This will perhaps spark some very interesting debate.

Who amongst us is a 'Master Modeler'? What makes one a master? How does one earn such a epithet?

Recently on this site (see Sabot's 'Accuracy Issues' from last week) https://armorama.kitmaker.net/forums/28001&page=1 and others, there has been discussion regarding judging standards, modelers' qualifications, etc. It started me thinking.

Seems to me that our hobby tends to be disjointed in standards. Reading fellow IPMS members' (OK, I've currently let my membership lapse) comments about judging, and my own experiences, it appears even IPMS is erratic.

I am also a model railroader. That hobby is 'regulated' by NMRA--National Model Railroad Assoc. (NMRA.org) This organization has been around for decades and their standards directly influence what model railroad manufacturers release, and to what specifications. To not meet NMRA standards is almost the kiss of death to a product line.

Just as important is the MMR--Master Model Railroader. A MMR only rates such a title after he/she has completed 7 of 11subjects in their Achievement Program
( http://www.nmra.org/achievement/ ) , judged in peer-review by other MMRs. Being a MMR means one has been there, done that, to recognized superb standards.

What is a 'master modeler'? All you fellow old fogies, recall in the early 70s that Revell had a model club, and if one could document they had built X many models and sent in their dues, they would receive the certificate (and a patch! I still have mine!) denoting them as an official Master Modeler?! At the ripe ole' age of pre-teen, I qualified at a master!

So what makes one a master modeler? Number of kits built? Years building? Respect of fellow club members? Number of awards won?

Now for some controversy.

What then about those who build for shows? My local club tends to worship The Verlinden Way, from which I tend to Stay-A Way. Ol’ Francoise does some fantastic work and has expanded the modeling envelope, but I think a lot of it is overboard. They build the V' Way for those others who prescribe to those techniques. We have debated building 'pretty' models vs 'natural' models. I was aghast a few years ago in Roanoke when the winner of an acft category was a gray carrier-based Aichi Val, with rust colored panel lines and streaks! One, aluminum doesn’t rust; two, how would it get red dust on it out on the ocean? Pretty, yes! Picky picky, I know!

One club member who has won big at MasterCon then entered same award-winner at a regional IPMS show. Didn't even place! I built an M-4 for a desert diorama and heavily dirtied it up, based on a color photo of M-4s training in California and fighting around Tunisia. I was told that much weathering doesn't look right. I don't enter many shows, but I have at least placed in all but one.

Modeling is a big world. Build for what makes you happy and do not let others tell you that you MUST do thus and such. You can still produce quality award-worthy work. And if your work is not recognized because it doesn't comply with 'the way', know that you may not be the one who is off base. If you want to win awards, build for shows. But do not discount the others' constructive critiques. Even my 'the way' oriented model friends have taught me a thing or two.


Still, I would like to see IPMS standardize like NMRA. When someone is called a Master Modeler, I would like to think the title actually means something.

Well, I'm gonna take a stab at this one. I followed through the link to the thread that inspired your post. I read through all the commentary - and was glad I was away. I can only comment based on my perspective and experience in this hobby here now...

A Master Modeler is one who is recognized by their peers as consistently producing high-quality and far-reaching works that both define and promote the hobby. The route by which one is recognized by their peers had many forks in the road, with contests being one avenue. I've written this before, so forgive my repetition here, a Master Modeler is not someone who seeks the "epitath" from someone else. If you are one - you know it - and so does everyone else in your peer group. It still does mean something when extended by your peers. It means nothing from those seeking self-aggrandization.

A Master Modeler is one who has demonstrated "mastery" of the basic accepted tenants of the hobby pursuit - in modeling's case - the "basics". I won't go into defining them here because all of us here on site know what the "basics" are. Thus - already know one route to being labeled a "Master" by their peers.

