A question for those of you who frequent contests...

[racer93]

I was more referring to "just making it" vs buying it. (Implying the automaticity of making = better.)

No, not everyone has access to airbrushes. But, EVERYONE has access to rattle cans. Not everyone has access to a lathe and mill, but everyone has access to people that could commission work via the internet.

If people judge me and others down for buying (vs making) turned parts, so be it. I'd rather not look at it that way, personally. I'd rather just judge the models. That's just me, not going off anyone's guidelines. Call it an outsider's view.

Ok, I understand about Ricky's model not winning that award now. Since it was for machining and not all of it was done by him, that makes *perfect* sense that he shouldn't have won that award for that car. That clears that up for me. Thanks for that.

To me, paint is an *integral* part of our hobby. Machining is secondary. It is something that is regularly purchased aftermarket. Paint is something that is judged on its' own and is one of (if not the) main idea in our hobby. Thus, to be one's own true work, the builder must do all the painting him/herself. Again, just my opinion.

We're getting a bit off topic about the farming out. I really don't know (and don't particularly care) how this applies to SB models. How about just everyone mentioning where things come from and being honest at contests? I just think that if one does the construction of the kit (painting, putting it together), it should be ok regardless the source of ocmmercially available parts. (This including commission work which is.)

[Scale-Master]

Commercially available parts, yes, that is easy enough agree upon.
The commissioned work, on the other hand, still has too many variables for me to say across the board "anything from that category should be allowed" for fair contests to the participants.

Care to offer an opinion on my manifold example? It meets the criteria to be called "commissioned work" doesn't it? But do you think it would fair?

I am still going back the entry being "the sole work of the entrant" train of thought. To me that is really the fairest way if you are rewarding the builder for building the best on any given day.

[racer93]

Oops, I wanted to comment on that, guess I forgot!

No, I don't think that is fair. When "fully finished" is part of it, no. I think that example is pretty extreme. That is *a lot* of work. What I was more referring to in my original example is a set of shocks, some type of tank (like a fire extinguisher ), gauge pods, etc. Nothing extravagant. I see how people could possibly read too deep into it. However, I'm thinking that NO work had been done outside of the simple manufacturing of the product (like a normal aftermarket part). In your manifold example, it was "fully finished". That, IMO, is too much work to be considered the work of one sole entrant.

[karmodeler2]

Originally Posted by racer93

What if that "farmed out" work was paid for? How is that different from ordering a specific request from an aftermarket manufacturer?
.

Thanks sooooo much for making my point for me in such few words.

Just where does the "farmed out" work "line" start and stop. Using your statement above, I could ask an "aftermarket manufacturer" who specializes in paint jobs on models to paint my model. And that should be perfectly okay.

After market is just that; After market. So it should be allowed. As you have suggested. As long as I pay for it.

David

[karmodeler2]

Originally Posted by Scale-Master

It's not the wand, it is how the magician uses it.

Great point. It's how "the magician", not some one else, uses it. Great point that will be lost on many.

[racer93]

Originally Posted by karmodeler2

Thanks sooooo much for making my point for me in such few words.

Just where does the "farmed out" work "line" start and stop. Using your statement above, I could ask an "aftermarket manufacturer" who specializes in paint jobs on models to paint my model. And that should be perfectly okay.

After market is just that; After market. So it should be allowed. As you have suggested. As long as I pay for it.

David

David,

With all due respect, this topic was covered above. Look up a few posts and you'll find a large and involved discussion about it. We've hashed out the whole "painting" thing and where the line should be several days ago. It's too bad you've apparently missed that.

No, it's not "as long as you pay for it." I'm talking about the machining of parts. As is above, we agreed that painting and other finishing is integral to our hobby and should be done only by the constructor. By commissioning an aftermarket source for a turned part and then you, as the constructor finishing it, how is that different than buying an aftermarket part and you finishing it? I imagine that *everyone* has bought something aftermarket at some point and added it to their model. It's the touch that the modeler gives that makes the model. We're not talking about anyone doing any type of work on the model itself, just a piece that will be added to it (such as a fire extinguisher bottle as given above).

I am disappointed that you oversimplified my (and others') statements or missed them completely. I think it may aid in your understanding of my position on this.

[drunken monkey]

the more you type, the more confused your position seems to me.

you started this thread with the basic premise that you don't consider it fair for scratchbuilt models to be competing in the same arena as built kit models, mainly because of the typically high level of 'engineering', especially in the bigger scales.

however, you are now saying that is valid for people to commision parts, from those with machining capabilties, for their models.

you also say that a person doesn't deserve extra credit for mahining their own parts versus buying or commisioning parts.

I don't quite see how those three statements can work together.
surely if you consider it valid to commision parts for a kit built model, then you must also consider that a fair competitor to fully scratchbuilt models, especially seeing you do say that scratchbuilding parts itself doesn't deserve extra credit
i.e, it isn't the scratch building/machining that is being judged.

what's to stop you to commision parts equal to those you saw at the extreme end of the scratchbuilt spectrum?
if it is viable as you say it is, why would you still need/want to seperate built kits and scratch builds?

