| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Chris Mrosko
Botswana
25 Posts |
 Posted - 03/05/2010 : 09:39:59
|
What about New World Miniatures, U.S. Marine, sculpted by John Rosengrant as a painters figure?
Trumpeter M-1117 modern armored car? or British Matilda from Tamiya?
Tamiya Me-262 or the new Focke Wolfe D-9 from Eduard? I can supply all of these kits at shop cost?
Chris "Pain in the As*" Mrosko
I love it all, big, fat tall or small, mean green lean and clean! |
 |
|
|
Mark Mindeman
41 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 12:04:08
|
I've read, with great interest, all of the posting related to the "Painters Armor", "Painters Aircraft", and "Painters Figure" for next year. The term "Painters" should be expressly noted.
This competition was intended for participants to build the same armor kit, the same aircraft kit, and the same figure. The judging critera is the same as the "Painter's Division" in the main competition. That is to say the the judging is heavily weighed on the painting of the piece.
All of the kits were originally intended to be built "out of the box". Somewhere we lost our vision. Perhaps things got convoluted in attempts to attact more entries and to appease everyone's desires.
I think that the armor and aircraft modelers could not get comfortable with one particular kit. The discussions regarding the quality of the kit, the authenticity of the kit, which kit is better, etc, etc, etc. went on and on every year. I think that this has slowly been getting out of hand and away from the orginal intent of having one kit, built and painted to demonstrate the quality of the participant's skill.
From a judging standpoint, expanding these categories causes a major headache for the judges. The judges' jobs are hard enough. Let's not make it worse.
We have a great competion using the "Open System". I feel that by expanding the "Painters Aircraft/Armor/Figure" competition,as it's been disscussed, we're taking away from the Main Competition. I assert that all these suggestions are uncecessarily expand the competion as intended.
I suggest getting back to orginal spirit of the category.
|
|
|
|
Mark Mindeman
41 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 12:13:21
|
Just a little more:
We started with the "Painters Figure" and added the "Painters Model" the next year. We picked an aircraft model. The armor builders felt left out, so we expanded to "Painters Aircraft" and "Painters Armor"
Guys, let's keep this simple. |
|
|
|
Ben Fulcher
11 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 12:43:15
|
Here is my two cents from a new guy to the Tulsa Show. I like the way the “Painters Figure/Aircraft/Armor” is run today. It is way cool seeing everyone paint the same figure. I think having the same “type” of aircraft and armor gives some flexibility to scale and kit choice but still keep continuity.
Now, one twist would be to tie all three to a central theme. For example WWII Pacific, the figure could be the same Marine figure, the aircraft F4U, and the tank Amtracs. The theme could be in celebration of some anniversary that might be occurring that particular year. Just a thought.
Bottom line, I am happy to build whatever I love it all. Not being a true figure builder I am open to the wishes of the crowd. On the aircraft my top jet suggestions would be Mig-21, F-4, A-4, F-18. My tank ideas would be M-47/48/60 or and armored car of some type.
I yield the floor… |
|
|
|
rhilker
USA
307 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 18:52:34
|
After reading Mark's posts, I think that I may have to retract much of what I have proposed. He's right, we need to keep things simple and closer to the original intent. I'll leave the figure selection to the figure guys, but I think that we should be even more strict on the aircraft and armor choices. I would propose one scale for both, say 1/48th and 1/35, but allow variants of the aircraft or armor. This makes for easier comparisons by the judges. The second criteria, especially for aircraft, would be to pick one that has several color schemes, not hard for the planes, but iffy for the armor. However, each modeler has a different take/technique on even an OD paint scheme. I think that we're all guilty (myself included) of wanting one of our favorite planes, etc. picked, but lets try to narrow our scope and get back to the nut of the category.
rhilker |
|
|
|
msistrunk
47 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 19:30:26
|
I'm on board with Mark's comments. I think we need to get back to the original intent of the Painter's figure/models category. I also like Ron's remarks about scale being the same for the model aircraft(1/48th) and armour (1/35th). I always thought it would be hard to place a tiny 1/72nd scale sherman next to a 1/35th scale sherman...and although it's about the paint, we all know that size does matter.
Mark S. |
|
|
|
Steve
USA
405 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 00:08:41
|
Yes. Tradition is to be respected. Timely observation, Mark, thanks! |
|
|
|
Mike
USA
156 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 14:26:51
|
OK, I like this line of thinking!
Lets put the 'ol thinking caps on and have some specific figure suggestions this Friday. Aircraft and armor too.
  |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
2011 Show Painter Subjects
