Why You Don't See Many 48th Military Vehicles at Shows/Contests
April 21 2009 at 4:18 PM
(no login) from IP address 24.19.9.231
As you may have read elsewhere, I went to the IPMS Seattle Spring Show the other day, and low and behold, there were 22 entries in the 48th scale military vehicle category. Surely, you might argue, this just proves that there is a great enthusiasm for the scale in our area.
Well, actually, no. What it proves is that there is an enthusiasm for the scale among a small group of individuals dedicated to, amongst other things, actually bringing models to such events. For ONE guy brought a dozen of the entries, and four of us from the same club brought in 20 out of the 22 total entries. At a show that had members from over a half dozen area clubs, and literally hundreds of people walking through the door to view the show.
What this indicates to me is the following: there aren't many people out there FINISHING 1/48th scale military vehicle models, (as opposed perhaps to buying and stockpiling them for a rainy month of Sundays) AND who are also willing to bring their models to display before the modeling public.
While I was at this show, I ran into a series of different modelers, complaining about the lack of turnout in the subject area of most interest to them. "It's a real shame there aren't more 72nd twin engined WW2 bombers this year", said one. Another noted the dirth of 1/32nd scale WW1 biplanes. A third noted the lack of 1/35th scale modern armored vehicles. And to each I responded, "so, did you enter anything in that category?". Each and every one responded the same way: "no, I didn't".
Point: if you go to a show in your area and are concerned at a lack of TOTS entries, ask yourself the simple question: what did I do to help promote TOTS at this show? If you didn't bring some TOTS models to enter, then the answer is simple: "I didn't do a thing to promote TOTS".
Just something to ponder as you go about your day. As a dear friend once said to me, "the first place to look for a solution to many of your problems is in the mirror each morning".
Cheers, I am off to work on my T48 Group Build half track, so I can finish something to share with you all in the not to distant future!
Andrew
We are a disparate grouping of HUNDREDS of different micro-niches, some containing only a few, or maybe even just ONE individual. The Internet has given us all a voice, but also a wonderful way of listening, and it is up to us to extract from all the hubbub that which is of direct interest to ourselves. But to balance that up, we must also allow others their particular enthusiasms without too much criticism, even if we don't share their particular interests. Instead, look for the common threads; building, researching, painting, weathering, displaying, all these factors are common whatever the model. I've learned things from fantasy wargame figure painters, from model railway enthusiasts, even them's that only build SS Panzers, and perhaps some of them have learned something from me.
It is a shame when your own particular style or period or scale is apparently under-represented at shows like this, but I bet if you took a look at all the other niche groups, much the same thing would happen. How many 120mm 13th Century English Knights were there? How many modern sports gliders were there? How many Yangtze River Boats? How many RAF training aircraft from the 1950's?
Andrew has of course hit the nail on the head with his suggestion, if you feel short-changed by what is on display, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Yes, YOU! And ME!!! Get building!
Here in my room where I am keying this in I have a Hetzer in a winter diorama, an early production Tiger on a base, A late-production Tiger in a northern forest diorama, a Tiger in whitewash and covered with snow, A composite hull M4, an early M4A1, a 105mm HVSS M4A3, a Ram Badger, a schwimmwagen with officer and MP44, a SU-122, a Marder in winter whitewash and mud-daubed camouflage, a M10 with diorama, and a Cromwell passing by a farmer and cow. All of them I would consider worthy of showing. I have another 10 nearing completion. I do not go to shows and have no interest in displaying my models. So, not seeing many models is not an accurate measure of the popularity of TOTS. However, that being said, I have some suggestions for dioramas for people who do enter shows that I think would capture attention:
enter a vehicle based on a museum piece: look at some pictures of a tank in a museum and paint and decal your model to look like it.
Convert a figure into a "hippie" and pose him beside the Volkswagen painted in psychedelic colours watching a tank battle. You can call the diorama, "Oh Wow, Man! Like Groovy!"
Have a tank that has a section of paint missing and place the guy with the paintbrush from the German field maintenance kit by it making it look like he is nearly finished painting the model.
Create a diorama that is one half in colour and the other in black and white and place a tankk on it similarly painted.
these would be so unusual, and such a display of talent that it certainly would attract attention to 1/48.
I may be wrong in assuming this, but I think the majority of 1/48th vehicle builders have been drawn to the scale by the experience of building aircrafts in the same scale. The scale is "just right" for aircrafts, particularly so, and I think this is important, for the predominant WWII single seat day fighter types that are really the one dominant subject in 1/48th scale. Many have then extended that build experience into a semi-serious wish for matching scale vehicles...
This is I think the root reason why our scale is so overwhelmingly devoted to WWII, with remarkably few people complaining about this very restrictive bias, me included; 1/48th scale is actually a bit too big for a lot of modern jet fighters, the F-105 being, I am told, the lenght of a B-17! In contrast, 1/72nd is a very good scale for modern fighter jets, but is nowhere near as kind to WW II fighters. They often look downright strange and out of place in it, at least from the hands of a mere mortal in my opinion...
So this explains in my view the rather unusually relaxed stance quaterscalers have towards the extreme WW II bias, and also, by extension, the trouble the casual majority of 1/48th vehicle builders have at putting vehicle kits on show tables; we are the only fairly demanding and highly detailed scale that genuinely crosses the subject boundaries, and thus we are the only scale that competes with itself. This is bad news for many unbuilt 1/48th vehicle kits, because aircrafts tend to heavily draw on a modeler's limited build capacity, being so much more demanding to build to a similar standard...
