What ARE they looking for?

[coopdad]

While reading the Model Car Contests/Clubs: Bias or Fair? there was talk about people that build solely for contests, not the enjoyment of modeling. It got me thinking (and I did not want to highjack), what do the judges look for? Sure, the obvious is that the build be well done... no fingerprints in paint, fogged glass, etc.

There was also talk about box stock beating models that have Photo Etch "hanging" all over them. And another discussing hand-fabbing. Would a box stock Mustang for instance beat a totally, 100% handmade Mustang thats quality is slightly below that of the box car? How about 1:1 correctness... would an awesomely built Mustang with an incorrect part (say an 8.8 rear end rather than a 9") lose out to a lessor one that had all factory correct?

I am certainly not wanting to become a contest modeler, just wondering...

John

[Guest Davkin]

You've probably opened up a bigger can of worms than the other thread did! There is no one single answer to your question, not by a longshot. Every contest head judge should define to the other judges what they should be looking for but that doesn't always happen, and even when it does you're going to get slightly different instruction from every head judge.

Here's the way I see it, (and I do have a fair amount of judging experience.) Basic craftsmanship is priority #1. However I try to take into account risks that were taken by the modeler. A modeler that took a lot of risk, (customizing, opening doors, detailing, scratchbuilding) can win over a flawless box stock even with some minor flaws, but he has to pretty much pull it off. I won't reward effort alone. I have to admit some bias here, I love cleanly built models, so overlooking even a minor flaw in any model regardless of the risk taken is hard for me to do but I try. There's got to be a balance. As for accuracy, I don't consider it much and I don't think any judge should. Except for things that are just obviously wrong and would be obvious to pretty much anyone that has any interest in cars it should not affect the judging IMO. The reality is no group of people let alone single judge can possibly know everything there is to know about all cars. For example, your 8.8 vs 9" Ford axle comparison, I'd have no idea on that one but I can spot a TH350 vs a TH400 from a mile away, so if the 1st place award comes down to two models, a Mustang and a Camaro I'll be able to spot most any inaccuracy on the Camaro but I wouldn't know jack about the Mustang, so why should the builder of the Camaro be held to a higher standard and lose to the Mustang just because I know Camaros better than I know Mustangs?

David

[CAL]

Well, when I judge I look for what is striking and sticks out first.

Then basic modeling techniques, seams filled, no glue globs, finger prints etc Fit and Finished is a big one for me.

Then look at the details, I am always more inspired by stuff that may be a no brainer to the build but makes me say, "How in the heck did you do that?"

Details that look natural and part of the model, the ones that are cleanly built with good basic building techs. beats out an average or okay modeler that loads it up with AM junk, EVERY TIME.

While I can have some compassion for the guy who scratch builds an entire body or even a car, but the effort in it's self isn't enough to win me over. It's got to be done well... if it looks scratch built, well just lets say something scratch built should look factory. In otherwords, it shouldn't look scratch built. It's just like AM adds if it looks like it's supposed to be part of the model is better than something that looks scratch built, or AM just slapped on the model. Virtually EVERY TIME.

To be honest, Accuracy is way down my list, because lets face it no matter what there will only be a certain degree of accuracy.

Even regardless of subject matter, it's always the "Best" built model that wins me over. I hate NASCAR but had to vote for a NASCAR kit before simply because it was the best. In fact, it was unbelievable one the best models I have ever judged.

[CAL]

You've probably opened up a bigger can of worms than the other thread did! There is no one single answer to your question, not by a longshot. Every contest head judge should define to the other judges what they should be looking for but that doesn't always happen, and even when it does you're going to get slightly different instruction from every head judge.

Here's the way I see it, (and I do have a fair amount of judging experience.) Basic craftsmanship is priority #1. However I try to take into account risks that were taken by the modeler. A modeler that took a lot of risk, (customizing, opening doors, detailing, scratchbuilding) can win over a flawless box stock even with some minor flaws, but he has to pretty much pull it off. I won't reward effort alone. I have to admit some bias here, I love cleanly built models, so overlooking even a minor flaw in any model regardless of the risk taken is hard for me to do but I try. There's got to be a balance. As for accuracy, I don't consider it much and I don't think any judge should. Except for things that are just obviously wrong and would be obvious to pretty much anyone that has any interest in cars it should not affect the judging IMO. The reality is no group of people let alone single judge can possibly know everything there is to know about all cars. For example, your 8.8 vs 9" Ford axle comparison, I'd have no idea on that one but I can spot a TH350 vs a TH400 from a mile away, so if the 1st place award comes down to two models, a Mustang and a Camaro I'll be able to spot most any inaccuracy on the Camaro but I wouldn't know jack about the Mustang, so why should the builder of the Camaro be held to a higher standard and lose to the Mustang just because I know Camaros better than I know Mustangs?

David

Maybe not. I said almost the exact same thing.

[Guest 66dragfreak]

Accuracy I think depends alot on the class you're entering. For example, if you're entering a muscle car into the Factory Stock class, it only makes sense that the car should be painted and detailed as close to factory specs as possible. Accuracy points take a hit when the engine may not be painted the correct color or the body is not painted in a color that was available for that year...alot of little things add up to the bigger picture.