[racer93]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

the more you type, the more confused your position seems to me.

you started this thread with the basic premise that you don't consider it fair for scratchbuilt models to be competing in the same arena as built kit models, mainly because of the typically high level of 'engineering', especially in the bigger scales.

however, you are now saying that is valid for people to commision parts, from those with machining capabilties, for their models.

you also say that a person doesn't deserve extra credit for mahining their own parts versus buying or commisioning parts.

I don't quite see how those three statements can work together.
surely if you consider it valid to commision parts for a kit built model, then you must also consider that a fair competitor to fully scratchbuilt models, especially seeing you do say that scratchbuilding parts itself doesn't deserve extra credit
i.e, it isn't the scratch building/machining that is being judged.

what's to stop you to commision parts equal to those you saw at the extreme end of the scratchbuilt spectrum?
if it is viable as you say it is, why would you still need/want to seperate built kits and scratch builds?

Again, when I started talking about SB, I'm talking about 100%, you do everything. That's what I said in the beginning and what I say now.

What I'm saying about "commissioned" parts is it's ok for small amounts of work (fire extinguisher bottle example), similar to what you'd get in an aftermarket setting.

First, I think that no model should get "extra credit" in any form. I think they should be judged as equally as possible, regardless of whether you did everything in the manufacture of it or if it's a "shake 'n bake" kit.

I'm really thinking of the 100% SB example in looking at the commissioning question. If you are going to tackle something like this, *more than likely* you will have a mill and lathe set up. (Let's assume this for argument's sake--I understand that there will be some who don't. Let's ignore those few for the moment.) If you have an M&L set up, you should be able to make (or the capacity to learn to do) most anything with it. Therefore, you wouldn't really need to commission anyone for any type of machining work. I don't give much leeway on that because if you have the tools, you have no excuses. Learn to use them. That's what this hobby is all about, anyway (learning to use the tools you have).

Now, if you don't have an M&L set up, doing an "extreme" SB becomes much more daunting of a task. There are other modalities, of course (resin casting, styrene and metals, etc). For the sake of argument, because this category is a minutely small segment of a niche category, I think we can ignore this population.

I hopes this gives you a bit more clarity on my thinking.

[Scale-Master]

Drunken Monkey's recent post ended with this comment:
"what's to stop you to commision parts equal to those you saw at the extreme end of the scratchbuilt spectrum?
if it is viable as you say it is, why would you still need/want to seperate built kits and scratch builds?"


Coupled with the thought of a friend who can create anything he wants in digital 3D drawings, but the making of the physical parts is done by someone else, then he final finishes and assembles them as needed into a complete model. (Very much like a custom made one of a kind kit of his specifications.)
With stereo lithography and hobby CNC machines on the rise, this is very much a part of the future of modeling. I bet it will come into play at a contest sooner or later to some degree.

It got me to thinking...

Would that be accepted/allowed as either a scratchbuilt model or kit built model in a contest should the truth be known as to its "manufacture"?
If allowed ro compete, should it be allowed to compete in either arena? Or which one?

I have my opinions as to what would be fair, just curious what you guys would say.

Keep in mind in this semi-hypothetical discussion, the model is not offered for public sale as a kit. Where is that line drawn for this situation?

[CrateCruncher]

So far in this thread I've seen a lot of extraordinary hypotheticals interspersed with heated rows and not much helpful guidance for show participants.

If you have a nice model that you would like the judges to seriously consider, DOCUMENT YOUR WORK!. An easy way to do that is to author a WIP thread on the internet. Then on the day of the show select 10 photo's that best illustrate your hard work, print them in color, two to a page, with brief captions and locate it next to your model under the entrant form at the show. Assuming your a contender, as the judging starts to get tight at the top that documentation will play a critical role in pointing things out that some judges may have missed. Think of it as a resume for an award.

Speaking of hypotheticals, here is one thats occuring ever more frequently: Who's model is better? An OOB full detail $300 Hiro or a 40 year old AMT kit with scratch detailing bringing it up to the detail standard of the Hiro? Assuming the workmanship is equivalent I would give the nod to the AMT but some judges may not be familiar enough with car kits to make that kind of call. Just like your algebra teacher once told you, show your work if you want partial credit!

On most contest application forms there is a place assigned for kit manufacturer. In that space I normally write any aftermarket detail accessories I've used in constructing the model. For example, next to Fujimi Ferrari GTO I'd say wire wheels and GTO engine by Hobby Design so there's no inference that they were scratched by me. It shows an up-front honesty to the judges that I'm not playing fast and loose with the facts on all my other work. (EDIT: If I had some work done on commission or a friend gave me some parts I 'd "declare" it there too. For example: Wheel rims machined by John Smith, a personal friend.)

Frankly I wish more people would document because it ensures the entrants are assessed to their full potenial. But I see models with 300 hours of work in them with nothing more than a hand scrawled description in the lines provided. I think most contest judges want the best model to win. Documenting also makes their job easier.

[karmodeler2]

Originally Posted by CrateCruncher

DOCUMENT YOUR WORK!.

