Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by ghodges

  1. I'm betting you're right....the aftermarket people will be quick to cover any shortcomings in the kit, including corrections for those that care about the imperfections. In any case, even with any problems the kit may have, it has to be head and shoulders above the old Hawk/Testors kit! GIL
  2. Yep, I can see a closer resemblance in that one. Thanks! GIL
  3. Welcome Chris! Dive in and have fun! GIL
  4. Looks great Ron! Gotta ask, if you added some side sponsons, it would match the "tank" used in the "Last Crusade" Indiana Jones movie. Any chance they based it on this specific type? GIL
  5. I get where you're coming from David....but I also think you're in a very small minority. The vast majority of builders DO want some feedback. I agree that many comments can be incomplete and don't show the full picture. After all, if a judge writes "silvered decals", that tells you where to look for a problem on the model you may have missed. But, did it eliminate you, or did you still make the cut only to lose in the final round? All you know is that a judge pointed to a "problem" he spotted and that it more than likely made a difference in how you finished. I don't think any judge expects you to take it home and correct the problem for a future show (though I know some builders who do!). But if you have several models with the same types of commentary, you may spot an area of your building and/or finishing techniques that you need sharpen a bit. Most builders are MUCH more frustrated going home with NO comments and no idea of "what" the judges thought they saw. In a 1-2-3 show that's especially true, since there's no recognition for anything below the top 3 and the 4th place guy (1rst loser) may or may not have problems that are easily spotted. I do not think comments are for "intangibles", and in my many years of judging experience it's almost always VERY tangible (basic) items that can be pointed to as having eliminated or lowered a model in the standings. In my mind, IF a model makes the cut (is in the running for an award), and something knocks it down a peg or two to where it doesn't end up winning; the judge should mention what it was that made the difference. Will it make everyone happy? No....and it can open up another whole can of worms when the builder thinks he sees the same problems you commented on on the winning models. Right now, judging comments are the exception rather than the rule when it comes to judging. If it starts becoming the "norm", then I think anyone who feels as you do should be able to write "no commentary please" on your entry form and the judges then can skip yours. GIL
  6. Where did you get a "sealed" exhaust fan from, in case you use volatile lacquers or enamels? GIL
  7. Cool! Nicely done, well presented, and yet simple. Proves you don't have to build something elaborate to make an effective diorama! GIL
  8. Interesting Nick....So you worked with Rusty (and the others), fought with Rusty (and the others), pounded the table with Rusty (and the others); and you point this out as a POSITIVE in that you all accomplished something despite individual differences. Yet, you want to hold Rusty alone to blame because he let Mark write the 1-2-3 narrative? I can see your point, and agree that the 1-23 AND the GSB narratives should have been written by the group wanting and conducting the survey. However, I cannot see, after his participation and hard work WITH you, why Rusty would "sabotage" the effort as you imply. On that I think you're mistaken. I have no problem with pointing out his mistake in including Mark at all....but think you (once again) decided to make it personal, which comes off as nasty. I'd be interested to know why Rusty would think it was a good idea to ask Mark to write the 1-2-3. There's no reason to expect him to be unbiased. Perhaps Rusty can offer us an explanation. Where I differ from Rusty, as he says he doesn't want to accuse Mark of bias, is that I HAVE, and will continue to do so. But...I will say that after Rusty's inviting "the fox into the hen house"; I better understand why Mark wrote what he did. I am truly saddened that he choose the low road, but then I also think Mark believes 1-2-3 is best for IPMSUSA and is working to keep the status quo no matter the consequences. The sad part is that the most likely outcome (no matter what) is a poor response to the survey, just because ALL surveys in the Journal get little to no responses. Also, even though we may get 1000 people to attend a Nats, only a little over half of those are actually members and compete in the contest. A even lesser percentage of those who compete actually care what system is used. I'll be surprised if 300 "ballots" are turned in. Predictably, in that case, even if ALL of them are pro GSB, the NCC will simply say it's "too small a sampling" to rely on or make any decisions on. As I stated when you guys began this....I've been there and done that (GSB committee) already more than a decade ago. That's why I've decided the ONLY way things will ever change is from the bottom up. GSB has to become THE dominant system for Locals and Regionals, establish a way to make it work for a lot of models, do it routinely and well for several years, and only THEN will the membership go to the Nats LOOKING for a GSB format and start asking why the NCC is so far behind the times! And if it fails at those lower levels? Then Mark and the NCC was right, all along! GIL