As for models that have a ton of aftermarket detailing, I have to ask, as impressive as it might be to look at, just how accurate is the detailing? Are the hoses plumbed to the right places? Is the wiring accruate or is it just added to make it look more impressive? If modd'ing a chassis, are the mods accurate for the 1:1 car? Are the roll bars actually welded in that configuration or did the builder just go with what looked the most impressive? Research plays a key role in any replica car or truck you build. The more research you do, the better the chance of coming away with a better looking model and a more accurate one to boot. I'm also a firm believer in the "Less is more" concept, but that's just me.

[CAL]

Accuracy I think depends alot on the class you're entering. For example, if you're entering a muscle car into the Factory Stock class, it only makes sense that the car should be painted and detailed as close to factory specs as possible. Accuracy points take a hit when the engine may not be painted the correct color or the body is not painted in a color that was available for that year...alot of little things add up to the bigger picture.

As for models that have a ton of aftermarket detailing, I have to ask, as impressive as it might be to look at, just how accurate is the detailing? Are the hoses plumbed to the right places? Is the wiring accruate or is it just added to make it look more impressive? If modd'ing a chassis, are the mods accurate for the 1:1 car? Are the roll bars actually welded in that configuration or did the builder just go with what looked the most impressive? Research plays a key role in any replica car or truck you build. The more research you do, the better the chance of coming away with a better looking model and a more accurate one to boot. I'm also a firm believer in the "Less is more" concept, but that's just me.

The problem with accruacy is first you have to know and second you have to care. If it LOOKS right it's right in my book. I have seem models where the build spent a lot of time making it accurate but it didn't LOOK right. It's not going to win no matter how accruate it is.

[Harry P.]

I guess the obvious answer is: there is no answer!

Ask ten different people how they would judge a model and you're likely to get ten different answers. One guys looks for accuracy, another guy doesn't care so much for accuracy but looks for creativity or "extra effort", etc. Just by the few previous posts here you can see how different people's opinions are when it comes to what's more important in judging a model.

There's no way to know what any given judge at any given contest on any given day will be looking for as the most important factors he/she will judge a model on. Just no way.

[Art Anderson]

I guess the obvious answer is: there is no answer!

Ask ten different people how they would judge a model and you're likely to get ten different answers. One guys looks for accuracy, another guy doesn't care so much for accuracy but looks for creativity or "extra effort", etc. Just by the few previous posts here you can see how different people's opinions are when it comes to what's more important in judging a model.

There's no way to know what any given judge at any given contest on any given day will be looking for as the most important factors he/she will judge a model on. Just no way.

"Factory Stock" is perhaps the toughest class to judge with anything like absolute accuracy, frankly. Unlike the 1:1 world of judged car shows, where many have judging staffs dedicated to each marque on the field, we modelers rarely have that luxury in entering Factory Stock in a model car contest, nor does the host organization often have that expertise at their fingertips either. While obvious deviations from factory stock (I've seen polished aluminum show car firewalls, Jimmy Blowers, DONK wheels, candy and other wild paint jobs, even low-riders try to enter this class) should be easy to spot by anyone competent enough to judge this class, others aren't so readily seen nor are they understood, such as incorrect engine colors, incorrectly painted and/or detailed chassis or interiors and the like--after all, how many of us can truly claim to know each and every detail that should be correct for all years, all makes? I like to think of myself as fairly knowledgeable (and I'm sure that others would disagree with my self-assessment), but put me next to most any muscle car, and I am lost! But, give me any Model A, Model T, Duesenberg, '58 or '59 Chevy, and others which I have researched for one project or another, and I probably could spot inaccuracies in a heartbeat. It's the same with any afficianado of any given make, model, year, or era of car--but no one person judging can reasonably be expected to have it all nailed.

The best way I have ever seen for judging a model car contest is a method used by a club in South Bend to which I once belonged. The judging team used one person for interiors and chassis, another for engines and overall detailing, a third for bodywork and paint, then two overall judges whose job was to scope out the overall effort of the builder. Points, 0-9 were awarded by each judge in their respective category. One contest official collected all the judging sheets once each was completed, totalled up the score, then drew an average (high average score wins). In cases of any question as to whether this or that was "right", the 5 judges put their heads together, and arrived at a decision.

This system allowed for judging to begin as each model was placed in its class, on the table, as for all awards, save for Best Of Show, Best Paint, Best Detail were based on a score, not one car judged against another. As we members were not allowed to enter, the concept of bias was minimized greatly. In addition, the rather detailed scoring sheet, complete with short, written comments by the various judges, was made available to the entrant after awards were made. One ironclad rule for judging was, NO NEGATIVE comments whatsoever. If a criticism needed to be made, by any judge, then it had to be couched in terms of "Model would be improved if ________" (fill in the blank).

As a result, we seemed always to have pretty pleased entrants, and people complimented the idea of being able to take their judging sheets home with them.

Art

[CAL]

As a result, we seemed always to have pretty pleased entrants, and people complimented the idea of being able to take their judging sheets home with them.

Art

I like that idea. I would have liked to know why something took home awards and something didn't, rather than just not knowing anything at all.