest entries AND the most models at a Nats, both of which were well earned! GIL
  8. Glad to have you here Jim! Settle in and make yourself at home. There's a lot of nice people and some inspirational work to see! GIL
  9. ghodges

    Tamiya canopy masks?

    I think this is the way they provide the builder with masking while also saving money and thus (hopefully) holding the price of the kit down. It also allows them to handle it "in-house", without investing in another piece of machinery (die cutter) and to also not have to worry about being supplied from a subcontractor whose shipment may delay getting kits to market. I totally agree that pre-cut masks are one of the best things since sliced bread. However, I've also had good results cutting them out myself. Remember that you can certainly use scissors instead of a knife, which many people would find easier to use. The real advantage is that their masking materiel is mostly superior to most others. While I understand your disappointment, I wouldn't call it a make-or-break item when it comes to the kit. Sounds like you solved your problem though, even if it took another $5. GIL
  10. I'm guessing the white streaks are actually the reflections of your overhead florescent lights....which means you have a heck of a shine going on there! GIL
  11. Glad your back Pat! Jump in and have fun! GIL
  12. I wouldn't sweat it too much....it's only a model! If it comes out less than perfect, scratch your head to figure out what might have gone wrong and build another one. Experience is the greatest teacher, even after getting the best advice you can. Turn your attention to having fun with this instead of worrying about a less than perfect paint job. GIL
  13. Very nice! Love the splash of color the tail adds to an otherwise drab scheme. What green did you use for the HUD? It really sets off that area! GIL
  14. I can only speak for using enamels and lacquers (not acrylics)...... As mentioned above, personally, I cut almost all of my gloss enamels with lacquer thinner. This makes it a little bit harder to use than with enamel thinners because it tends to be "hotter" and cure faster. That, in turn, can open you up to a better chance of rough paint areas or "orange peel" if you don't apply it in a more careful manner. However, the up side is that it does dry faster, and in my experience "harder". I've found that 24-48hrs is usually enough time for it to be handled (gently) and masked over if needed. BUT....I would NOT handle it bare handed or for long periods of time (1+hrs) for at least 4-5 DAYS. The paint will be dry, but not fully CURED. This means that the heat from your hands over an extended length of time could start to "uncure" the paint that is not FULLY cured yet in the areas where you're continually holding the model.. I cannot give you hard data on how temps and humidity affect the drying times. But, the more moderate and "normal" the conditions (nothing too cold or too hot) would seem to offer the optimal results. The times I quoted above are based on my personal experiences, and I do paint in my garage (in FLA), where 3/4s of the year it's well above 80 degrees and the humidity can get muggy during the summer. One more thing not mentioned so far....I use a CO2 tank for airbrushing. If you're using a compressor, be sure you have a very good moisture trap to avoid any moisture or water coming through with your paint. This is especially true in high humidity areas. Hope this helps a bit! GIL
  15. I totally agree with the Tamiya Fine White primer as a good starter for any light color paint overcoat. Another need is to then "polish" that primer coat a bit. It usually has a very "baby powder smooth" finish when correctly applied, but I recommend using either a very fine (1000grit or higher) sand paper, or very coarse paper towel (if no fine sand paper is at hand), in order to have a nearly glass smooth surface to apply your gloss paint to. In my experience, as nice as the TFWP is, it's a "dull white", and not a bright white color, which is what you need for an airliner. If you normally use enamels or lacquers, I recommend Model Master Gloss White, thinned with lacquer thinner, and misted on in a few fine coats. It's a much brighter white, which I believe you'll see as soon as you apply it over the primer white finish. Decals can be applied directly over the gloss white, and then you can then apply the clear gloss of your choice to seal them and add a bit more shine. Others who use acrylics can recommend a good acrylic gloss white to use, but the point I'm trying to drive home is that as nice as the Tamiya Fine White primer is, it is not as bright a white as a gloss white paint, especially for airliner liveries. Hope this helps! GIL
