Jump to content

Feedback from Judges


Recommended Posts

Without detailed close up multiple angle views of each build, it’s really hard to pick out any flaws. They all look great in the photos that you posted. But from those photos, you can’t spot any alignment, seam, or other potential build & finish issues. And even if none of those issues apply, how does one build stack up against a competing build? What possible extra bit of detailing or effort lifted one over the other? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stikpusher said:

Without detailed close up multiple angle views of each build, it’s really hard to pick out any flaws. They all look great in the photos that you posted. But from those photos, you can’t spot any alignment, seam, or other potential build & finish issues. And even if none of those issues apply, how does one build stack up against a competing build? What possible extra bit of detailing or effort lifted one over the other? 

I get that. This goes out to those that were at the event and saw it and especially those who judged that category. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Carlos said, and you acknowledged, there is no way we can tell from these photographs. That said my money is on some form of misalignment, especially on the Spitfires. It's just the nature of the beast. Throwing exposed internals and a NMF on the Mustang into the mix provides even more opportunity for error. I'm sure you know these things. You probably even know where most of the errors are on these builds.

I do have a few questions for you if you don't mind.
1. Why are there two Spitfires on that one mirror?
2. Are any of these builds in the same category as one or more of the others?

3. Why did you include your YT channel info in the comments section? That spoils the anonymity for anyone who has seen your channel, me included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing to consider is that their may not be "flaws". The other models may be better weathered or etc. But, as others have said, the basics is where all judging starts. One thing I have noticed for aircraft is to check the canopies and glass parts. 

And I love the models especially the P-51!

 

Dave

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good morning, I am asking the same question for my entry . What do I need to do to make it better. I was in category 293. 
it would be great if I could get ahold of the judges for that category.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ShutterAce said:

As Carlos said, and you acknowledged, there is no way we can tell from these photographs. That said my money is on some form of misalignment, especially on the Spitfires. It's just the nature of the beast. Throwing exposed internals and a NMF on the Mustang into the mix provides even more opportunity for error. I'm sure you know these things. You probably even know where most of the errors are on these builds.

I do have a few questions for you if you don't mind.
1. Why are there two Spitfires on that one mirror?
2. Are any of these builds in the same category as one or more of the others?

3. Why did you include your YT channel info in the comments section? That spoils the anonymity for anyone who has seen your channel, me included.

The two spitfires are mine on the mirror. Helping out with space. All 3 1/48 spitfires were in the same category I believe. I may have moved one to OOB. I was on the fence about the anonymity. I would hope that it would not sway anyone either way in the judging process. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took a look at the 1/32 models last night and did find some things that I did not notice on the table. The flaps fell down a bit and the gas tank shifted in transport. Noticed a few seams that might need corrections too. The 1/32 spitfire had the landing gear perfect but one of the resin wheels was a bit forward. 

Not sure about the 1/48 category but I imagine it was very close. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, WasatchModeler said:

The two spitfires are mine on the mirror. Helping out with space. All 3 1/48 spitfires were in the same category I believe. I may have moved one to OOB. I was on the fence about the anonymity. I would hope that it would not sway anyone either way in the judging process. 

Space was definitely an issue. Thanks for being aware and trying to help. I for one appreciate it.

As a judge you know that the first thing done during judging is to consolidate all entries from the same entrant and eliminate all but one of them. So, in effect, only one of those three Spits competed against the other builders. This is to facilitate the "no sweeps" rule. Because of that I generally only bring one entrant per category.

I try to keep my entries anonymous. That includes not revealing them on YT or anywhere else. I don't ever want there to be a question that the build stood on it's own against the competition.That said, it is possible to show parts of a build without giving away the specific model you are working on. For instance I build a lot of P-47's. Typically the thing that differentiates them from one another is the paint and markings. Therefore it's not a problem if I show the assembly of the cockpit or even the entire airframe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ShutterAce said:

Space was definitely an issue. Thanks for being aware and trying to help. I for one appreciate it.

As a judge you know that the first thing done during judging is to consolidate all entries from the same entrant and eliminate all but one of them. So, in effect, only one of those three Spits competed against the other builders. This is to facilitate the "no sweeps" rule. Because of that I generally only bring one entrant per category.

I try to keep my entries anonymous. That includes not revealing them on YT or anywhere else. I don't ever want there to be a question that the build stood on it's own against the competition.That said, it is possible to show parts of a build without giving away the specific model you are working on. For instance I build a lot of P-47's. Typically the thing that differentiates them from one another is the paint and markings. Therefore it's not a problem if I show the assembly of the cockpit or even the entire airframe.

