Jump to content

Real or Neat


Dakimbrell
 Share

Recommended Posts

Looking at some pictures, I found the real thing was a bit sloppy on the paint job. If you saw a model like this, you gig it or praise it for realistic craftmanship? Would you be upset if your immaculate model lost to it?

Dak 

IMG_1437.jpg

IMG_1438.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even with this photo on the table or in a notebook, I would hesitate to guarantee it would excuse what would be perceived as a "flawed" or "messy" paint job.

We have been trained to expect sharp lines.

I say this from experience having heard judges dismissing "sloppy" invasion stripes as "poorly executed" in 2009 at Columbus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

      I’ve only been a judge one time at our local invitational. (Figures). If I saw a plane with the worn, chipped effect that was convincing, I wouldn’t disqualify it for that. That’s accuracy. Isn’t that what we modelers strive for? Every judge has one area that they are set in stone on. (Crisp/clean paint lines) Nothing wrong with that, but I would rather reward the modeler for a historic presentation rather than Disqualify them. 
           That’s just my two cents.

Chris.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judging is always subjective....to address your specific question; IF the "ragged" paint edge on the prop on the model was done to "scale", and looked like it was a case of "field Painting" (versus sloppy modeling), then it's not gigged. BUT, much of the time, whether it's THIS or (perhaps) an attempt to paint invasion stripes in a "realistic" sloppy manner, the modeler cannot pull it off in scale.

A more experienced judge MIGHT know that in the ETO there was a shortage of tape and often planes were masked and painted with wet newspaper, making for sloppy edge lines and overspray. Also, they often had to buy "local" stocks of paint (for houses and cars) and thus they didn't wear on the airplanes as well as aviation grade paints, leading to ragged wear lines. BUT, a LOT of judges DON'T know that....and thus will chalk up those attempts to failed model painting.

You pays your money and ya takes your chances! My advice (as always) is build it the way YOU want to for your shelf, look at winning anything as "gravy", and don't worry if the judges know less than you and don't give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Gil :cool:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably by the time you reduced the paint brush slip down to 1/72 or whatever, if you most likely be reduced to a soft straight line. But I agree and would like to see a reduction of the mania about perfect straight lines. Decals too, they were supposed to have been applied with a stencil and paint brush or large air brush...

The pic does remind me of another (which I couldn't find at the moment) of a guy in the field, applying camo on a plane with a mop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree and disagree.  Yes this is a very sloppy line but it is one photo of a single aircraft at a single moment in time.  To extrapolate that to sloppy lines on other birds, is a stretch.  Notice that although the prop is a mess, the checkerboard is perfectly straight and crisp.  All of those lines were field applied because nose art was always applied in the field.
  I am of the opinion that if you are replicating a given aircraft at a given moment in time then yes, that messy line would be necessary to achieve that.  Just don't use this example to say that all lines are sloppy and thus any model with sloppy edges or lines could be correct.  Don't use this as an excuse for poor painting and masking skills.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was that like with seams, modelers tend to like thinks neat, but that the real world often isn’t. 
 

I remember seeing an F-4 Phantom at Tinker AFB, about 1978, that had the rescue arrow off register. It reminded of a decal sheet I had seen with some off register markings.

Dak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the pic of Gentile's Mustang spinner above is a case of WEAR, and not ragged painting. As I mentioned above, the 4th FG occasionally had to buy paint from local sources. The white on the spinner is the original prop spinner color for the 4th, and the red was something Gentile had added. The red paint just didn't wear very well, flaking and peeling back to the point seen. There are earlier pics with the spinner being completely red, before it flew so many missions.

Since the original question asked about judging an attempt to replicate that wear, in my mind it boils down to whether the builder can pull off that worn look IN SCALE. Otherwise it probably doesn't impress viewers or judges.

Here is a pic of Shangra La after Gentile pranged it on the field during his last landing before rotating home (possibly on purpose). Note that the spinner had been repainted and is all red!1371947880_ShangriLa.jpg.5ca3c18b41978a84755f1ee576d9fd9c.jpg

 

Gil :cool:

Edited by ghodges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you may be right, but looking at the base of the prop blade I see what looks like sloppy red paint. It may be a little of both. Not that it really matters.

As I say, my real pout was to note that there are sloppy paint jobs in real life. Just because it is “sloppy” doesn’t always make it wrong. 

Dak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This model of a normally shiny car brought home a trophy from Seattle Recon 7 back in the late 80s.  Ya never can tell what someone might like.

b 013.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...