  16. You're right.....all of us who tout GSB are really just aiming to undermine IPMSUSA and ruin the Nats. It can't possibly work (because it's never been done). And of course you, like the NCC, want a fully written and detailed proposal to be examined and parsed (and then dismissed) because it doesn't look plausible on paper (to you). That can never be done, so people who want complete assurance that it'll work with no problems or adjustments will never be comfortable with any "proposal". As I said before, I'm not saying you're wrong, but GSB proponents are making it work NOW. But, since you think you have a better idea, exactly where are YOU implementing your SWS? Where are you putting your ideas on the line to be tried? If we agree that the 1-2-3 system (although it does work) is the least beneficial to IPMSUSA for future growth of our Society, then start working towards making a change where you are. You may indeed have a better way, but I guarantee that even if you crossed all your T's and dotted your I's in a "proposal"; it would be dismissed by IPMSUSA and the NCC just as quickly as GSB (or simply put out in a "survey"). Show them how good your idea is by making it work at a successful local and/or regional show. As for our show, Jaxcon, we're looking to keep growing our show so that we HAVE to "scale up" our GSB system. We're already 1/3 the size of the Nats and hope to hit 1/2 (1000+ models) in the next 5yrs. We currently judge those 600+ models in 4-5hrs with only 20 or so judges. So yes, I DO think that 4 to 5 times that number of judges over 2-3 days could judge 2000-2500 models. Until that's actually put to the test, you and I will just have to agree to disagree. Part of this debate and discussion has a LOT to do with breaking "traditions". As I stated above, IPMSUSA does NOT like to do that, and thus not only do you have to prove a new system will work, you have to overcome people's wanting to poke holes in new ideas and their loathing of change. Best of luck, whichever side you end up on, I've covered everything I can think of. Y'all can have at it the rest of the way! GIL
  17. DAK: Again...you're holding on to some old ideas and misunderstood some of what I said. The one thing that would have to be allowed for is judging while people are in the room. I've also done this at a 1-2-3 show and agree that it CAN be a problem. However, the answer is simple: demand good etiquette from the attendees! Judges will have to be avoided by those who are milling about. People placing models can do so in a quiet, polite manner, and then move off. If someone wants to hover, then the team leader nicely asks them to move along. If they fail to do so or start interfering in the judging (talking, questioning, etc.) the team leader gets the head judge and the attendee is put on notice of being disqualified. Failure to cooperate or repetitive hovering will result in disqualification and possible banning from future shows (this is already policy among the judges themselves!). It IS something new to be learned by attendees, but it is also easily explained and easy enough to police. Judging time? As it is now, a judge (or team) donates at least 4-5hrs on Friday evening. If they arrive at the show knowing their assignment, and having communicated with each other ahead of time, then they should be able to get together for an hour or two 2-3 times over the two days. So perhaps they judge for one hour on Thursday afternoon to get started. Then they get together for 2 hours on Friday morning. and then perhaps they use Friday evening to finish up for 1-2 hrs as needed. The judging team could even go out to dinner with wives or friends on a Friday night before showing up to finish up (something not possible now). I agree that this will be something NEW, and it will require a team leader to communicate and coordinate with his two fellow judges so that each of them CAN attend seminars, do lunch, have free time to shop and admire models. However, once the new system is implemented, the teams should actually fall into a routine of sorts. AND, since many genres aren't as "populated" as the aircraft and armor areas, in fact, many of the genres may be pretty much done before Friday evening "judging" (the time used to be sure everything is done). Also, (as added insurance), if some judging had to be done on Saturday morning, it could be done then. While you doubt this could be coordinated (and I agree it could be tough to start if a Head Judge or team leader was lax), I (as a judge) would LOVE to know what I was assigned to do and to be able to get the jump on things! The Nats is the one show that does have enough judges (100 or so on average), and the actual "pool" is even larger. It's also the most experienced group of judges compared to locals and regionals. An adequate number of teams could be assembled and assigned ahead of time, though I freely admit there could be a steep learning curve the first couple of years. If someone feels they need more time