IPMS/USA hands-down is the best teacher of "basics" around - and has been so for a really long time. The "basics" are skills and techniques share by all modelers - regardless of what subject you like to build. They do not require you to amass a man-sized tool kit, many esoteric machines, or the latest-and-greatest airbrush - but do call for you to take care of the obvious flaws inherent in the model manufacturing process. You can "master" building kits as they come out of the box, you can master the techniques required to successfully complete "scratchbuilt" models, you can master the skills necessary to bring together many different types of materials and mediums to produce a unique miniature. A Master Modeler is a modeler who had gained the experience to use whatever technique necessary to produce a high-quality part or assembly of parts in miniature scale - for our discussion here - consistently. Consistently is a demonstrated body of work - and certainly not a "one hit wonder". Master Modelers are recognized for a body of diverse works and subjects.

You can take all the swats you like at IPMS/USA - but it taught me the "basics" and the foundation for the modeling efforts I produce today. Fine, model for yourself. Do your research and decide what you're going to model - and what you're willing to let go undone. Sure, you can be talented, you can learn how to model elsewhere, but don't take swipes back if you ignore the "basics" in a contest you enter that puts the "basics" up for first, middle, and last consideration.

I find it really strange that majority of opinion(s) appears to loath competition and contests - but participation in having your model somehow "evaluated" by your peers is healthy and vibrant. Many espouse to only want to share their works and converse with others, but eagerly toss stones when judging outcomes do not meet their expectations. Judging becomes this conspiriatorial "boogy-man" and camps quickly setup to bash those who do compete and model to be successful in competition.

And - everytime some modeling buddy shows their model - it is quickly labeled "contest winner", "masterpiece", and the modeler "the Master of OD" or whatever else comes to mind at that time - regardless of the displayed result! This simply cracks me up! What is even worse are those who are noticed and place in a show - and the description to their buddies is: "I took Second Place at X Show today!" They "took" an award! Man, I can see the chest pumped up! I've never uttered that phrase because I truly know what it means to have your peers recognize your modeling effort(s). I never forget that that might be the result of what showed up on that table one afternoon too. Of the 300+ awards I've won in domestic and international competition - 65 if them were Best of Show and Best Of's like Best Armored Vehicle. None would mean jack-crap if they weren't given by my peers in the real and honest spirit of a competition. I don't enter a lot of contests, I don't travel around to go to every show within the area, and I don't waste the effort "trying" to win an award. Do I say you should do the same? No. But, a true "Master Modeler" isn't one who does that either.

Tamiya Con, MasterCon, hundreds of awards, none of that makes you a "Master" - its all in how you personally approach the hobby and how you inspire the efforts of others to try and do a little bit more the next time while you do the same. A Master does not mimic articles and magazines, they set their own pace, style, and techniques by constantly trying to improve what they're doing when it comes to modeling.

I don't mean to upset anyone reading this post, so forgive me, and don't read anymore if you're easily offended...

I disagree with you and hope to God that IPMS/USA never adopts a "Master Modeler" or "Modeler Recognition System" like has been and continues to be bandied about. It will totally thwart what IPMS/USA has been all about for the last 30+ years - being "by modelers for modelers". The responses to the current 1-2-3 versus G-S-B "judging" system supports my thoughts on the matter.

If you enter into a competition - then simply put - there is only one winner. To handicap it any further is silly and immature - and it is no longer a competition. Hundreds of posts with conflicting emotions and contradictory statements is a waste of time and space. Anyone who tells you they're just entering a contest to "share" and "don't care about winning" is not being honest with you or themselves. I have never met a person in a contest who wanted to lose. Please spare me the counterpoint because I have spent many a long and tedious process listening to pundits of this arguement - and they invariably wrap themselves up in the defense of that notion.

If you can't stand the evaluation process, don't trust the experience and decisions of the ones selected to be judges, don't buy into the rules and regulations, or suspect the host organization of less than fair standards and treatment - then do not compete! All the other tired and oft-told horror stories about somebody not "winning" with their perfectly-built widget be damned - that is part of the "game". Either you accept it and play - or - don't! There is nothing wrong with the IPMS/USA approach to evaluating a model. There is nothing wrong with the AMPS approach to evaluating a model. What's wrong here is the modeler's perception of what and how something is being evaluated - all wrapped up in our Society's desire to be "a winner" in everything we do. When you get a bunch of people who think their stuff is much better than someone else does - you can understand the ensuing "controversy".

