The Ship Model Forum

by **sebasrod** » Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:09 am

Very nice work !!!!!!

by **MartinJQuinn** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:37 pm

Timmy C wrote:It doesn't matter how much work was put into the model - if it has gaps and glue spots, it will lose to a simpler model with flawless assembly and painting. If, of course, all the basic things were equal, then they may chose to go down the list and judge based on other things like amount of modifications, complexity of paint, etc.

Timmy,

You are mostly correct. IPMS does account for "scope of work", but only, as you said, the basics are accounted for. Scope of work mostly comes into the picture when you are down to the nitty-gritty, trying to decide where the best models fall, if they close in quality.

Goodwood wrote:Well, based on my own personal (and somewhat subjective) criteria, there are a couple of reasons. First of all, the Yamato is a very popular subject and thus, I'd be slightly more inclined to relate a bit more toward the subject which is more obscure;

When you start judging subjectively like this, all objectivity goes out the window, and along with it the reputation of the show.

Gettting back to the subject at hand - both models look very nicely done. Congrats to both builders.

by **Timmy C** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 2:33 pm

Here's Pontos' instructions for their Yamato deck: http://pontosmodel.com/html/35001wd1.html

Quote:

Frame markings can be applied with Numbers or Rectangular shapes

And looking at the decal sheet, both numbers and rectangles are provided. I think we sometimes see the rectangle shapes molded onto plastic decks, but this is what they actually were, I guess.

by **Senkan** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 2:18 pm

The numbers are probably from the Pontos deck kit.

by **Rob Wood** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 1:30 am

taskforce48 wrote:What's up with the numbers running along Yamato's deck?

Both great builds by the way, thanks for sharing,

Matt

I wondered about those numbers as well. They aren't present on the 1:10 Yamato in Kure, so I don't have a clue. Maybe I can contact the builder and ask him about it.

Rob

by **Rob Wood** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 1:28 am

Goodwood wrote:And at last, my eyes are opened. Thanks for taking the time on this, Rob, it explains a lot about show models and how they're judged, and why I'll never, ever be able to compete, no matter the level.

I had never actually dug very deeply into the whole competitive side of scale model building. But this year, I noticed there were fewer warships at the hobby expo than I remembered, and I wanted to document the competition while there are still warships being entered. When I saw these two ships, though, I wondered how one could be judged better than the other, because frankly, my eyes are just not that good anymore, and they both looked equally well-made. I have to use pretty thick reading glasses to build anything small in my chosen scale (1:144), and can't imagine building either one of them.

I hear you when you say you'll never be able to compete, but for me, it's a question of motivation. I like building RC warships that engage in combat, and we don't bother with too much detail. I think most of us, whether we build plastic, resin or wood, simply enjoy the creative side of it, and the satisfaction of looking at the finished model. Still, I enjoyed standing with the judges, and getting an education about how it's done, and I'm glad you guys liked this bit of sharing. It was certainly interesting to me!

Rob

by **taskforce48** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:34 pm

What's up with the numbers running along Yamato's deck?

Both great builds by the way, thanks for sharing,

Matt

by **Goodwood** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:11 pm

And at last, my eyes are opened. Thanks for taking the time on this, Rob, it explains a lot about show models and how they're judged, and why I'll never, ever be able to compete, no matter the level.

by **Rob Wood** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:04 pm

I spoke to the judges about their reasoning. Both of them wanted to go with the Heian Maru, but it lost the fit and finish duel. Here's the way they explained it:

Suppose the judges encounter two models with roughly the same amount of detail, and both look great from 2 feet away. What do they do? They start moving in, closer and closer, with reading glasses, looking for flaws. At some point, one of them still looks good, while the other exhibits imperfections in workmanship. That's why Yamato won. I asked them to show me what they were seeing. In general, it was sloppy glue joints and details that should have been subtle and feathered (such as rust stains), but looked obviously painted with a wet brush. Another was rigging, and another was crudely assembled/fabricated railings and other structures.

I've zoomed in on details on both of these models. Crude details found on the Heian Maru simply aren't present on the Yamato. The objective is not to to put a huge amount of details on a model, but rather, to make the details you do include as perfect as you can. In some cases, I've used arrows on the photos below to point out what the judges were seeing, and in others, I've simply included the photo, and the issues should be obvious.

Heian Maru aft gun mount

Heian Maru forward gun mount, barrel oddly placed, anchor chain out of scale, bright silver and broken, figures crude

Heian Maru paint problems, flashing on the props

Heian Maru paint sags and globs of glue

Heian Maru heavy paint edges for rust stains, and rust stains above the scupper

Heian Maru heavy paint edges for rust stains, and rust stains above the scupper. Also, camo gray paint bleeding over onto wood deck

Heian Maru stack shows vertical seams which might have been actual deliberate details, except they're only on one side of the ship. Sloppy paint and stains.