for other things at THAT show, then they simply don't volunteer to judge that year (the exact same as now). Holding space? Judging models before they enter the room? Where did you come up with that? This is not Amps and I certainly never said or implied it. All models would be judged in place on the tables in the contest room, just like now. Missing a model? Judging a model more than once? Extremely doubtful, since the team would be able to mark the entrant's paperwork with the model AS judged. Also, the real plus with GSB is there's really NO reason to move a model since they only have to fit into the broadest of "categories" (unlike now). Anything can happen (of course), but you threw that in there without any real probable cause. The 3 man team approach requires no more paperwork than now. The only difference is that instead of 3 lines on their sheet they'll have about 30 lines to record results on (and I don't propose having teams judge more than that at a time unless they HAVE EXTRA time). As it is now, a team will generally judge a category with 20-30 models in it, tops. The splits are designed to keep it at those numbers. The GSB "categories" or display zones (whatever you label them) can be designed the same way (much the same as now). Thus teams will still judge approximately the same number of models as they do now, but they won't have to wait and do it all in one night (unless they prefer to). The other "individual" way does require more time and paperwork, but it's also spaced out over 3 days (including Saturday, which the recorders already work now). That's why I prefer the traditional 3 man team approach. To note another change; the idea that you're going to take pics and show EVERY winner at the banquet has to be tossed. Since you'll be awarding so many more models, it just cannot be done. My proposal would be to simply list the bronze and silver winners in the Journal (their name, and the number of each they got), and then show pics of the Gold winners at the awards ceremony and in the Journal. Want your model up on the wall at the banquet? Up your game and win a gold! That will greatly reduce the stress of WHAT has to collated and coordinated for the awards ceremony at the Nats, while giving plenty of time to sort and record the bronze and silver winners for publication months later. Standards? You are ENTIRELY wrong in citing that old IPMS story....THAT was a proposal to have a MINIMUM standard to ENTER at the Nats, and had NOTHING to do with judging standards during the contest. There IS a standard we use now in our Nats 1-2-3; the BASICS. GSB will use that SAME standard, but draw lines to say which award goes with what level of building and finishing basics (go back and read the Pittsburg GSB standard in the post above by DM). Anyone who thinks there is no "standard" to be met in order to win in 1-2-3 or GSB, or that having one is "dangerous", is beyond help from any of us! Am I seeing pie in the sky, or painting a really rosy scenario? Perhaps....but I did so at YOUR request to "flesh out how" GSB could actually work and be scaled up. In reality (not just theory), we're doing this at Jaxcon. We were able to do it (hiccups and all) last year with over 600 models, and did so over 4-5 hours in one day (we're a 1 day show). The idea is to streamline and improve our system so that we handle all those models and more in an even easier manner with time to spare. We'll see.... This is why I say that GSB has to be PROVED at the local and regional level first. It has to be fine tuned so that we do it as normally as we now do 1-2-3. If that CAN be done, then it CAN be used at the Nats. If it IS pie in the sky, then it'll die its own death of natural causes and shows will revert to 1-2-3. Writing, proposing, and debating GSB will do nothing. Actual trial and error is what's needed to make the switch to GSB. GIL
  18. GSB CAN be scaled up to the Nats....BUT you have to throw out the idea of trying to judge everything in just one night. The reason we judge everything in one night under 1-2-3 is the need to wait until EVERY model has been entered so they can be judged one against another. There's no need for that with GSB. Each model is being judged against a standard, and it can be judged as soon as it hits the table, as long as their are judges available. There's a couple of possible ways to do this, neither of which require scoring, points, or math on the part of the judges. The first way, and the most familiar way is to retain our teams of 3 judges and they evaluate each model in their assigned area (for ex. 1/72 prop) and decide what award (if any) each model in that "category" deserves. BUT, the team has 2-3 DAYS to get it done. They can meet several times at their own convenience to judge their assigned area, moving on to what's arrived and hasn't been judged yet each time, and having to be done