IPMS/USA is trying to rediscover its identity - and figure out whether or not it wants "competition" tagged along with "IPMS/USA". To go G-S-B is going away from a "competition" - and I don't care about its merits - as long as they stop calling it a "contest" where the system is employed. That is the crux of the matter, how to satisify those out there who have problems with the notion of a "contest". I like both standards for what they are - but neither is more "right" than the other. It just seems to me, plainly, that everyone wants to "win", everyone wants to be tagged "master of softskins" or something like that, and everyone wants to be "the Man" when it comes to modeling circles. The Internet has only made it easier for those with these aspirations to come to the forefront.

A real "Master Modeler" is sought out for their displayed and continued demonstration of skill and craftsmanship in the hobby - by both their peer group and others outside the hobby.

I'm gonna stop here because I don't want to come off as pontificating! In another thread I wrote "stop worrying about becoming a Master Modeler - and just Model!" That applies here. Anytime a "standard" is set to a hobby, it become less of a hobby and more of a chore. I caution against introducing chore into a craft that we all love and enjoy as a pasttime. I do this professionally. I am recognized by modelers on my skill level. I am recognized outside our modeling cliques for my accomplishments and displayed works. But, I am also a simple modeler and happy ravaging plastic whenever I can. I never set out to "create a masterpiece" when I take on a subject - but I hold extremely high and rigid standards for myself in what and how I do what I do. I do build with a mind towards competition and if I do decide to compete - I compete to win. I've learned the "rules", have Judged, and have been judged. I hate to waste the small amount of time I have to model - so - I don't waste it. I work hard to always improve what I do and I have the courage to try something different even after all the success I enjoy to get better. I never accept that I'm "there", I don't believe the PR sent my way, and I don't sit on my laurels.

If that makes me "bad" in your eyes for that approach - I can accept it - but this will always be the way I approach the hobby. If I am called a Master Modeler by my peers - then this is how I work to earn the compliment.

Gunnie

well I'd say that this site has a fair few of them including Gunnie, People who arent afraid to explain how they done certain things in case some one uses the same thing against them in a comp or tries to answer a question no matter how stuipd it seems, to me its not jsut what they can build its the help and advice that they can pass onto others unlike some of the
jumped up ones who are out there

Gunnie, well put.

Gunnie,
This topic has shades of the "What is Museum Quality?" thread from not too long ago. You had a right-on reply for that one also.

So, (just to rattle a few cages) would it be safe to say 'Master Modelers do Museum Quality work?'

Well, keeping things simple, I would say that a
Master Modeller was someone who consistantly
takes first place, or gold medals at major competitions,
show after show, year after year.

The MFCA has what's called a Grand Master.
Started years ago, before many of the readers here were born,
and still continuing.
Amoung those Grand Masters are the likes of Shep Pane, Bill Horan, Dave Kennedy, Henri Lyons
Andre Korbanics, Phil Bracco, Dennis Levi, Joe Keenan, Phil Sterns, Bill Ottenger, Jim Johnson, are just a few that come to mind.

You know the kind of talent, I'm talking about....
you bring your model, put it down, they bring theirs, put it next to yours,
you pack yours up...... LOL......
Lucky for us that the Grand Masters only compete amoungst themselves.
Most of them wrote the books we read about improving our skills.
OH if you even met them in person, you would never know they were Grand Masters.
I remember the first time I met Shep, we talked for about an hour, at an MFCA show about
30 years ago, and I never knew who he was. Just a regular Joe, talking models and figures with me.

Just a small tid-bit of modeling and figure painting history.

Being a Model Master is a title other place on you. You earn it through the eyes of others, judging and being judged through constant improvement and allways pushing your skill envelope and never fogetting the basics.

Gunnie says it very well and very passionately (in a good way). I respectfully quote him

The title will be granted when you get there.

As I said in the previous thread - model for the audience. If you're going to put a model on a table and have it judged, have it ready for whatever comes along. If you've done your best there's nothing more you can do. Learn and move on.

