How should one do the research document for a model for an AMPS show?
Any examples would be appreciated or sources on how the document should be formated and what should be included are appreciated.
I’ve never seen one but may want to do attempt one in the near future.
Thank you
I might suggest modifying what OC/Ts use. Call it the Problem, Discussion, Solution format.
State the problem with the kit.
Discuss why it’s wrong, with photos and documentation.
Show your solution, with photos if applicable.
Lather, rinse. repeat as necessary.
In case where there isn’t a problem with the kit, such an unusual cammo scheme experts will tell you couldn’t have been used, just state that in your problem paragraph.
Edit: A much better explanation below;
from the AMPS website
Wow. I might as well go back and get PhD in history if they want that much. I’ll stick to not entering any models in any contests. 
Yeah the research half point is a lot of work. If you don’t have internet sources, or a copier, and a document program, you’re screwed. This is a perfect question for Mike Roof @SdAufKla to answer. He’s an AMPS Master and a really helpful guy.
I went to an AMPS show one time in '96. Got a gold for one of my Centurions - the one with the two handled fuel can on the back. Good thing I didn’t have to document that little faux pas.
I’ve never fixed it in all these years - I believe in showing the evolution of my skills from the beginning to the present. (or the regression of skills, as it were)
Forgot to post the pic earlier, because like Mike says below… No, I didn’t sell it to anyone.
The AMPS rules SUGGEST the way to format your attachment for the Research Bonus 1/2 point and provide examples - but NOT demands - of how the required information MIGHT be presented.
However, as long as you do provide the two items of information required (the citation of the research source and the connection of your research findings to your model), the way you present this information is not dictated.
You could easily satisfy the requirements by simply hand-writing the information on a piece of notebook paper. (Legibility would, of course, be a plus!) I have judged on teams at AMPS shows where we did in fact award the bonus based on nothing more than this - a simple hand-written statement that the modeler did such and thus to his model based on a photo or drawing or description found on page XX of a book initialed “Blah, blah, blah” by A.B. Smith.
There are no requirements for photos or diagrams or any other graphic inclusions. All of the required information can be satisfied in writing.
Having said all of the above, I will add that MOST modelers find the old saying “a picture is worth a thousand words” to be true, and therefore most rely on photos, drawings, or other graphics to actually explain the required information by illustrating it. AGAIN, this is NOT DEMANDED BY THE RULES. Photos, photocopies, scans, etc. only amplify and simplify making the connection between the research and the model (since most of us modelers are very visual in how we interpret research information).
To reiterate, you can simply hand-write out how you used the research information to build a more accurate model and then write out a list of the research sources you used. You list of references does not even have to follow any sort of specified bibliographical format or style. (This is NOT a graded paper submitted to your English teacher or Comp instructor; you may your “Chicago Writing Style Guide” away, if you wish.)
Furthermore, the research bonus is open and available to every kind of model entry allowed by the rules. So, yes, if you researched your figure model, then capture that info and submit it for the bonus. Did you do research for your diorama or vignette? Submit the info for the bonus. Sci-fi and hypothetical subjects? Did you get some ideas from a graphic novel or a movie or TV show? Write it down and tell the judges how you used that source to make your model better or more accurate and list the title of the novel, movie or TV show. Done and done.
The judges are taught in the AMPS training to be as generous and liberal and open-minded about materials submitted for the research bonus. They don’t obsess over the quality or correctness or accuracy of the work based on the research, they just want to hear from you HOW you used the research information and what was your source.
The Research Bonus 1/2 pt is very low-hanging fruit that, unfortunately, all too many modelers leave it on the table by simply not making any effort at all to satisfy the very modest requirements to earn it. They’ll submit a 100 page “brag book” with 200 photos of their work in-progress, but they’ll leave out a couple of simple statements about of how they used their reference(s) and what those references were.
Thank you Mike.
@SdAufKla Michael, thank you very much.
This would be acceptable?
Tow clevis details added based on XYZ page xx & Achtung Panzer Vol 4 page xx.
The research bonus is for documenting the connection between a real tank’s configuration and markings to the configuration and markings on the model, only. It has nothing to do with detailing or accuracy.
From the rules:
Optional Research Bonus (0.5 point)
There is an additional bonus of 0.5 points for Research, which may be awarded by the judging team. To obtain this 0.5 point bonus, the modeler must document to the judging team the link between the research they performed and the finished model. This documentation need not be extensive (two pages or less), but must address, at a minimum, the following areas:
Description of Research: The modeler should provide a short description of the research they performed to build the model. The modeler must describe in his presentation how or why his model looks, either directly or indirectly, like the vehicles mentioned in the research. The model could look like the research by applying some of the following: similar paint schemes, markings, weathering, stowage, field modifications, or by using technical drawings to create the model displayed. The modeler can use pictures as part of this description.
Research References: The modeler should list the research references they used while building the model.
