Yeah, AMPS gives each and every model 3 minutes on a table by itself with 4 judges. No cut-throat judging.
2 Likes
I haven’t judged in over two decades (or even entered anything for that matter) because of these types. I have said many times on Armorama that the sun simply does not shine down through the center of a hatch. Most of us who live in the northern hemisphere know that the sun remains in the southern sky even at high noon. If you build an interior, you can expect it will be looked at. but it should be looked at with the same lighting in mind. How else can you expect to get away with Shep Paine’s gizmology? Under the right conditions you can suggest almost an entire interior with a breech, a seat, and maybe and ammo and radio rack. Paint the floor black so the white components pop out and you’re good.
I remember quite well a contest at Camp Mabry. A bunch of guys were complaining that the “good ol’ boy” system was working for the Houston club, as they were taking most of the awards. The fact was, they were a very large club. If you assume most entrants had a similar skill set, then it stands to reason they’d garner more awards. I had no complaints.
I know that wasn’t the point of your statement but I’ve heard complaints like that more than once.
1 Like
We call it “home cooking”. Some shows warrant it but I think sometimes it’s either sore losers (lots of babies in the hobby and at contests) or bias because you have seen the model at club meetings etc and your just more familiar with the kit, good or bad.
Limited time of engagement. That’s definitely 
percent the way it should be and the same time for each model.
I always disliked spending half an hour going back and forth between two or three equal models at an IPMS Nationals for half an hour trying to split that last hair. Of course the other thirty+ models were all smoking holes in the ground with ~15 seconds of judge attention. Cut-throat is kind, often more like Scortched Earth.
But how many of us do build with optivisors or some swing arm magnifying lamp as needed? At some points on projects I have occasionally used a head lamp to get light that my bench lighting cannot provide. Magnifiers, beyond prescription eyeglasses, and mirrors for judging, no. But some additional light may be needed.
However I don’t make the rules for these things, nor am I an officer in any club who would do so. Just a line dog member.
When a model is super detailed you may not be aware of each item, but it gives an enhanced overall impression. Maybe like a photo with higher than usual resolution?
Again, I can’t and won’t even attempt to speak about “home cooking” with regard to other, non-AMPS shows. I’ve been a model show entrant and patron since the early '70s (as a pre-teen, my first ever model show was an IPMS contest in 1972). Over the years, I have seen and been on the losing end of some of the most egregious examples of “home cooking” that any of you could possibly imagine. The good, the bad and the ugly… I’ve seen it all. It is a real thing. However…
It can be a quite humbling experience to have your butt handed to you by some crazy, outrageous example of “home cooking.” It can really put things into perspective and help you appreciate that in the end, it is only a model show.
I still keep a photo on my laptop of the “dime store rubber snake embedded in blue modeling clay surrounded by toy boats” diorama that won 1st place at a local show over a diorama that I later took to a national AMPS show and earned a perfect, 30.5-point gold medal and won the Best Diorama award. In the end, you simply can’t take yourself too seriously…
When I feel like things are getting too serious, I take a look at that “rubber snake” dio and have a laugh at myself.
I can say that the issue of “home cooking” is addressed explicitly in the AMPS Field Judges and Table Captains certification training seminars. (Certified by the AMPS Chief Judge many years ago to teach both seminars, I have taught many iterations of both.)
AMPS judging teams are instructed to decline to judge any work that they don’t feel that they can be fair with. That could be a matter of, “I know all the flaws since I watched my buddy over months of club meetings as he built this model,” or it could be a matter of, “That’s so-and-so’s model, and he’s god’s gift to scale modeling: automatic perfect score!” “Home cooking” can work both for and against a model.
I can say from personal experience and observation that it is actually quite common for an AMPS judge to tell the Runner to bring another model to the table because he doesn’t want to judge his friend’s work.
I really think that because this has become an entrenched AMPS group judging norm that a lot of judges actually appreciate it and use it as an excuse to NOT judge their buddies’ work. This probably saves a lot of long silent rides back home after a show since they can honestly say, “Sorry, buddy. I didn’t have anything to do with judging your model…” Most AMPS judges are very quick to point out with no prompting that they can’t judge this or that model. They’ll oftentimes do this as soon as they assemble for a judging shift and give the ready models a quick look. They’ll pick out models and tell the runners up front not to bring one of them to their table.
So, is there ever any “home cooking” at an AMPS show? Honestly, of course it can and does occasionally happen. It is a pretty pointless exercise when it does happen.
The major mitigating factor for the consequences of any potential “home cooking” is that since the models are not judged in comparison to each other (i.e. there are no 1st, 2nd or 3rd PLACE awards), no other model’s score is diminished or effected by the occasional undeserved/unjustified score of another model.