To my mind, a "Master Modeler," to the extent such a term has any inherent meaning separate from the immediate context, is one who has treated modeling as a calling, and who has been productive and energetic enough, for long enough, to be fairly said to have answered that call. I'd put very few in that category, although Gunnie would be one.

Frankly, I have no desire to ever meet that definition. I have too many other interests, and too little talent. I think I would be quite satsified to be referred to, after many more years of experience, as a good amateur modeler. It's very, very hard to be a true master at anything; the chances of being a master at multiple things is slim. I'd rather be a master at my profession, and a good hobbyist in my avocations.

I have not been to a show nor do I belong to those large organizations. I only joined a local model club a month ago. I had assumed Master Modeller was a certification of some sort, kinda like a degree. If you won X amount of contests, written X amount or articles, etc. then you received the official title Master Modeller. I was unaware that it is more or less a term of respect with no hard requirements.

Alas, most of us will never reach "master" status.

I have known several "Master Modelers" over the years and most of them are very humble about their accomplishments. But when you see their work, you know -- it doesn't take a contest to sort them out.

Oooh - cunning question!

My answer would be to paraphrase a line from Alice in Wonderland: "...all Boojums are Snarks - but not all Snarks are Boojums..."

I feel the most successful Museum display miniatures are ones where the modeler has struck the delicate balance between basic model construction techniques, attention to the historical detail of the subject being modeled, and the most important quality - knowing their audience. This is the trick - and it is hard to achieve by most modelers because we're all Human.

When I set out to render NBC News' "Bloommobile" I had to do some quick and deep homework to get up to speed on that truck because so little is known about it and how it was created. At the same time I had to learn how it was used in the war, and absorb what it looks like today. All had to come together to make a miniature of a subject caught in a certain period of time.

Us modelers always try to go for every esoteric detail we can capture - with varying degrees of success. Many consider that a major factor in seperating the "Master" from the "Modeler". It really isn't. The successful Museum Model captures the essence and detail most relevant to the observer(s) in the end. For all the details and features I learned about the "Bloommobile" - the most relevant to the observers who "live and work" around the model all day long were minor details that we as modelers would not give a second thought.

First, "Hi Dave" - the legend on the antenna dome. Second, the Shovel that mounts on the backside of the Spare Tire Holder. Third, the repaired Main Antenna Mast.

First, on the antenna dome, underneath "Dave", there was also a roughly taped-over patch of damage. This happened, I suspect, by one of the biggest reasons why the system will be replaced with a more advanced version in the near future. The truck was built and equipped with a satellite uplink system designed for maritime use. It is fantastic, digital, gyro-stabilized, many bells & whistles. However advanced and unusual the design of the dish with its off-center feed and features, it was not meant to be used in rough off-road conditions. If you're able to see the photo I linked to the "NBC News Bloommobile" thread where one-half of the antenna dome is left clear to show the antenna inside - you'll notice that the dish and feed is pretty large in relation to the dome. It literally sits a few scant inches from all sides of the thin dome in every direction. There are no shock-absorbing components in the mount - so when the "Bloommobile" hit a particularly rough patch of road - the antenna feed often punched right through the antenna dome itself!

Naturally, this was a major source of "consternation" with the crew. The antenna dome isn't designed to be easily unfolded like the petals of a flower either, making repairs that much more "challenging"...

Knowing all of this, I opted not to mimic the patched area under "Dave" because it would be distracting to the observer not intimately familiar to the operation(s) of the real truck. The most important feature to those who know and those who didn't - was to model "Hi Dave". It would spur questions and answers from those who do know the relevance of the feature modeled - the intended purpose as requested by the client. To add the additional strange-looking patch would confuse those who didn't understand what it represented, and not a wise feature to model considering the audience.

