How much wear and chipping is appropriate

Armor/AFV Painting & Weathering
141

Well, there are several reasons probably why that poor Abrams looks like a rusty Russian tractor left alone and unattended in Siberia, so let me provide two possible and logical answers:

  1. it is a tank painted in cheap saudi camo paint manufactured in Vietnam (or any otther exotic countries) which came-off and did not protect the metal bodywork against dry rust under the killing desert sun and cold nights

  2. the tankers ate professional model builders being bored in the war zone whom ordered a huge pile of Tamiya weathering stuff and applied it to use their illusions and cheat the enemy with “old and worn looking tank that is worthless being knocked out by a T-72 APDS shell”.

Using Occam’s Razor principle (the simpliest answer is logical and so wins) I would accept the modeling crew with Tamiya weathering…

(I have never seen any Vietnamese paint)

2 Likes
142

Most of the comments here are about the accuracy of chipping and rust effects based on references, personal experience, and common sense. There are other things people may want to consider though. Pablo Picasso said, “Artist use lies to tell the truth.” Fine artist and especially painters distort reality all the time in order to make things feel more real. Leonardo Da Vinci painted figures with completely different sized limbs to improve the composition of the piece and make it feel more real. Heavy chipping and heavy rust makes plastic look more like steel. It’s emphasizing and exaggerating traits specific to steel. It also makes the model busier and less clean. It communicates what a tank is more than getting the technical details just right. If a technique is making something look like a heavy chunk of steel steel that’s been in or currently is in a dirty and dangerous environment where damage and destruction is common place then those techniques have accurately communicated an armored weapon of war. Your viewer is going to feel like they are looking at something more real than if everything was completely accurate. As has been said before different people model for different reasons and there’s no set rules just throwing out a different perspective to consider.

6 Likes
143

Well said about exaggeration to emphasize a point.

The issue I have with exaggerated paint/weathering is when someone tries to
“sell” it as historically accurate instead of a work of art.
I accept, and wholeheartedly agree, when someone calls my paint jobs boring.
I react negatively when someone claims that it is historically or technically inaccurate.
Add 5 years of rust to a tank that was built 5 months ago?
OK as art, not OK if historical/technical correctness is the main objective.
Mixing the purposes leads to unnecessary discussions/disagreements

6 Likes
144

That’s exactly my problem. It’s ok for me any degree of weathering, any shade of blue for Dunkelgrau, as much rust as you want, modulation, half of the tank in red primer… but don’t call that realistic. It may be a beautiful piece or art, but it is not realistic.

And now comes the second part… on a contest, how do you compare those divergent views?

1 Like
145

At least here in the US, are you talking a IPMS or AMPS contest? Two different types of judging, neither is right or wrong but they are different.

146

The IPMS judging, at least when I was slightly involved many years ago, was to look at the work.
Fingerprints in the paint? Doesn’t matter if the tank is pink or in correct ambush camouflage.
Are the wheels aligned? Don’t care if the rubber profile is off by 10%
Build quality? Have the injection gates been removed completely or are there ugly scars?
Impression? Does it look like a heavy tank or is it floating above the tips of the grass on the baseplate.

Lots of workmanship to judge without going into accuracy.
If the 1:1 object had wavy bolt lines it may be a good idea to document this to avoid having it (mis)judged as sloppy workmanship.

2 Likes
147

This is taken DIRECTLY from the AMPS Judging System rules published on the AMPS website. It is also taught in every AMPS Judging class and training seminar, from the Field Judges’ training, to the ACJ and Table Captain’s training.

Judges who do not follow the spirit and intent of this philosophy are also not following the AMPS Judging rules.

AMPS Judging Philosophy

Models are not just technical scale miniatures of their prototypes, but also artistic representations of historical, hypothetical, or imaginary subjects. While mechanical precision and fidelity to detail are highly desired, there are few other absolute rights or wrongs with most of the aspects of our builds. There are many different construction and finishing techniques and methods that can be employed to create the artistic representation of our subjects. These combine to create each model-builder’s unique “style.” Although judges are expected to assess and score the models, they are also expected to do this within the context of the individual modeler’s style and not their own.

(I’ve added the bold italics to emphasize that AMPS respects each modeler’s own stylistic biases and preferences and expects its judges to do so, too.)

