A local model club (SAPMA - South Australian Plastic Modellers Association) just had their annual exposition. It was not quite as big as last year, but over two days a good number of traders and modellers displayed their wares and models.
Air and Armour were very well represented, some maritime, not enough SciFi, and no Real Space, but some lovely models. More on this event in other posts. One of the best models was a Type II uboat.
The boat won best in maritime, and picked up another category. She was very well done, the outstanding bits being painting and rigging. I spoke with the modeller, and he said he knew about the AMP 328 piece enhancement set, but only after he built the model! He was very frustrated, yet he still won.
He did a very nice job and deserved both awards. I'm posting some bad phone pix (the phone takes good pix but close-up is hard and the room is a big gymnasium with poor fluorescent lightning). His painting is excellent, with just the right amount of chipping, rust and weathering.
As a modeller I am always interested in models, and in how judges rate things. I saw a lot of wonderful models, and thought the winners deserved to win, but so did others wh did not - what sets them apart? (And how subjective is this to each judge?). I also like that contestants are given judge-feedback. What worked, what didn't, or what worked but could be better/different? Sometimes when you get to the best of the best, it's hard to choose, and you have to go to crazy criteria. For example, Jim Lovell, the astronaut (famous for Apollo 8 and 13), was almost an original Mercury 7 astronaut. But they were all so good (smart, strong, healthy), distinctions had to be made. Jim Lovell had a high level of Bilirubin. Sometimes higher levels indicate disease, so they scrapped Lovell for the Mercury program.
My point is, the Type was most excellent, but as a modeller I have some comments fr the future.
There were two areas on that t2 that could be different. These are in NO way a criticism, the model was very well done! One is minor (and really personal taste), and one maybe a bit more important.
Propellers: these were painted copper and were a bit thick. I was surprised. The real ones in the early days were bronze, which can be faked with a gold paint with some very light tan, MUCH different than bright reddish copper. There was no weathering on the model props. In reality the bronze, probably never polished but even if it was, would tarnish by salty sea very quickly. The blades were inscale about 6inches or 15cm thick. Feathered to a fine edge would have a sharper look.
The stand was a lovely piece of wood, light pine-ish, with silver finial mounts. That adds some extra class. But the stand was longer than the boat and I think it focuses you on the stand and not the model. The silver combined with the light wood against the steely grey...maybe a shorter wood base with a darker stain would have pushed the eye more to the model, But that's like too much bilirubin...it was a most excellent model.