That is a good idea. I was not sure which of my three was the best and I had the room. Curious to find which the judges deemed best of the three. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just FYI for future conventions, on Saturday morning there was a judging team available to give you feedback on your models. They would not have compared them to any other models and would not have know what the actual judges of your models saw, but they could have given general feedback from a judging point of view. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had to leave on Saturday morning and was not available to talk to judges.

That is why I was asking.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed on your P-38, the props are on the wrong nacelles.  Besides that it is an EXCELLENT build.

-Pat V.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, PatV said:

I noticed on your P-38, the props are on the wrong nacelles.  Besides that it is an EXCELLENT build.

-Pat V.

Interesting, I will have to double check that. Thanks for the clerification.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Cameron, TAG!  I'm it.  Or at least one of the three its.  I was one of the three judges for THAT specific category split, 107A. Aircraft; Small Prop; 1/48 US / Allied Inline, Commonwealth.  FWIW, we three judges (Bruce, Guy, and myself) LOVED the opportunity to judge that category split (there were a total of 6 splits for 48 single-prop).  Nearly all 23 entries in that split were awesome builds to view so closely.  Of course, that meant that our job was very challenging.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, our first task was to review all entries to first confirm that they were all in the correct category and split.  Next, using the model entrants' numbers (aka IPMS/USA member number written on the entry sheet) we collected mini groupings of entries from the same builders.  Then we chose the best of each builders' entries to be used for judging and gently placed all others towards the back of the table to free up space towards the front of the table.  Part of that process involved each of us spending a certain amount of time individually looking closely at each of these models to ascertain each entries pros and cons.  We then re-grouped and compared our individual findings where we sometimes learned from each other about areas where we might have not found specific pros....or cons....  Discussions developed, observations were weighed out against each other (model), and we arrived at our collective decisions.  This amounted to a repeating process as we began (if you wish to call it this) "eliminating" models that displayed the more significant levels of flaws.  Each level of elimination included closer and closer scrutiny beyond the mire obvious.  This also included narrowing down our findings to a level of "nitpicking" build quality flaws that out weighed build quality excellence.

While we three judges did engage in serious and frank discussion, at no time did we ever need to elevate to "heated" debate.  We all worked well together and found common ground of agreement on all issues.

I can tell you that many of our first level "eliminations".....were the result of "basic" building flaws...(alignment, visible seams, and translucent painting....to name a few).

The one flaw that became quite prevalent was found using a small (mini) flash light pointed from the aft of the subject directly at the windscreen and canopy(ies) areas.  That was where we found many models with not only the translucent paint on canopy/windscreen frames (not minor but significant translucency!!!) but also windscreens that "hovered" over the fuselage where there were definite cases of the windscreens having NOT been glued down completely.  Simply, the light would clearly shine thru the gap!

The second most common short coming were the alignment/positioning of the horizontal stabilizers.  Minor anomalies weren't counted so much as the obvious (unquestionably) ones.  We didn't need to use the ruler method, just the Mk.I eye-balls, looking from the front of the subject (approx. 2-3 feet back), and lining up the horizontal stab tips with the top of the wings.

Another common issue that arose was found by directing the light obliquely across seam areas (ex:  fuselage tops) to find "over sanded" seams (aka flats), and "under sanded" (or stepped) seams.

As for your models here, I think that you can look closely for the noted issues and see how they compare.  While these issues were not necessarily THEE reasons that yours might not have placed, they may have contributed to a sort of "stacked up" mini list of observed anomalies that led to our decisions.  The models that placed.....with various levels of great-to-flawless build qualities, did not have the above mentioned anomalies.

I recall that your "best-of", at the very least, made it into the top 10 of the split.  Perhaps even into the top 6.

I hope this is helpful towards future building for contests.  As always, we can build for the fun of it too, in-between the contest stuff.  Thank you for participating in the National Convention Contest and for allowing me and the others to see your work.

Edited by Weedeater
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, WasatchModeler said:

Interesting, I will have to double check that. Thanks for the clerification.

 

I was on the team for this category, and  the props on the wrong nacelles was the main problem. There was some kind of minor issue with the landing gear or the wheels, but I can not recall exactly what it was. 