In AMPS judging, no model’s score, no matter how high or low it might be, is used to rank that model with comparison to any other model at the show. Each model’s score stands alone and independent of every other model and its score.
The exception to this (there’s always an “exception,” isn’t there?) is the selection of the models that are comparatively judged to select the “Best Of” awards. That is, models to be considered for the judges’ “Best Of” awards are first selected by culling out the highest scoring eligible models for each award.
Those models are then brought together in the judging room (or in the case of dioramas or vignettes, the “Best Of” judging team moves to the display room). Their scores are ignored, and they are re-judged against each other to select the winner of each “Best Of” award. In this case, it is possible for an undeserving model to be grouped in the selection pool by virtue of its unjustified, “home cooked” score. However, this is soon reveled as that model is re-judged against a group of other works that are of a higher caliber. It will have no hope or chance of actually winning a “Best Of” award.
BTW, the “Best Of” judging teams are composed of different judges from the original teams that judged and scored the models. They are almost always made up of ACJs and Table Captains under the supervision of the show’s Chief Judge, and the panel is usually around 5-7 different judges. The Chief Judge usually works as a tie-breaker and doesn’t vote during the normal selection evolution. The normal practice is for one judge on each team to be the model’s “advocate” any point out the work’s best features. Another judge will often fulfill the opposite role and point out the flaws and errors. The team will discuss, and then vote. The judges’ overall “Best in Show” is then selected from the pool of winners of the various “Best Of” winners in another round of side-by-side comparative judging.
Anyways, a peek behind the curtain for those who’ve attended an AMPS show and wondered how the “Best Of” judging was actually done…
3 Likes
Actually, the AMPS standard for judging duration is SIX minutes per mode (a total of 24-man minutes of assessment by a 4-judge team for each model).
In practice, the actual average duration is usually around 8 minutes per model for the shift. Teams start out slow as they get to know each other and speed up as the shift progresses and they each become more comfortable with their teammates.
The usual practice is for the Table Captain to tell one of the judges to read aloud the model’s entry form and the notes the modeler has written down. If there is accompanying research material or a “brag book,” that is passed around from judge to judge for a quick review. If any judge notices something particularly noteworthy in the materials, he should bring that to the attention of the others.
Often the TC will ask the team if anyone has built this model before and wishes to point out any problem areas he or she had with it. This usually encourages some discussion about the kit, either direct or second-hand knowledge.
The TC uses the formatted score card to structure the assessment. He’ll start with the construction group and focus everyone’s attention there. Any time a judge speaks out to point out something to the group, most TC’s will instruct that judge to “write that down” as a comment. Judges who jump ahead in the sequence are usually told to “hold that thought” or "keep that in mind when we get to…). Usually each judge will find something to comment about to the group, and as each does that, the TC will tell him or her in turn to write that down.
After the construction group is discussed, the TC will focus the team on the finishing and weathering group. Once that’s done, the team will discuss the degree of difficulty group, and then each judge will score the model.
The TC will poll the group, yes or no, on whether or not the Bonus Research 1/2 point should be awarded. Two votes yes and it is. Three votes or unanimous no and it is not. This decision is based on the two basic format criteria and not the actual content or how the material is presented (printed, hand-written, etc.).
The TC then collects up the score sheets, checks the math, and records the scores. In the meantime, the Runner is taking the model away and bring the next one. Usually the team will start judging the next model as soon as it is put on the table by the Runner. One judge will start reading the entry form to the rest as the TC finishes the math and passes the scoring packet over to the Runner.
There are usually two ACJs on the shift. One manages the workflow to keep things moving along and one who does nothing but double-check the math and written comments. If there’s a problem, the ACJ will either correct the math error or return the packet to the judge (usually about some written comment issue). The checked scoring packet then goes to the Data Entry team.
Rinse and repeat…
2 Likes
Like “Highlander”, there can only be one….
I appreciate both systems. Each has its own merits and flaws.
1 Like
@SdAufKla Michael, most enlightening post of behind the scenes at AMPS A++
@Stikpusher Carlos, 
indeed Highlander style!
We had a club member (airplane 
modeler) who want the entire group of Aircraft categories with ~150 models to only get one set of 1st, 2nd 3rd awards for all ~150 models. That way the awards “would mean something and not be watered down”. The winners could feel like winners and the losers would all know they were all losers. Fortunately, he was ignored.
2 Likes
I would agree that is probably a major reason for no “home cooking”. There doesn’t have to be 1st, 2nd or 3rd.
Ha!!! Look how beat up this poor IFV is.
Just to spite people I’m gonna build mine exactly like this. 
2 Likes
That is mainly dirt and mud on a UN white painted British Warrior. It is not wear and chipping at all.
2 Likes