  9. Thanks Rusty...I can appreciate the position you've been boxed into. The NCC "leadership" may have changed, but not its attitudes. Frankly, I'm done with them myself. Perhaps the survey will surprise everyone in spite of the way it appears it will go into the Journal. GIL
  10. So Rusty...as one of THE leaders of getting this survey done; are you going to allow it to be run and submitted in the form you posted above? Or, will you demand that the 1-2-3 be rewritten in a non-biased, and fact based manner for the survey? GIL
  11. Welcome Robert! You're right in that the plastic models have gotten much better (and expensive) than back in the "good old days"; but the goal is still to have FUN!! Dive in and make yourself at home! GIL
  12. Brian (and all): The example of GSB that you cite is yet another possible variant of that system, and is designed to reward the BUILDER instead of the models. This is the system that Orlando uses for GSB. As you point out, the big advantage there is it greatly reduces the awards costs since (theoretically) an attendee only gets one award per genre entered. The down side to that (as I've experienced it in Orlando) is that they pick which of your models in your group to judge (it may not be the best of your group in your own opinion), so there's really no incentive to bring more than one model per genre you want to enter. That system might be a good one for IPMSUSA to consider, IF they want to establish a "hierarchy" of builders (another whole can of worms). It might also encourage some people to expand into other genres IF they wanted to find out if they're as good a builder in THAT genre as they are in their regular building genre. However, besides the problem of establishing a hierarchy, it would probably also dissuade people from bringing as many models as they do now. That, in turn would bring on the appearance that the show was shrinking (starting to fail) and then open up another whole set of problems. What the current 1-2-3 system has encouraged and fostered is for builders to enter as many models as they can in order to win as many awards as they can. A completely open GSB system allows that to continue. The "limited" GSB you cite, while a much more accurate barometer of the builder, probably won't satisfy the long established "need to win" with most IPMS contest goers. Your mentioning of the medal not having a year on it is also a common complaint about GSB awards. At Jaxcon, we have self adhesive white discs available to anyone who wants them so they can put them on the back and record what year/etc. for their own posterity. So, even if you end up with several of the same looking medals in your case after a few years, you can differentiate between them if your memory fails you. Your last paragraph I think is a bit mistaken in that it suggests that splits at a 1-2-3 contest are made to allow more people to win. That is the RESULT, but usually NOT the reason. The reason, especially at the big shows like the Nats, is to give the judges a grouping of models that they can more easily handle. If 50-60 entries show up in a category, it'll take forever for the guys to try to pick 1-2-3. However, if it's split 3 ways so they're only having to judge 15-20 in each category, they can not only do a faster job, but probably (since they don't feel as overwhelmed or rushed) do a more thorough job of judging them. I know when Jaxcon was 1-2-3 we DID design it with many more categories than most other shows with a two-fold purpose: to (as you said) give people more of a chance to win something somewhere; AND to keep the numbers in each category manageable from the start, and we seldom had to add a "split". GIL
