Jump to content

re-builds and toys.


odwinn

Recommended Posts

Hey folks ,

I would like opinions on this matter from those who have witnessed this sort of thing,

I have seen a few shows where i have seen an item , and thought to myself '' i didnt know that there was a kit of ????

only to find out from the owner that it was a re worked and re- done toy, in this case we will say it was an Avatar Gunship. and A very neat item i thought . well constructed i will ad.

very impressive work here,

then i found out later that it was the Toy that had been done. it went on to win an award and get a bit of praise

 

I now have had several conversations concerning the re-working of toys . adding details and repaints. and custom decals made for the items .

In my opinion , As the same techniques go into the building of such items. [or should i say deconstruction and rebuild.

that there ought to be a category at shows for said items.

the conversations have been all across the board from NO its not true modeling to its still a toy, to WOW what awesome items folks are doing.

 

I have seen several items at shows that have been done and deserve the awards they get, and have done a few myself.

such as doing Dioramas for One sixth Scale Military action figures . in which many of the same modeling techniques were done as said early on here.

 

lets hear it folks, what the opinions out there are..

 

 

Kev,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, to me it's a matter of degree. I think to qualify for OUR shows, the "toy" should have to be almost completely (if not completely) disassembled, rebuilt, and repainted. The problem is, unless you're completely familiar with the item in question, well done work will mask how much trouble the builder actually had to go to (or not). The automotive divisions seem to run into this more often than other divisions, although with the release of some of the large (1/32 &1/16) aircraft that came assembled and painted, it's been growing in a/c too. As an occasional head judge, in a contest I'd be inclined to require some photo documentation that the builder did return the toy to "kit" form before rebuilding/repainting it, putting it on an even level with the other models.

 

I still don't think we need a separate category for these items, as I've yet to see more than a couple at any one show.

 

In a way, this gets to the philosophy of what i"P"ms is about; PLASTIC modeling. We're folks who buy KITS, assemble, and paint them. Sure, there are some tangents to that, but rebuilding toys is not one of them (IMO). It's like those beautiful wooden sailing ship models. No one can deny their craftsmanship, but they have almost nothing to do with building plastic models. Cheers!

 

GIL :smiley16:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A model is a model, whether it is plastic, paper, resin, metal, or any other material. Its not what the model is made from that matters. What matters more than the material from which the model is made is the finished product. I do not mind the idea of my plastic 1/32nd F-16 competing with a metal model that the builder striped down, repainted, reassembled, decaled, and entered in a contest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great question, Kevin, and one which I have been pondering for some time. For example, let's (hypothetically) say there is a 1/6 toy of an M5A1 Stuart light tank out there somewhere. A nice toy, but a toy nonetheless. (Notice the red "missile" poised in the gun barrel, dangerously threatening the family cat.)

Stuart001.jpg

 

 

Then let's say the builder completely strips the toy down and creates a 462-piece "kit" from the constituent parts.

 

Stuart004.jpg

 

 

 

 

Now, let's fast-forward 4 1/2 years later to where the builder has put 2573 hours into the model, incorporating 10,960 parts, and has ended up with something which is about 85% scratch-built.

 

Stuart214.jpg

What category should this hypothetical model be placed in? Scratch-built? Large scale armor? Disallow this entry since it originated as a toy?

 

Enquiring minds would like to know. (Me? I tend to agree with Dick Montgomery: a model is a model is a model......:smiley14: )

 

--Bob Steinbrunn

Stillwater, Minnesnowta

IPMS #3345

Edited by rsteinbrunn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that tank is AMAZING MAN. !!!!!!

though i am into modern..

your work is much better than my own.

i myself was into collecting One Sixth scale figures for a number of years [ 20 or so lol ] before getting back into plastic modeling and love this item,

I got back into plastic modeling as i was seeing myself and others work the same magic in doing one sixth scale figures as one would for Modeling

 

as for the original topic

I agree also that a Model is a model is a model.

no matter what subject.. Armor SCI FI ,whatever.

 

the skills needed to often accomplish this type of work are still used in the obsession ''er uh'' Hobby LOL

 

i WAS ASKED by a friend who disagrees with me / us on this topic . He says a toy is a toy. and that if we want to bring toys to gatherings. and enter them in contests. that ONE OUGHT TO SPONSOR A CATEGORY,

I myself would be willing if i thought there was enough interest.

 

Kev,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i WAS ASKED by a friend who disagrees with me / us on this topic . He says a toy is a toy. and that if we want to bring toys to gatherings. and enter them in contests. that ONE OUGHT TO SPONSOR A CATEGORY, I myself would be willing if i thought there was enough interest.

 

Kev,

 

Interesting topic, Kevin. I've seen a few models built from toys and they looked just like that: toys with some added detail, so I can't say your friend is too far wrong. Perhaps these belong in a separate category one day if they can't compete with scale models as I understand the term.

 

For example, take our tank model, above. What if, say, the builder scratch-built most of the items, such as a SCR-508 FM radio, and brought the rest of the "toy" up to the same level?

Stuart176.jpg

Is the tank still a toy or is it now an acceptable scale model? I think you'll find many opinions.

 

I think I still agree with Jack in that - in the final anaylsis - the end product should be judged by its scale accuracy and detail, and not on its origin.