If the modeler provides a brag book or other description of how they constructed the model, without providing a description of their research in the format above, they will not be awarded the 0.5 point bonus. The link between the research and the model is established by replication and presentation of one, all or some of the following on the model being judged: paint schemes, markings, stowage, weathering, historical context, descriptions of similar vehicles or the use of technical drawings to create the model – based upon the research documentation provided.
Examples of acceptable research format are attached at Appendices 1 thru 3.
Judges Note: Based on the information provided by the modeler, the judging team should ask the following questions:
1. Does the model, either directly or indirectly, match or look like the description(s), text explanations and/or pictures provided in the research? (paint schemes, markings, stowage, weathering, historical context, descriptions of similar vehicles or the use of technical drawings). {THE LINK}
2. Is the research documentation format requirements met? {THE FORMAT}
If the answer to both questions is YES, the judging team will award the 0.5 bonus. The Table Captain will add the 0.5 point research bonus after the total score has been determined. This score then becomes the official score for the model entered into the AMPS scoring system.
Let me summarize and emphasize what is important: Does the model look like what it claims to be and are the sources listed? That’s it.
Here’s mine from last year:
From History to the Model
Production of the Jagdpanzer 38 began in April 1944. Small detail and component changes were made throughout the production run, generally for manufacturing simplification and economy. Nevertheless, older versions of components appear on vehicles over the 13-month production run. This model depicts a vehicle made in June or July 1944.
The camouflage is one of the standard factory-applied finishes of the BMM plant, consisting of broken swaths of red brown and olive green on a base of dark yellow with small irregular patches of contrasting color to break up the larger areas. The sprocket, idler, and road wheels were alternately painted solid red brown and olive green.
[A historical picture]
The markings are based on those seen on vehicles of Panzerjager-Abteilung 1708 near Halloville, France in November 1944, consisting only of a single balkenkreuz on each side.
[Another historical picture]
(The model is not meant to depict the vehicle in the photo but another from the unit on a different date.)
References
Panzer Tracts No. 9: Jagdpanzer, Thomas Jentz and Hillary Doyle
Jagdpanzer 38 ”Hetzer” 1944-1945, Osprey New Vanguard, Hillary Doyle, Tom Jentz, Mike Badrocke
Hetzer Jagdpanzer 38 Tank Destroyer, Tank Craft, Dennis Oliver
Jagdpanzer 38 Hetzer, Vladimir Francev and Miroslav Bily
Panzerjager 38(t) Hetzer & G-13, Vol I and II, Photosniper 3D, Multiple contributors
Walkarounds of vehicles on primeportal.net and scalemodels.ru.
[I just listed the reference books I had and the websites I looked at. Just a very simple declaration.]
Here’s another one, even simpler:
From History to the Model
Several of the heavy tanks survive to this day, allowing useful detail photography and a comparison of features. My model represents T30 S/N 5, R/N 30162846, that was first sent to Aberdeen Proving Ground for automotive testing and then to Fort Knox in June, 1948 for troop testing. There are no known photographs of S/N 5, but it would have been marked similarly to S/N 1 and 3 when they first arrived at Aberdeen, with only registration numbers visible.
The tank is overall wartime olive drab with only minor weathering. The pioneer tools were removed for tests but the tow cables and spare tracks were left in place.
Two items of stowage are noteworthy for their absence. On the right rear fender the water can holder is empty because it was improperly designed and could not fit a standard 5-gallon can. On the rear hull plate there was a peg, a clamp, and a bracket for a large idler adjustment wrench but there was insufficient space behind the infantry phone bracket to mount it.
References
I have a large quantity of detail photographs taken by friends of surviving vehicles at Fort Knox and Fort Benning.
Firepower: A History of the American Heavy Tank by R.P. Hunnicutt was invaluable for the history and development of the vehicle.
Personal research into the production and contract data provided registration number information.
An Aberdeen Proving Ground report, “Pilot Model Test of Heavy Tanks T29 and T30” provided information of the life and movements of the heavy tanks as well as the operational issues encountered.
KL
No AMPS judge would care about that. (Rather, no table captain or ACJ reviewing scores and comments would let that pass.)
People think AMPS focuses on super accurate models. It doesn’t. I could paint a Soviet T-62 as a pre-war US M2A4 light tank and enter it as such and it could get a perfect score. What counts is construction, the finish, and the weathering.
The fact is, your Cent model would get no more benefit for all the detailing and correction you have done than someone did just 5% of what you did. Once you you cross the threshold of “He did some work to make it more accurate” going further doesn’t add anything.
KL
I guess it passed muster. I was too worn out from the drive to care why.
No. It does not establish the connection between your overall model and something real. Read the rules, and refer to my summary above.
KL
Obviously it did if you got a gold. My point was that your water can mistake did not harm you and no “PhD in history” was needed, contrary to what many think about how AMPS runs its contests.
KL
Really? That’s your takeaway from the section on the Research Bonus? I think you are making it sound much worse than it is.
I suggest that you, and especially others reading this thread, read the section in question and my examples I posted above. It’s more important that the model not have any open seams than it include a treatise on why the castellated nuts don’t have cotter pins.