Note also that AMPS explicitly teaches its judges that accuracy is NOT a criteria for assessment.

There are several reasons for this, but the main reason is that it is impossible to fairly and consistently judge ALL of the many varied entries to any specific accuracy standards that could be applied to all of those entries. That is, there is no possibility to organize a corps of judges that contains bonafide “experts” in every conceivable area for every possible subject entered. Therefore, since it’s not possible to judge ALL the entries equally according to some standard of accuracy, AMPS does NOT judge ANY of the entries based on accuracy.

Another point to note about the way that AMPS judges using teams of judges is that IF the team has some issue about any particular entry, the Table Captain will poll the other judges and any equally split disagreement between them is ALWAYS adjudicated in the favor of the modeler. That is, the modeler is always given the benefit of the doubt and any ties between the judges is ruled in the modeler’s favor.

4 Likes
148

Very good point Michael; I think many modelers are not aware of this part of the AMPS judging criteria. I wish some of our judges at the local shows would follow this criteria more closely.

2 Likes
149

The Table Captains and shift ACJs should really monitor this and correct the judges, as needed. Table Captains, in particular, hear the cross-talk and read the written judges’ comments and should catch and make on-the-spot corrections when they hear or read comments about accuracy. ACJs should also catch written comments about accuracy that are reflected in the scores, but I also know that it’s impossible for the ACJs to read every comment on every score sheet as they check the math on the judging packets.

Really, the Table Captains need to provide the leadership to keep a lid on this issue. This is one reason why teams shouldn’t be composed of a group of guys who are all from the same club. They tend to already have group norms and formal-informal leader status built-in which can really go off on tangents in the wrong direction.

It is, however, perfectly acceptable for a judge to make a written note about some accuracy issue, but he or she should never base their scores on accuracy.

So, I do occasionally suggest in my written comments that the modeler should check his or her references or perhaps do a bit more research into this or that aspect of the subject, but I also caveat any such comments with a statement that I did not use that observation when I scored the model.

I will say, though, that sometimes accuracy issues or problems are literally constructed into the model by the builder. In cases where, for example, there are clear bilateral differences in things like gaps and seams or suspension alignment, both ways that the modeler constructed those things cannot be correct. Either the open seam or gap exists on the prototype or it doesn’t. One side can’t have the seam and the other side not. Or the toe-in/out on one front wheel on a soft-skin doesn’t match the other front wheel. One way or the other is correct making the other one wrong, from an “accuracy” standpoint.

(As always, though, there can be visual clues or explanations presented that explain such things, so the judges still should seek to find an answer before finalizing their scores.)

So, there can be “logical” accuracy issues that do not require a subject-matter expert to identify and which can result in loss of points in one of the scoring groups (usually construction or finishing).

2 Likes
150

Michael, do the the IPMS rules for armor judging also disallow accuracy when it comes to scoring ??

151

I’m not an IPMS/USA National’s qualified armor judge, so I’m not really able to answer that question with a high degree of certainty. Having said that, I believe that the IPMS National Rules DOES allow judging for accuracy. At least their rules so state that accuracy may be used in judging. The following is a DIRECT quote from the IPMS/USA National Contest Rules:

I. CONTEST DEFINITIONS AND JUDGING

  1. Judging. Models will be judged for skill in construction, finish, realism,
    and scope of effort; accuracy may be used as criteria for determining final
    ranking for similar model subjects.

The qualifier “determining final ranking for similar subjects” is the issue here, IMO. This is because IPMS also judges according to very discreet categories (that is, 1st, 2nd and 3rd place standings are made by category and categories are divided up, oftentimes, by very fine distinctions). That is, who’s to say which models in any give category are, or are not, “similar models” since the categories, themselves, are already composed of very similar models?

An IPMS/USA National judge would have to explain how this this qualification is decided (i.e. what constitutes “similar models”?), and exactly how is judging for accuracy is done? Another question might be, how any judge is determined to be qualified expert enough in some subject area in order to apply his or her own standards of accuracy?

Again, I’m afraid that I cannot answer any of these questions.