Edited by kurth
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Weedeater said:

Hi Cameron, TAG!  I'm it.  Or at least one of the three its.  I was one of the three judges for THAT specific category split, 107A. Aircraft; Small Prop; 1/48 US / Allied Inline, Commonwealth.  FWIW, we three judges (Bruce, Guy, and myself) LOVED the opportunity to judge that category split (there were a total of 6 splits for 48 single-prop).  Nearly all 23 entries in that split were awesome builds to view so closely.  Of course, that meant that our job was very challenging.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, our first task was to review all entries to first confirm that they were all in the correct category and split.  Next, using the model entrants' numbers (aka IPMS/USA member number written on the entry sheet) we collected mini groupings of entries from the same builders.  Then we chose the best of each builders' entries to be used for judging and gently placed all others towards the back of the table to free up space towards the front of the table.  Part of that process involved each of us spending a certain amount of time individually looking closely at each of these models to ascertain each entries pros and cons.  We then re-grouped and compared our individual findings where we sometimes learned from each other about areas where we might have not found specific pros....or cons....  Discussions developed, observations were weighed out against each other (model), and we arrived at our collective decisions.  This amounted to a repeating process as we began (if you wish to call it this) "eliminating" models that displayed the more significant levels of flaws.  Each level of elimination included closer and closer scrutiny beyond the mire obvious.  This also included narrowing down our findings to a level of "nitpicking" build quality flaws that out weighed build quality excellence.

While we three judges did engage in serious and frank discussion, at no time did we ever need to elevate to "heated" debate.  We all worked well together and found common ground of agreement on all issues.

I can tell you that many of our first level "eliminations".....were the result of "basic" building flaws...(alignment, visible seams, and translucent painting....to name a few).

The one flaw that became quite prevalent was found using a small (mini) flash light pointed from the aft of the subject directly at the windscreen and canopy(ies) areas.  That was where we found many models with not only the translucent paint on canopy/windscreen frames (not minor but significant translucency!!!) but also windscreens that "hovered" over the fuselage where there were definite cases of the windscreens having NOT been glued down completely.  Simply, the light would clearly shine thru the gap!

The second most common short coming were the alignment/positioning of the horizontal stabilizers.  Minor anomalies weren't counted so much as the obvious (unquestionably) ones.  We didn't need to use the ruler method, just the Mk.I eye-balls, looking from the front of the subject (approx. 2-3 feet back), and lining up the horizontal stab tips with the top of the wings.

Another common issue that arose was found by directing the light obliquely across seam areas (ex:  fuselage tops) to find "over sanded" seams (aka flats), and "under sanded" (or stepped) seams.

As for your models here, I think that you can look closely for the noted issues and see how they compare.  While these issues were not necessarily THEE reasons that yours might not have placed, they may have contributed to a sort of "stacked up" mini list of observed anomalies that led to our decisions.  The models that placed.....with various levels of great-to-flawless build qualities, did not have the above mentioned anomalies.

I recall that your "best-of", at the very least, made it into the top 10 of the split.  Perhaps even into the top 6.

I hope this is helpful towards future building for contests.  As always, we can build for the fun of it too, in-between the contest stuff.  Thank you for participating in the National Convention Contest and for allowing me and the others to see your work.

That is very helpful. Was hoping to get more specifics but it was a very tough category. I am kinda glad my categories to judge were easier. I also appreciate how detailed you all were getting. Do you remember which of my entries was my best?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a judge and on Saturday morning, I manned the critique table at the door of the model room. We had a  dozen or so people come and have us look at their models. Interestingly, a number of these people won awards. This also happened at Chattanooga. This was announced several time and signs were in place.

Dak

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2021 at 3:38 PM, PatV said:

I noticed on your P-38, the props are on the wrong nacelles.  Besides that it is an EXCELLENT build.

-Pat V.

Props on the wrong nacelle is an accuracy issue and should not have been a judging point. except perhaps at the very end when it comes to personal choice.

Dak

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Dakimbrell said:

Props on the wrong nacelle is an accuracy issue and should not have been a judging point. except perhaps at the very end when it comes to personal choice.

Dak

I somewhat disagree

Putting parts on upside down, even as Tamiya instructed one to do, was declared a misalignment issue, wasn't it?

Would a misalign prop be a basic craftsmanship issue? Are you now saying we should accept parts going the wrong direction on an airplane? (The Tamiya instructions aren't wrong in this case)

This makes it a basic flaw (if it's even noticed (see Gil's E-2)) per your previous argument.

Same discussion, different post.

 

Edited by jcorley
Misspelled
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an element I have often argued. Where does craftsmanship end and accuracy begin? You read my earlier string  

However, in the judges meeting we are told we are not judging accuracy, repeatedly.

I guess the question is would the average person notice it. They might notice a seam or glob of glue, but the propeller on the wrong nacelle?

Mark even brought up the P-47 which won big a while back. Seems there was a big anger because it had some incorrect parts on the engine....at least for that version. I certainly couldn’t tell you it was wrong. The same with the P-38 props. I would not have noticed it as incorrect.

On the other hand, I know a lot about tiger tanks that I see wrong.

Dak

Edited by Dakimbrell
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To date, for almost every hard fact, I have found a exception. That doesn't mean there were M1A2 Abrams tank at El Alamein. Still, there are many things to strange to be believed, but not too strange to have happened.

Dak

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...