 

Just a theory, mind. :smiley2:

 

--Bob Steinbrunn

Stillwater, Minnesnowta

IPMS #3345

Edited by rsteinbrunn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I will disagree with the esteemed posters above about allowing anything and everything to compete in an i"P"ms contest; I think Bob's tank demonstrates what a builder needs to do in order to make their "toy" equate to building models.

 

Do they need to break it down as far as Bob did?- Probably not

Do they need to resort to scratchbuilding like Bob?- No, but they do need to rework the toy

Do they need to prove that they DID break the toy down and rebuild/refinish it?- IMO- YES! A simple pic like the pic of the tank above is enough.

 

Let's not forget that there are TWO sides to the people in the contests. While we want to be as inclusive as we can in our shows (some more than others, obviously), we also have a responsibility to maintain the appearances of fairness and a level playing field. The people who have to compete AGAINST those "toy" entries have to believe that there's something that brings it down to the same level as the kit that they themselves started with for their own build. They need to know that the "toy" builder does not enjoy any kind of "edge" over them, that the toy builder did as much work as themselves.

 

I'll partially agree with Bob and Dick in that a model is a model is a model. It doesn't matter that Bob started with a GI JOE toy. He broke it down into its base elements, improved, replaced, rebuilt, and corrected it; changing it from a toy to a scale model. THAT, to me, is the acid test of whether or not it should be able to compete.

 

As to where it should compete? In the large scale armor category. Although it has scratchbuilt stuff, it's not scratchbuilt in the true sense. Although it's been converted from a toy, it hasn't really been converted in its "type" of vehicle. It's simply a(nother) stunning achievement in modeling by Bob! :smiley32: By the way Bob, have I thanked you for switching to armor.....:smiley2:

 

GIL :smiley16:

Edited by ghodges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dear Mr. Hodge Podge,

 

You are as erudite as you ever were, and I very much appreciate your kind remarks. While I'm cognizant of the "P" in IPMS, and while the hypothetical tank in the example above is (hypothetically) about 80% plastic, there is still a fair amount of resin, white metal, britannia pewter, and brass in its composition.

 

Now, having said that, hasn't IPMS moved away from that "P" stance long ago? That is, if my on-again/off-again memory serves. Take fer instance the metal figures you see at IPMS contests, the paper "flats" figures, the occasional wooden ship models, and, well, just neat stuff you see there made of a bewildering variety of materials besides plastic.

 

I have to admit to gazing longingly at the many non-plastic models in the Internet Craftsmanship Museum ( http://www.craftsmanshipmuseum.com/ ) and feeling like a common blacksmith by comparison to the work I see there. No matter (at least to me) than almost none of it is in plastic. I wish I had a tenth of their skill.

 

Next, many wooden ship model kits are fairly laughable: they're not so much a "kit" as a scale lumberyard. This type of kit is almost as difficult as scratch-building. How do I know this? Trust me on this. <grin>

 

Last, I don't think our tank builder, above, felt he had any advantage or edge over someone who started with a kit. Our builder only wished he had such an edge as having started with a decent kit......sigh. It was far more difficult to correct many inaccuracies than it was to scratch-build the faulty components in the first place.

Still, no one ever accused said builder of being very bright. :smiley29:

 

But now, more importantly, how many beers shall we drink together in Omaha? (The brewery needs the empties..... :D )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't count the beers, I just stop when I know I can't make it back to the room, even if I crawl :smiley11:, or run out of money. Still, Omaha is shaping up to be a whale of a wingding! :smiley20:

 

As for the "P" in IPMS going by the wayside................yea, and I don't think it's done anything for IPMS. I don't see it as having attracted any new members, or groups of members (paper model builders or wood ship builders, for example). There have always been gray areas in competition (metal figures in dioramas); but this has been due more to availability of what's needed than by choice. IF we want to continue to allow other "mediums" into plastic model contests, then I do like the way that they've been split out from the rest into their own groupings. At least that avoids the complaints from other entrants competing against them.

 

Craftsmanship and artistry are to be admired wherever found, as you so rightly point out. There are model builders in other mediums that have abilities far above anything displayed by even the best IPMS members (like the guy who builds the large scale all-metal a/c models). I don't question acknowledging their astounding abilities as model builders. I do, however, question whether they belong in an IPMS plastic model contest.

 

We're are (essentially) a group of folks who bought plastic model kits, assembled them, finished them, and played with them. Along the way, as we grew older, we realized we could take those same kits and turn them into scale representations of real life things. As the hobby progressed and dioramas became prevalent, metal figures were added into the mix. Metal detail parts were also introduced, BUT this was to add detail to our plastic kits! Metal pe parts and resin (another plastic medium) joined our hobby for the same reasons; to add to our plastic kits (or provide a kit where none existed).

 

Conversely, how would a plastic USS Constitution be accepted at a wooden ship model competition? How about a 1/24th scale Airfix P-51 at a "scale" RC contest? They have their own grouping, just as we have ours. We can always acknowledge artistry by allowing others to display their works of art at our shows. Where I want to draw the line is within the contest, where we have to keep our entries on the most level playing field we can provide.

 

GIL :smiley16:

Edited by ghodges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...