Jump to content
Dakimbrell

IS OOB OBSOLETE?

Recommended Posts

I think that this discussion has wandered a bit. OOB  should be ONLY about how well a kit  is built and finished by the modeller as the manufacturer intended. Whether the kit is a 60 years old Airfix bagged kit or new state of the art kit with all bells and whistles is irrelevant. It is the skill of the builder we should be judging. OOB  should be a leveller to assess modelling skills and nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, noelsmith said:

OOB  should be ONLY about how well a kit  is built and finished by the modeller as the manufacturer intended. Whether the kit is a 60 years old Airfix bagged kit or new state of the art kit with all bells and whistles is irrelevant. It is the skill of the builder we should be judging. OOB  should be a leveller to assess modelling skills and nothing else.

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 This is why I am suggesting OOB is obsolete.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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dakimbrell said:

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.

 

It may be one of several reasons.  You could take that same Asuka Sherman and enter it in three different categories simply by making it a small comp diorama, a large comp diorama and sticking it on a plain wood base.

Are you advocating for the elimination of categories you don't like to build in with the purpose of expanding ones that you do like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RJackson said:

Are you advocating for the elimination of categories you don't like to build in with the purpose of expanding ones that you do like?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still build older kits from the 1980s and 90s OOB. Solid kits, just not the high tech gee whiz ones today.

A current project of mine, is based off of the 1950s era Monogram M48A2. I got the tank from the clearance aisle for $7.50. It is ancient, but it has some good memories. I built one long ago and repainted it around 1984. I still have that original kit.

Any way, the project I am working on is using an old Lo Models conversion that was designed to turn three kits into different variants. The one I am using changes this Vietnam era warhorse into a Bundeswehr tank. That conversion was released around 1989.

I still have a lot of older Italeri and Esci armor that isn't worth trying to sell, nor worth pouring good money into it in terms of aftermarket either; the price of AM alone would be about what a better kit would cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, RGronovius said:

I still have a lot of older Italeri and Esci armor that isn't worth trying to sell, nor worth pouring good money into it in terms of aftermarket either; the price of AM alone would be about what a better kit would cost.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, RGronovius said:

I still build older kits from the 1980s and 90s OOB. 

I still have a lot of older Italeri and Esci armor that isn't worth trying to sell, nor worth pouring good money into it in terms of aftermarket either; the price of AM alone would be about what a better kit would cost.

 

I’m with Rob- building those older, yet still very buildable kits can be fun. I do that a lot.

But I also accept  that not every kit I choose to build is worth the effort to try to turn it into a contest winner.  

Even in an OOB category, a 30 year old kit won’t be as detailed as a new “super kit” is.   Yes, the superkit has a lot more opportunities to make an error, but it provides a canvas to showcase a wider spectrum of skills if done correctly.   

Given that “no sweeps” is the rule, I’m not going to waste my one shot at being competitive in 1/35 WW2 armor with a 30 year old kit. Doesn’t matter whether it is in an OOB or non-OOB category- same thought process applies, at least for me.

Around here, all but one of the local clubs dropped OOB a long time ago-  in part because they realized that having two categories for the same subject (OOB and not-OOB) was just giving the same “Ace” builders two awards instead of one.  

-Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O boy where to start. LOL

      Personally I do feel it's time to go. BUT it is very popular due to the misconception you need extras to win. I did the math, when OOB was awarded within the regular categories 38% of the time one of the place winners was also the OOB winner. That tells me you don't need extras to win. But people want to believe what they believe so.... If judges are doing what they are supposed to be doing then OOB builds within a regular category should be at no disadvantage. Heck you could argue just the opposite since there is less to screw up. I would love to see those OOB categories reconfigured into more regular categories , But I don't see this happening since the popular misconception is still present. I do not see the NCC canning categories that are popular for what ever reason.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK… here’s a thought. Would not the OOB category be a good opportunity to do a trial run of GSB judging? With a greater opportunity to come away with an award, plus the requirement to refrain from additional aftermarket parts (and the requisite expense and skills they entail) it may encourage more neophyte builders to enter their models. It would also be a good opportunity to see how the GSB system is received vs the 1-2-3 system.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bobmig said:

OK… here’s a thought. Would not the OOB category be a good opportunity to do a trial run of GSB judging? With a greater opportunity to come away with an award, plus the requirement to refrain from additional aftermarket parts (and the requisite expense and skills they entail) it may encourage more neophyte builders to enter their models. It would also be a good opportunity to see how the GSB system is received vs the 1-2-3 system.

Bob

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JClark said:

O boy where to start. LOL

      Personally I do feel it's time to go. BUT it is very popular due to the misconception you need extras to win. I did the math, when OOB was awarded within the regular categories 38% of the time one of the place winners was also the OOB winner. That tells me you don't need extras to win. But people want to believe what they believe so.... If judges are doing what they are supposed to be doing then OOB builds within a regular category should be at no disadvantage. Heck you could argue just the opposite since there is less to screw up. I would love to see those OOB categories reconfigured into more regular categories , But I don't see this happening since the popular misconception is still present. I do not see the NCC canning categories that are popular for what ever reason.  

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...