Now I know most on this site will probably say; "I don't build any aircrafts!", but this site doesn't reflect what I think is the majority of the casual 1/48th vehicle purchaser, who are probably on the whole NOT 1/35th scale defectors...
I'll add to this, from my point of view, that for a scale that is supposedly dominant on the aircraft side, WWII 1/48th aircraft kits are often not that good, and invariably require a lot of extra work or after-market help, further undermining the time and money available for building vehicles... 1/32 scale aircrafts have, in just a few short years, far surpassed the quality and accuracy of the average 1/48th aircraft kit, for reasons that are quite unclear to me...
At least for me, this explains why I have several finished or near-finished vehicles languishing without a presentable base, and despite aircrafts absorbing 90% of my build time, the situation is actually a lot worse for them!
The success of our 1/48th vehicle scale may depend more than you might think on the quality of quater-scale aircrafts! At least, that's been my experience, as in any case, even a very good aircraft kit is never easy...
So that could explain why a only a few modelers bring most of the 1/48th vehicle entries; they are the ones with the actual focus!
Doesn't really matter if there were 22 entries in Seattle............
April 21 2009, 11:42 PM
...................the scale has taken off in Japan and is a huge success. That will ensure the the survival of the product.
Tamiya is a smart company, they would not have released over 60 products in this scale in such a short period of time if they were not making money. As well, from what I understand the stuff does sell well in North America.
I will be doing a dio with my Naval Beech Staggerwing which I just got a weekgo and some 1/48th vehicles.
I also eschew model shows, didn't used to, however. But I saw an IPMS chapter which I co-started become quite tense after those who wanted to do a show were told, "Then DO it". Some got PO'd because not everyone jumped on their bandwagon.
I have been advised by someone at Venture Hobbies that they would not mind having
a bunch of 1/48th stuff in their display case.
I am of two minds when it comes to shows. I am not a big fan of modeling "competitions", which have modelers doing battle with each other to win prizes. I am much more in favor of "shows", where modelers congregate and display their latest work for the enjoyment of their peers. No bad feelings at the end of the day that your models "didn't win", or that the judging was "biased", or "incompetent". That said, contests seem to be the rule for most clubs, rather than "shows".
I like the public display of models, so that I can intermix with likeminded individuals, and see their work "in the flesh". I can then ask questions, and seek new ideas to improve my own work. Hence my desire to see everyone "bring all their models" to our Spring Show here in Seattle.
I used to model alone. I thought it was a great hobby. Then I discovered others in my area who liked to model, and we became a club. Congregating together is what humans do, we are social creatures. What better way to socialize than over models! You can only learn so much from photos over the internet, or in a magazine. Much better, IMHO, to get together with other modelers, share ideas, build your model using these ideas, and ask for in person feedback.
This is why I like to attend shows/contests, and why I believe it is important to contribute finished models to such shows.
the standard "winner take all" model contest either. Shep Paine has described it as awards from triage, not achievement. I have seen far too many really good models get skunked with nothing to show for the effort that I can't support that kind of contest. First, it rewards only a small number of deserving models out of the total entered, and many of the no-win models are excellent - they just happened to be up against slightly better models that day. Second, it does very little to promote the hobby, as in all too many cases,it intimidates or even drives away the less-experienced modelers as the very experienced entrants clean up again. How many times have we heard of newer modelers coming to a contest, entering decently built models, only to lose year after year. Eventually many don't come back, and some percent of those leave the hobby entirely. Just how does that "promote the hobby"?
The Chicago style of judging (known to us as the AMPS style), with gold, silver, and bronze medals was developed in the US by Shep Paine, and has been the standard for figure competitions ever since. As each model is judged to a standard, in several different levels of experience, each model has a chance to get an award for the level of achievement the entrant made with that model. Of course, judging is always somewhat subjective - this is art. But a three-man team with good parameters for judging can do an excellent job. And, if al the models in a category earn medals, they should get them. The "1-2-3" supporters look on this as the "Self-Esteem Olympics", where everyone gets a prize, but that is an insult, as well as being ignorant. If no model in a category earns a medal, none will get one. It cuts both ways - sometimes, under the rules, in the "1-2-3" type contests, truly inferior models win trophies because the rules say, if there are entries the prizes must be awarded. So, if the only entries are truly dogs, they still win. I like Shep's way much better.
But I absolutely concur that this method of judging is the only one that really makes sense.
It should work well with non-figure models, since the range of the quality of execution for non-figure subjects is (I would assume) often larger than for figures, which easily compensates for the greater complexity in judging them...
As far as I have seen, the "Shep method" is still rarely used for non-figure kits outside Europe... Too abstract and demanding, being essentially based on a Judge's notion of "What should be". Easier to go with the concreteness of "What's there on the table right now"...
Apparently, Continental Europe shows are more capable of handling this level of judging...
Couldn't agree with you more, although how it could be made to work for our Seattle Spring Show is the $64K question. We had 800 entries at the show, with entries being cut off at Noon. We then had the show ending at 4pm. How many 3 person teams would you need to have so that many models judged according to strict criteria could be accomodated?
Oh well, I don't get hung up over it, and don't care if I win or "lose", I think I win every time I show up with models!
Shep Paine developed the use of the "Chicago" judging system here in the US. He first was exposed to this system during a trip to England. So, the system actually originated in the UK, but Shep brought it back to the US and began refining it. For figure competitions, it has been the predominate system ever since.