  13. It's not as much "hit and miss and guess" in trying to figure out awards numbers; it's just not a KNOWN number to start. We just started dealing with this at Jaxcon. We normally have 500-600 entries; so we figured that we'd need at least 500 medals, and ordered 300 bronze, 150 silver, and 50 golds. The other reason for ordering 500 medals was there was a significant price break there. Our first complication was that we had a record turnout of over 650 entries on the tables. Turns out we'd have still been perfectly fine EXCEPT for a second complication: ONE guy came in with 40 superb models (35 busts, and 5 airplanes). He skewed our expectations by taking home at least 15 golds and 15 silvers all by himself (he also won Best Figure)! We ran out of Gold and Silver medals, but even with the one guy making us run short, we only ended up 11 Gold and 17 Silvers short. So, we planned correctly for the show, and would have even been ok if that one guy hadn't brought so many entries that were top level medalists. But hey, GOOD FOR HIM! By the way, another nice thing about simple medals (without a box or ribbon) is that you can put them in a regular envelope and mail them with a couple of stamps on them if you run short! Cheap and easy! So, next year, we figure we'll up our medal order by another 100. We'll get 100 Gold, 200 Silver, and another 300 Bronze to go with the 58 left over. We're pretty sure that unless 750 or more entries show up next yer, we'll be well covered, even if someone manages to win another 20 medals themselves. The bottom line is, the"higher" the show, the more good models will show up. The Nats will have a higher percentage of "medalist" models than a Regional will, which will have more than a Local will. I'd estimate that at least 75% of the models on the tables at the Nats are "medal worthy" (depending on how strictly written the criteria is). Now "medal worthy" means Bronze OR better....and so you set it up along the following lines. Bronze: no big basic mistakes and only 2-3 small basic problems. The more something is visible and the faster it may be noticed; the worse it is. These are models that would probably make the first cut in 1-2-3. That's why I say at least 75% of the models at the NATS could win at least a Bronze. The bar is higher and people bring nicer entries. But, many of those are actually better than that and will place higher! Silver: You have to look hard to find a problem, and what problems there are are minuscule and not readily apparent. These are models you'd judge to be in the running for the 1-2-3 in most Nats categories. In other words, the top level of those that would make the cut in 1-2-3. So, figure that half of that 75% (40%) may be worthy of a Silver. Gold: These should be rare, but yet attainable. These are models that stand out at a first glance. You cannot find a basic problem AND they'll almost always have extra work done to them. These are models that you'd be nominating for Best Ofs in their genre. A Gold level build is sort of an intangible, but I'm betting most EVERY judge out there has an idea in their mind of what they think it is, and can spot that model that's just heads and shoulders above most everything around it. I'm guessing no more than 5-10% in the room at the Nats will qualify for Gold. So, figure on a record turn out (could happen in Chattanooga) of 3000 or so entries. Better plan on having 2300 medals on hand. Is there a price break for ordering 2500? Then do that! Personally, I'd go with the 2500 for the first trial (they left-overs can be used the next year). I'd order 500 Golds (probably enough for 2-3yrs), 900 Silvers, and 1100 Bronzes. Then you see what is left over, what you run out of, and adjust accordingly for the next year's order. Now I just did this "on the fly" without any "scientific" input or cross-discussion among a committee; which is what WOULD happen if a Nats host went GSB. I'm sure they could come up with more accurate predictions and percentages than I did on the fly. And with 2-3 years of experience, I'm betting a pretty reliable pattern would emerge allowing for some very close numbered ordering to be done. This is NOT a tough thing to do or figure. It's just an EXCUSE that 1-2-3 supporters want to throw down on. Their only true contrary point is that it IS more expensive than a "set" number of awards. Or is it??? Our awards company charges $2.50/medal for an order of 500 minimum. I'm guessing there's another good price break at 1000, and perhaps another at 2500 or so. But let's be conservative and say we have to pay $2@. So, 2500 medals will run $5000. Even if they're still $2.50@, that's only $6250. Heck, lets order 3000 for $7500. what's my point? Although it's been a while since I've seen a Nats report that listed awards cost, I'm pretty sure most of them are spending north of $5000 as it is now. (If anyone has a recent "bid" package from IPMSUSA, those yearly costs are broken down and listed in it. Please share to either confirm or contradict my thoughts). It could very well be that IPMSUSA could end up SAVING awards costs, especially over a period of years. Anyway, it's always fun to "hypothesize" about such things. BUT, one thing I CAN say with confidence is that we seemed to have MANY MORE people go home from Jaxcon happier this year! We didn't do it perfectly, especially since it was our first time. But, we set a goal to try to award more DESERVING builds; and we did. The impression given to us is that we're on the right track, and that we should see as many or more models in 2020! THAT'S why I think IPMSUSA can benefit from GSB. It rightly awards more models WITHOUT limiting the ability of any "honcho" to win a really big award. GIL