with all of them (like now), by 11pm on Friday evening. This WOULD require that the Head Judges organize, assemble, and assign their judging teams BEFORE the Nats starts. However, with the ease of modern communications that should present few problems, especially after the first year or two. After that, experience and even repetitive assigning would ease the job. The second way is that each judge works independently, at their convenience on their assigned area. Again, they have 2-3 days to get them all judged; BUT, in this case they would need to hand in their work each time they took a break to a scorer. The scorer would be tracking the awards (if any) each judge thinks a model should get. Under this method you could have a "category" (and each model in it) actually judged by as many as 5 judges. In the end, the scorer simply looks at what the majority of the judges thought an entry should get and marks it down for that award. This method does require more "paperwork" by the staff, but it also allows easier organizing of the judging pool and for more opinions (and perhaps a fairer outcome) in the actual judging. Keep in mind that the National Judges are the MOST experienced at their craft. They KNOW "excellent" from "very good" from "good" from "not good enough". Currently, they use that knowledge in comparison to other models beside each other. They can just as easily apply that knowledge to award a gold, silver, or bronze based on a written standard. A team of 3 might operate this way: the FIRST thing they do when they look at a model is ask each other for an immediate opinion. If they all agree, BAM, they're done! They mark that award (or no award) down for that entry and move on to the next. Thus the BEST and the WORST entries will be done quite quickly. If there's a split in the thinking, then they discuss it (as they do now) and come to a consensus. This will happen with those entries that appear to be on the cusp....should it get a bronze or no award? Should it get a silver or a gold? The key is to have the standard written so that it's easily understandable. As I said, the Nats judges already know what's right and wrong when they look at a model. All they need is guidance on where to draw lines for each award. The golds and "no awards" are easy.....it's the standard for the silver and bronze, where there ARE some problems on the models that require some thought and care. If the Nats were to stop trying to judge everything in one night, and allow the judges (in teams or individually) to judge their assigned areas starting on Thursday morning; then 2500 models COULD be judged by 11pm on Friday evening. It can be done, but you have to let go of old habits and ideas to do so. GIL
  19. And now you've added actual buildings to your building! Always entertained and amazed by your work Duke! GIL
  20. In my experience, the Woodland Scenics do have a heavier or "better" adhesive that makes it tough to remove them if you use them as masks. That makes sense since they're designed to be a decal (marking) permanently applied. Age can weaken that adhesive though, some some of their items do work as masks, though I'm not sure how you'd tell how old a particular sheet is. Architectural dry transfer lettering, on the other hand, seems to work better as masking. I believe that's because the adhesive is weaker (being designed to be applied to paper) and they can usually be pulled up with a strip of tape. There are a LOT of fonts available, but you need to have a very good and well stocked store with architecture supplies nearby. A large university book store is usually the ticket for those! GIL
  21. The nice thing about a forum is that you can kick ideas around and given time and effort (by a poster), those ideas can be fleshed out and then debated. However, I'd like to make a few comments based on long, hard experience (not hypothesis). 1) I've been a proponent for change in IPMS for decades. I support not only GSB, but also for ANY club to be able to use ANY format that they're comfortable with, no matter what the "policy" is of the Eboard (that "democracy" mentioned above). It has put me at odds with people on the forums and even caused animosity with people I'd never met OR even debated with on the forums (reputation as a boat-rocker). And, it was the reason I was fired as an RC....not being willing to knuckle under to the "company line" and putting my Regional club's concerns ahead of Eboard dictates. My point? Do NOT be fooled into thinking that IPMSUSA is willing to change from ANY discussion, poll, or "will of the people". 