Heian Maru rigging lacks hardware, and is simply glued. Rigging lines not trimmed off.

Yamato rigging shows masterful use of connectors and other hardware.

Yamato triple AA with crewman.

Yamato twin AA

Yamato crane

Rob

by **Goodwood** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 8:53 pm

Well, I've never been a part of IPMS beyond the occasional browsing of a certain affiliate's Web site for info on various subjects. There's a group based in the town next to where I live, but haven't had the time or wherewithal to attend any meetings.

As I said, this was my own subjective opinion based on the photographs provided.

by **Timmy C** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:14 pm

But that's not how IPMS grades models. They mark based on how well the work was done. Fit and finish is paramount above accuracy, detailing, and weathering. It doesn't matter how much work was put into the model - if it has gaps and glue spots, it will lose to a simpler model with flawless assembly and painting. If, of course, all the basic things were equal, then they may chose to go down the list and judge based on other things like amount of modifications, complexity of paint, etc.

Of course, it's nearly impossible to identify which of these two models had the better of the "basics" from these photos.

by **Goodwood** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 6:59 pm

Well, based on my own personal (and somewhat subjective) criteria, there are a couple of reasons. First of all, the Yamato is a very popular subject and thus, I'd be slightly more inclined to relate a bit more toward the subject which is more obscure; also, I'm betting that both of these models were built off the recent kits (as opposed to Tamiya's old mold Yamato), so it's not as though a huge amount of work had to be done to bring the battlewagon up to show-stopping standard (again, this is relative). Both kits have loads of aftermarket added in, so that factor results in a draw, though I could be wrong.

When it comes right down to it, however, it just looks like more effort has been put into the Heian Maru to make it look like a ship that's been plying her trade for a while rather than a museum piece. Factor in the complex dazzle scheme, and she just has a much greater "draw" to my eyes. Don't get me wrong, both models are outstanding and show a lot of excellent craftsmanship, but for me it's gotta be the less glamorous, work-a-day boat over the fancy floating fortress.

by **Rob Wood** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 4:09 pm

Goodwood wrote:Personally, I think those first/second place awards should be swapped. Other than that, they're both excellent ships.

I'm interested in reading your arguments. Please elaborate.

Rob

by **Goodwood** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:38 pm

Personally, I think those first/second place awards should be swapped. Other than that, they're both excellent ships.

by **Rob Wood** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 2:47 pm

Second Place went to this highly detailed but much smaller model of the Heian Maru submarine tender (Hasegawa kit), by Ron Scholtz. Just to give you a sense of the size, and the incredibly difficult challenges the judges have to overcome, take a look at this:

Hope you enjoyed these!

Rob

by **Rob Wood** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 2:44 pm

Each year, my club (Western Warship Combat Club) exhibits and demonstrates our RC combat ships at the annual Petaluma Hobby Expo, in Petaluma, CA (see the last photo below). The main attraction is the scale model contest sponsored by IPMS. Several model boat entries stood out at last month's show, but the two that caught my eye won, as I guessed they would, first and second place in Ships, 1/350 and larger. Both were from 1:350 kits.

First Place was taken by this superb IJN Yamato (Tamiya kit), built by Mark Glidden:

Next: Heian Maru

The Ship Model Forum

Part I:Two IJN Models Win Top Honors at California IPMS Show

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Part I:Two IJN Models Win Top Honors at California IPMS Show

Re: Part I:Two IJN Models Win Top Honors at California IPMS

Re: Part I:Two IJN Models Win Top Honors at California IPMS

Re: Part I:Two IJN Models Win Top Honors at California IPMS

Re: Part I:Two IJN Models Win Top Honors at California IPMS

Re: Part I:Two IJN Models Win Top Honors at California IPMS

Re: Part I:Two IJN Models Win Top Honors at California IPMS

Re: Part I:Two IJN Models Win Top Honors at California IPMS

Re: Part I:Two IJN Models Win Top Honors at California IPMS

Re: Part I:Two IJN Models Win Top Honors at California IPMS

Re: Part I:Two IJN Models Win Top Honors at California IPMS

Re: Part I:Two IJN Models Win Top Honors at California IPMS

Re: Part I:Two IJN Models Win Top Honors at California IPMS

Re: Part I:Two IJN Models Win Top Honors at California IPMS

Re: Part I:Two IJN Models Win Top Honors at California IPMS

Part II: Two IJN Models Win Top Honors at California IPMS Sh

Part I:Two IJN Models Win Top Honors at California IPMS Show