  14. Nicely written tip! Thanks for the link! GIL
  15. I think what's interesting is that the 1-2-3 description actually is written as a NEGATIVE towards GSB! Here are some examples: 1) " Entries aren’t compared to any “ideal”, “perfect-model”, or “national-standards” criteria". Strictly speaking that's true, but they make it sound like having a standard to WIN an award (NOT enter the contest) is a bad thing. Every club that does GSB KNOWS that to be false! And there IS a Standard in GSB... Those same BASICS! 2) "Judges are your IPMS peers"... Seems to imply that GSB uses wizards or outsiders from the GSB galaxy to judge at those shows. Nope! Turns out it's ALSO your "IPMS peers"! 3) " Recording results for just the 600 winners now requires 8 staff, transcribing scoring from just 200 sheets of paper" (etc)...Implies that GSB judging would be IMPOSSIBLE at the Nats because of the logistics of how 1-2-3 is done. FAILS to point out that EVERY GSB system used or proposed does NOT use that 1-2-3 system of recording. IF GSB were ever to be used at a Nats, the system would be entirely different. 4) " How many ‘extras’ of each award level should a host chapter plan to order, ‘just in case’? Just one per category (200 more)? Two or more per category? 2,350 awards – just in case?" This next paragraph rightly points out the differences between the number of awards needed between the two systems. However, it WRONGLY implies that you could NEVER know how much you need! This is dealt with by EVERY GSB show in the nation EVERY year; so it IS something you can "learn". Would GSB be a "higher cost" system? YES! But then THAT is the crux of the debate: Should IPMSUSA look to reward MORE deserving builds than they do now? And with the profits that are being made, IPMS CAN afford to by some more awards! The debate, and the PURPOSE of this survey is to try to determine if the general membership thinks that's a good idea or not. 5) " Our convention attendees want a ‘contest’ "; THAT is a BLATANT assumption, and actually not true! There's enough of a question about that to lead to this survey being done! It also implies that GSB attendees aren't looking to "win" (as opposed to "contest" attendees). Baloney! GSB contestants want to win as MUCH as they can; they just prefer to do so while NOT "beating" anyone else, and (when they do win) not limit anyone else's ability to win. 6) " How many ‘For Display Only’ entries do you ever see at any of our conventions?" What has THAT to do with models in a CONTEST, be it GSB or 1-2-3? People who want to compete enter the show, be it GSB or 1-2-3. Those who prefer to display do that, no matter what format is being used there! 7) " Want to be the one of the few entrants not even good enough to earn a Bronze award – ‘not up to national standards’? MISLEADINGLY implies that a Standard that determines WINNERS (not the ability to enter the show) is somehow mean. Well, how does it feel in a 1-2-3 show to go home EMPTY HANDED and not knowing if you even made the cut? BOTH systems still have "losers"...but GSB will have FEWER "losers" than 1-2-3! 8- " Our contest results and awards are a fair recognition of our entrants’ outstanding model-making accomplishments" BLATANT BALONEY! In ANY 1-2-3 category with 10-25 entries at the Nats there are 7-22 that go home with NO idea of how they did!! There are HUNDREDS of outstandingly built models that go COMPLETELY unrecognized because the judges decide that there are 3 there THAT day that are "better". The "fair recognition" is ONLY truly fair for the top 3 winners! There's a LOT of advantages for 1-2-3 in IPMSUSA, and the system has some positives that make it preferable to many. There was NO need to write the above in such a negative way. Instead of touting the positives and advantages 1-2-3 offers IPMS members, it's written to PUT DOWN GSB. As the IPMS USA Chief Judge, I could understand if Mr. Persechetti wrote an enthusiastic support for 1-2-3. However, he chose to write it as a condemnation, and actually showed his ignorance of GSB in doing so. I'm greatly disappointed and disgusted with his lack of character and honesty in this matter! Gil
  16. That came out super David! If I may ask, exactly how and what did you use to polish that canopy? Looks very sharp! GIL
  17. ghodges

    F9F-5P Progress