KL
One of two things is going on here.
You have trouble discerning when I’m trying to be funny, or -
I’m just not that effin’ funny.
I’m reminded of the “Underperforming unit” thread.
Edit: And yes, for someone with actual ADHD (as opposed to the kind people jokingly ascribe to themselves) something like that can be a real chore.
Brings back images of the five paragraph OPORDER - 457 paragraphs. sub paragraphs, and sub sub paragraphs disquised as five paragraphs. Some former “crossed object” types know exactly what I mean.
I strongly disagree, Matt. Look at my examples: three short paragraphs, a half-dozen sentences; I got the bonus. The text was written in Word, pictures were cut and pasted. I cited both books and websites I looked at, even if they were just walkarounds. No page citations, no ibid or op cit, not even enough text by me to think it was plagarized.
If you don’t do anything - the vast majority don’t - I can guarantee that you won’t get the 0.5 point bonus. You might as well try submitting something. What’s the downside?
KL
Wow. I might as well go back and get PhD in history if they want that much. I’ll stick to not entering any models in any contests.
That’s a joke, in your mind?
As someone who has been in the club since a few months after its founding, I get defensive about it and what it stands for. When somebody makes a statement that reads at face value like yours did, essentially, “They want too much and/or are too picky about things, so I don’t enter their contests”, I’m going to challenge and correct it. Not necessarily for you, but for all the the others who see 18bravo posts here and give your opinions weight.
And yes, for someone with actual ADHD (as opposed to the kind people jokingly ascribe to themselves) something like that can be a real chore.
If you didn’t read something completely - for whatever reason - you probably shouldn’t comment on what it means.
KL
Maybe this will clarify/simplify. Built a Soviet/Russian modern tank. When the barrel was attached it sat askew. The vane was noticeably off center. Humm, thought something might be wrong. Quickly found a photo of such. Presented it with the model with a note stating that the off center vane was supported by the photo and got the half point.
I have to disagree with my friend Kurt on this.
Please note that the “Description of Research” portion of the rules clearly states that
The rule includes any and all changes made by the modeler to improve ANY aspect of the model (from what is provided in the kit) as long as those changes are based on the builder’s research (when the builder has shared that research with the judges by providing the TWO items of required information - Description and References). Such changes may include, but are not limited to, adding missing details (and, by implication, any and all such changes are efforts to improve accuracy).
(BTW: This is how AMPS addresses the “judging accuracy conundrum.” AMPS explicitly instructs their judges to NOT judge any aspect of accuracy. There are a number of very good reason for this - another discussion for another thread. However, AMPS wants to encourage modelers to build as accurately as they can. The Research Bonus is an incentive for modelers to do just that, BUT the onus of the assessment is shifted from the judges to the modeler who now must show the judges how his or her research is DIRECTLY connected to the model on the table.)
Also note that the rules do not specify any degree or minimum sum total of the research conducted nor any minimum number of changes made to the model. That is, the modeler could document for the Research Bonus a total and complete rebuild of just about every aspect of the model, or he could have, as Wade has asked about, made a SINGLE change to the model based on his research.
The amount of research is inconsequential to qualifying for the bonus, only that SOME research has been done, SOME changes to the model based on that research have been made, and that research and work has been documented to the MINIMUM standards required by the rule.
As a Field Judge or Table Captain, I would probably vote “yes” on Wade’s example (under the AMPS judging principle of always ruling in favor of the modeler when in doubt about some aspect of the judging). It meets the BARE minimum - IMO - but the other three judges on the team would also get their say in the matter. If two of us felt the same way, then Wade would get the bonus since a tie vote is resolved in the modeler’s favor.
However, I would (if time permitted) write Wade a comment or two advising that he could make his Research Bonus submission a bit clearer and unambiguous the next time. I might suggest something like:
"Next time, consider writing your Research Bonus submission something like this:
Description of Research: I corrected and added missing details to the kit’s towing clevises based on photos found on pages XX, XX, and the drawing on page XX of my reference. These additions on my model are shown in the attached photo, along with copies of the illustrations that I used from the reference.
References Used: Achtung Panzer No. 4: Panther, Jagdpanther & Brumbar"
My reasons for these suggestions would be:
Make it easy on the judges. They are looking for TWO things: Description of Research and References Used. Give them those two things in a clear and easy to see way.
The way Wade wrote his information in the example, he combines the description and the reference (which means the judges have to parse the statement and make an inference or two. It’s totally possible that some judges may never have heard of the Auchtung Panzer books (which are out of print).
A bit of word-smithing can make the connection between the research and the work done a bit clearer and easy to understand.
Note that the judges ARE NOT going to, nor do they want to (because of time constraints in judging) spend any more time looking at your Research Bonus attachments than is necessary to be sure that you have satisfied the requirements in the rule. Again, MAKE IT EASY FOR THEM.
Wade’s example does, IMO, satisfy the requirements, but it would take me longer than necessary to read it (even as short as it is) and look at the pictures to understand what he’s trying tell me.