2) I was a part of a GSB committee over a decade ago that went "through channels" and made a GSB presentation. The NCC listened politely, thanked us, and promptly canned our idea. It was clear they NEVER intended to give it a fair consideration as those in charge preferred 1-2-3. As I've mentioned above, I understand their position: why "fix" what isn't broken (in their view)? Well, the "why" is because of how it makes IPMSUSA look to the uninitiated and non-member modeler. While 1-2-3 certainly works for contests, it is also a harsh environment for anyone who may not take the hobby as serious as others. My point? The NCC has NOT changed and those in charge STILL prefer 1-2-3 (and not without some good reasons); thus do NOT expect to "persuade" the NCC to adopt and implement change at the Nats. 3) Just as there are several ways to skin the cat, there are several ways to run a GSB show...so which one is best? Here's where I say you fish or cut bait! If you think you can make it work, then do so! I know of several VERY successful and long running GSB shows (Pittsburg, Chattanooga, etc.) that are doing just that. We in the First Coast club have also switched to GSB and we think we have a way to make it work. We made it through the first year successfully (though not without a couple of real hiccups), and now we'll try to smooth those out and do it even better in 2020. My point? Stop debating and start looking at how the successful shows are actually making GSB work. 4) As suggested above, let the people speak! The survey is a good step as it may shed some light on the views of the membership. However, what will count is whether those same people support GSB by supporting and attending those shows. Despite whatever I might think, if the PEOPLE do not help GSB grow in popularity, then it doesn't deserve to be considered or implemented at the IPMSUSA Nats. My point? The Nats will only change after GSB has become the "norm" at most shows across the country, and after it has been proven it can work and be adapted to the largest and best attended shows. I think that GSB offers many more advantages to the GROWTH of IPMSUSA compared to 1-2-3. However, it should be implemented by the groundswell of its success and adoption by most of the IPMS shows, and not due to some polls or votes. GIL
  22. David: email me at slowhandshodges@bellsouth.net and I can send you an outline. Otherwise, you can search some of the GSB topics on here and get a LOT of explanations of verious ways to do it. GIL
  23. Welcome Trevor! Glad you're here! Sure is nice to know that there are people like you doing what they can to keep hobby shops and plastic modeling alive. GIL
  24. David: I believe you're getting bogged down in your own argument about art. This entire discussion centers on our PR problem, which in turn hinges on how people outside of IPMS perceive us. Whether or not we see ourselves as artists doesn't really matter. What matters is (from your perspective) is whether being seen AS "artists" will help us overcome the PR problem, or re-enforce the already existing problem. I don't see how being artists helps much. Let's refocus and try looking at it this way: Let's say we're a society of DANCERS (yet a different art form). Lot's of people like to dance, some more than others, and some are better at it than others, be it through a natural talent or practice. THAT can be exactly equated to building models. Now, as a dance society, I believe IPMSUSA would be equated to and viewed as (for ex.) "ballroom" dancers: a group who know what they're doing and are serious about their craft. I do not think IPMSUSA would be looked upon as a DANCE CLASS, where people go to learn how to dance and get better at it. So, we would NOT look appealing to join to the "average" person who likes to simply hit the clubs and dance. There would actually probably be an intimidation factor of not being ready or worthy to be a part of a group so far "above" their own level. No matter how much they might respect and admire IPMS (as dancers) for being good at that "art", it does not help us overcome the PR problem that EVERYONE is welcome and IPMS IS a place to learn and become better at your craft. You are quite correct in that much of the general public probably looks on building models as playing with toys. But, we're not concerned about the general public...we're concerned with changing the minds of model builders who are not IPMS members. THOSE people do not look at the hobby as being merely for kids, or playing with toys. But MOST of them also are not as "invested" as we are in the hobby. The PR problem for that group of initial joiners is for them to see us as a group that WANTS beginning and "average" modelers (which is actually what most of our membership considers themselves, artist or not). No matter how we view our hobby, no matter whether we're artisans or merely plastic hackers; there are 2 PR problems to overcome: the idea that we are an "elite" group that requires a level of expertise to be a part of (the intimidation factor); and the insidious reputation (deserved or not) we have as accuracy anal color nazis. GIL
  • Create New...