152

Ok I see Micheal, thanks

153

I can speak from the local level of judging at an IPMS contest. We recently had our IPMS Chapter’s annual contest. I had entered builds into Post WWII, and WWII Allied armor categories, so I was not allowed to judge in those categories, but I did judge in Axis WWII tracked vehicles. We had a fairly good turn out and lots of entries into that category, including multiple Tiger I tanks. It boiled down to a few of those were in the running for top choices based upon the build quality, finish quality, and scope of effort.
Accuracy did become an issue for deciding the best of those due to the placement of the tacks and the routing of the guide teeth around the idler wheels. All other things being equal, it was something as simple as that in accuracy for determining the winner.

154

I’ve judged at the IPMS Nationals several times but not recently. In the various categories of armor I helped judge, accuracy never played a role in determining the models that placed 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc.

Basic construction was the key consideration, almost everything was decided on that objective criteria. Sometimes finishing played a small role, typically in disqualifying a model from consideration of an award for silvered decals and such.

Of course I can only speak for what I observed at IPMS Nationals many years ago.

I do think super detailed with outstanding basic construction (which was ultra rare when I judged) will beat out of the box with outstanding basic construction all things being equal at the typical IPMS Nationals based on the previously mentioned criteria.

Often a category with ~35 armor models could be slashed to ~six worthwhile models in twenty minutes or less. Just throwing out the models with exposed punch marks. Flash lights were used as death rays to find those sorts of defects quickly. All the super detail mean absolutely nothing if a punch mark etc was discovered. Some of that may have changed as it’s my understanding flash lights aren’t allowed now days etc.

1 Like
155

Good common lighting is usually good enough to spot punch marks and other defects.
Lots of added details also means added opportunities for mistakes. Too much super glue
on some aftermarket PE et.c.

2 Likes
156

We don’t use as the venue lighting is good and most flaws are easy enough to find. Also there is usually not enough of them so not all judges have them. Usually short on judges anyway, so I don’t need another resource constraint.

157

FWIW - I’ve participated in several AMPS shows many years ago and was happy with the outcomes.

It’s good to see the details of how the AMPS system works and discussed openly. In the mid 1990’s, I was told by an AMPS judge, AMPS judging was by invitation only. If you weren’t sought out and asked by AMPS to help judge, you had no business asking about judging. It’s nice to hear that’s changed these days.

Invitation only era may have had something to do with wanting to ground the core judges fully in the AMPS system in the early days. Likely they were making sure the judging system wasn’t infected at infancy with too many death ray basic construction is everything IPMS judges.

In anycase, AMPS style judging makes for a more satisfactory result in my experience for the modeler as feedback is given which is invaluable. Also keeping a group (cliq) from a given club from judging together is very wise. Tossing the lowest score for tabulating results helps insurance one Negative Nelly can’t skew the overall results. It’s definitely a better peer review system.

2 Likes
158

Judges have just gotten too obnoxious, pompous, and bombastic. (I’ll wait while you look up that last one.) Too many have to tear a model down to make themselves feel like better modelers or to show others that they are Experten. I can’t stand these types. You don’t build under a flashlight; it shouldn’t be judged under a flashlight. At this year’s Armorcon, we caught judges using flashlights, magnifiers, mirrors, and Googling walkarounds of the real tank on their cellphones to compare to the model and then gigging the model for missing rivets, etc.! All these things I put a stop to on the spot and these will be outlawed, Verboten, at Armorcon '22. By the way, Armorcon is an AMPS Regional show.

5 Likes
159

Is it possible for that to actually be worse now days than it was say ten years ago? :thinking:

The Experten are poisonous. Heaven help if two start talking and they disagree. :pray:

No flashlights :flashlight:- if the venue lighting is good that’s reasonable.

I was probably among the harshest BC judges back in the day but that’s definitely excessive in my opinion. Models should receive the same level and standard of inspection when judged in my opinion. If the lightning is bad I can see flashlight justification. However, mirrors, mags and walkarounds are all ridiculous :roll_eyes:

That outstanding :clap:

Kudo’s on reining in the excess on the fly that can be very difficult to accomplish.

2 Likes
160

I know all shows are different, especially between IPMS and AMPS with how they are set up and ran but to have that kind of time to google….such a luxury. The last few big IPMS shows we had it’s like 20 judges hitting over 50 categories with over 400 models in about 2.5 hrs.

1 Like