Who's model is better? An OOB full detail $300 Hiro or a 40 year old AMT kit with scratch detailing bringing it up to the detail standard of the Hiro? Assuming the workmanship is equivalent I would give the nod to the AMT but some judges may not be familiar enough with car kits to make that kind of call.

I agree with you. Document and if they want to look at it, they will.

I also give the nod to the AMT kit, all other aspects of the two builds being neck and neck. However, most shows do not. We have even discussed doing a show that would award the effort along with the completed work. It would be a tough show to do. A lot of complainers (like most shows).

I think to be a judge you need to have "recency of experience". I know the Head Judge at the NATS a few years ago had not built a model in over 10 years. And the Head Auto judge was about the same.

Really? Do you even know how to use Tenax 7R? Do you know what it is? Do you know what AMT stands for and how they are VERY different from the beautiful "shake and bake" Tamiya kits? Have you ever heard of Evergreen? Can you spell "scratch-built" correctly? (yes, it's satire)


I think you need to have an extensive knowledge in the subject matter you are judging. (i.e. I have judged numerous shows, but bow out when it comes to NASCAR because I have no idea what is correct or incorrect....I expect those with the knowledge to step up and be the judges {where practical} ) With laptops/phones and info at the finger tips, if you don't know, look it up or ASK someone. If you don't know, then FESS up and don't do something you have absolutely no hard evidence as to why you did it.

I was at the NATS in 2004 and my Aston Martin DBR 1 was moved from closed wheel competition to curbside. (For those of you who may be unfamiliar with this car, you may find yourself qualified to be an IPMS judge. The DB stands for David Brown, the R stands for racing and it won a small race in 1959 in an unknown French country; a race called "Le Mans").


I don't think you should be a head "anything" without recency of experience. You can "shadow" along with the teams, but to have an active role? That
would be a "no" if I had a say in it.

David


and if you want to know, the two different excuses given to me by the two judges were: A) it does not have a motor, B) it has no numbers on it.

NEITHER of these is required by THEIR rules for closed wheel competition. HMMMM? Seems maybe we should start with learning the rules first, then learn how to build, then become a judge. Just a thought.

[Scale-Master]

"Seems maybe we should start with learning the rules first, then learn how to build, then become a judge. Just a thought."
Agreed!

Documentation is very important if you want people to know what you have done. A book with photos showing what you did and clear explanations sounds like it would eliminate a lot of assumptions by the judges doesn't it?
Too bad those compilations are very often ignored by the judges. I have seen those books of "How I Did It" dismissed (or just plain missed) by judges at IPMS National contests and some non-IPMS affiliated shows. You would think the documentation was only for the spectators.

My point is no matter how well you document your work, there is no guarantee it will be considered in the judging at some contests. But that is not to say not to provide it either.
Too bad there is no way to enforce the judges being ethical, or simply knowing the rules... So often I wonder where the accountability is.

[CrateCruncher]

Originally Posted by Scale-Master

"Seems maybe we should start with learning the rules first, then learn how to build, then become a judge. Just a thought."
Agreed!

Documentation is very important if you want people to know what you have done. A book with photos showing what you did and clear explanations sounds like it would eliminate a lot of assumptions by the judges doesn't it?
Too bad those compilations are very often ignored by the judges. I have seen those books of "How I Did It" dismissed (or just plain missed) by judges at IPMS National contests and some non-IPMS affiliated shows. You would think the documentation was only for the spectators.

My point is no matter how well you document your work, there is no guarantee it will be considered in the judging at some contests. But that is not to say not to provide it either.
Too bad there is no way to enforce the judges being ethical, or simply knowing the rules... So often I wonder where the accountability is.

Whoa, slow down there... Who said anything about a book? When I'm under the gun judging the last thing I have time for is a "book". Rather, I was suggesting only 5 pages of about 10 large color photos, each with a single sentence caption. My personal rule is that if I can't read through it in 20 seconds or less it's too long. The bulk of the extra pages may not be enough to draw the judges attention so I'll often add "see attached photos" in a prominent place on the contest form - usually in the section asking me to describe my work.

I did encounter one show where the judges missed it, mainly because the car turnout was much higher than the organizers anticipated and the cars were all jammed together like firewood. I found out later that half the judges assigned didn't bother to show up so they recruited (begged is more accurate) from the general attendance. The "judges" all voted for their buddy's car so the documentation wouldn't have mattered anyway. I skipped that show this year.

Speaking of mistakes, we're all human - even judges! If you have a bad experience wait a few days to cool off. If you're still upset, email the president of the chapter that sponsored the show and let him know your grievances. If you have suggestions to fix it thats even better. If you don't give the club feedback nothing will change. The show is usually the biggest revenue generator and the highest level of exposure the chapter has so they want to hear constructive feedback. Incidently, the bad show I mentioned went much better this year according to people that attended.

[drunken monkey]

the more I hear about it, the more it sounds to me that this is more to do with the quality and consistency of judging rather than what/how things are categorised.

[lumpulus]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

the more I hear about it, the more it sounds to me that this is more to do with the quality and consistency of judging rather than what/how things are categorised.

Give that man a ceegar! That's what I said all along!