    You're off to a good start, and that color looks dead-on! Do you have any 1000 grit or finer wet/dry sanding pads or sticks? If so, you might try LIGHTLY wet sanding the paint job before applying the next coat. You can even use 600 grit paper IF you're really light on the touch, letting the paper do all the work. That should smooth out most of the orange peel look and that next coat of paint will look even better. I agree with Mark, regardless. This is coming along very well and is going to look the part! GIL
  18. Von: If you're talking about the 1/72 green Neptune with the open left engine, I can put you in contact with the builder if you have questions. Email me at: slowhandshodges@bellsouth.net if you want me to do so. GIL
  19. You have to realize that this thread is SEVEN years old! The original question and "wish" was made back in 2012! Since then, his wish HAS come true in 1/48 for the 106 and the 101. Unfortunately, some of the rest of the thread has also been proven true as some of those "newer" kits are NOT better than the older, Monogram kits. Relevantly (to a degree), I'm currently building the 1/48 Eduard release of the Hasagawa A-4E/F AND the older Hi-tech Monogram 1/48 Skyhawk side by side. One of them is the "latest/greatest" kit complete with colored pe interior parts, a resin seat, masks, engraved panel lines, and an expanded decal sheet. The other is the old 70's plastic with raised lines and a few pe parts thrown in to spruce up the detailing here and there. So far, I've not found the engineering or the fit of the components to be much different between the two. Outside of the cockpits, the other detailing is VERY much equal. My advantage here is that since there's extra cockpit pe in the one, I've rebuilt the Monogram tub to take a resin seat and use the Eduard colored PE! My goal, as with my F-14 builds, my F-8 builds, and my F-16 builds over the last couple of years is that once on the shelf, you can't tell at a glance which one is the "new" one! Here's pics of them all.... Half of those kits above are "raised line"; and half are recessed panel lines....... As for "wishes"....part of the original post.....most things are so well covered in 1/48 that only the very obscure, or less popular (re: unprofitable) aircraft are left to cover. That said, I don't know why there isn't a 1/48 C-46 Commando in injection mold yet, or a true SLAT-WINGED F-86A or F-86E model Saberjet. My long desired FJ-2/3 is due out later this year. While they're SURE to be better than the old ESCI Fury, and easier to get and build than the nice 1/48 resin Collect-Aire FJ-3 Fury; it remains to be seen just how correct they are, and whether they'll be better engineered than the "newer" F-101kits were. GIL
  20. ghodges

    F9F-5P Progress

    Shhhhh! There was never a problem, nor is there any "cut line". Trust me, if you don't mention it, no one will see anything. I'm looking, KNOWING it's there, and having trouble seeing anything! Excellent recovery! By the way, do you have any Tamiya Fine White primer? If so, I'd recommend a coat of that before starting with the blue. It'll cover easier over the white than the gray. GIL
  21. Here are the BIG winners from Jaxcon 2019... Best Aircraft Best Armor Best Automotive Best Nautical Best Figure Best Space/Sci-Fi Best Diorama Best Gloss Finish Best Camouflage Best Natural Metal Finish Best Detailed Best Junior Model That's all but the biggest of all ....can't post the Grand Award winner because the site says I've exceeded the limit, and even in another reply it won't do it (timed, perhaps?). So, I'll post that later. Meanwhile, y'all try to guess which of the above was picked to be the top dog! GIL
  22. Jaxcon 2019 was another record setter for us, with 135 people putting 652 entries on the tables! Below is a link to pics of ALL of the models at the show last weekend. Hope you enjoy! https://gallery.ipmsusa3.org/index.php?/category/11518 GIL
  23. Nothing like that at NATS here in the states Noel....the "stash" sellers usually just buy a vendors table and sell their items. The table costs for the IPMSUSA Nats is too steep for most individuals to do that there, but those types of stash sales make up the majority of all the other local and regional model shows! Our club hosts a "kit auction" each November where people can put what they want up for bid at that meeting, and the club does take a 10% cut of those sales. But, since we do "pay-as-you-go", the seller gets paid as soon as his lot is done, and the club takes its cut at that time. There's no need to "inventory" anything that way. The down side is you're generally only going to get pennies on the dollar for what you sell, but you can also pick up some really great bargains! It's one of the more fun meetings every year! GIL
  24. Jaxcon 2109 was another hit, with a record 135 entrants putting just over 650 entries on the tables. Here's a 13+ minute video on U-Tube posted by Tom Jackson showing highlights of the show. We'll have pics of ALL the models here within a week or so, so stay tuned for more! GIL
  • Create New...