Second, as every soldier already knows, the Shovel has a daily use. You don't forget this piece of equipment. As sophisticated as the "Bloommobile" is - it doesn't carry a porta-potty. You should have seen Craig White's eyes light up as he got closer and closer to inspect the miniature of this truck. He was initially unimpressed with the meticulous approach and detail I put into recreating the Cab Interior, missed the complete electronics racks behind the Captain's Chairs, the coffee maker tucked away on one side of the rack and the pockets of telephones on the other. He missed the little can of Coke sitting in the ice chest positioned between the seats (that he related to me with some degree of bewilderment that someone thought that an appropriate extra seat for a grown man as they dashed across the desert). He didn't notice the accurate instrument cluster that took me several hours to render in 1:35th scale and print out onto decal sheet for application to the dash alcove.

He noticed that hard-to-see Shovel tucked into place between the Spare Tire Holder and the Grill! He took off right afterwards and left to tell all of this fellow cameramen that the feature was there! Again, knowing and understanding the audience...

Third, the "Bloommobile's" Main Antenna Mast could be broken down into two sections and fitted into the PVC Travel Containers lashed to the Waveguide Box positioned between the rear Cab Wall and the Antenna Dome itself. During sat com operations as the truck sped down the road, the Main Mast would be setup to receive the microwave transmissions from Craig White and David Bloom a couple of miles ahead on the M88 Recovery Vehicle. During that terrible sandstorm, the Main Mast was severely damaged by the high winds, and had to be repaired by the crew before continuing on. It was a critical feature to model as this was the way the truck looked right up to the passing of David Bloom - a necessary detail to add though most observing it would not quite understand why the model looks that way until they asked someone more familiar with the truck.

Summing it up, a Museum Model captures the most relevant features for its intended audience. Master Modelers do not always produce a "Museum Quality" miniature because they get too wrapped up with AMS, but the best "Museum Quality" miniatures are ones where the modeler successfully captures what the client requested and the audience understands. That makes the model a masterful piece of work when you create the illusion that "it's all there - and I knew where it goes!". It's not all about hours and hours of research, critique, trying to find and model every finite detail. You've missed the mark if you try and do all of that and the audience just doesn't get it. In the end - it isn't all about the "Master Modeler" - it's about the "Model"...

Gunnie

Gunnie:

Your story about the shovel and other details on the Bloommobile reminded me of a build I did for a friend. I don't normally build for anyone but myself, but my friend Carl really wanted me to do a model for him and I finally agreed.

It was a model of the tank his son TCed in Korea. One of the crew members had taken photos of the M1IP from each side, plus close-ups from atop the turret, glacis and engine deck, so I had plenty of reference pics. My specialty is World War II U.S. vehicles, so this Abrams was new territory for me. It soon became apparent that no kit existed of the vehicle I was modeling, so I had to do a bunch of kit bashing and scratchbuilding ... I used an ESCI Abrams kit as the base, but ended up adding parts from Tamiya and DML kits as well.

To make a long story short, it was wild building this thing -- I tried techniques I had never tried before. Once the basic vehicle was together, I started adding details. The bustle rack had to be completely scratch, and I went nuts adding details I saw in the photos -- the two 20mm ammo cans on the rear, ruck sacks with complete frames, straps and poly pads, an ammo tube map case, a grappling hook, a toilet brush (!), some MREs, all the MILES crap including the whoopie light, hundred-mile-an-hour tape all over everything ...

Then came the markings. This tank had "ARES" on the gun tube, plus distinct markings on the turret front. On one side was some kind of crest with a dragon in it, on the other side was a psuedo-playing card with all four suits in the corners, a big A in the middle and "ACES" underneath. After several failed attempts, I managed to draw the images on a computer (using MS Paint!) and printed them onto Walthers clear decal film. Markings -- and decals in particular -- are not one of my strengths, but I somehow managed to get these things to work. I had to draw the numbers on the side of the turret by hand, after failing with decals and a stencil ...

It took about a year, but I finally finished it. By the end, it wasn't much fun anymore -- if I hadn't promised Carl I would build it, I probably would have never finished it. I signed and dated it inside the hull and mounted it on a simple walnut base leaving room for him to add a brass nameplate and unit crest.

When I gave it to him and returned the photos, he went nuts! His son and famiy were visiting and when his son saw it, he went nuts, too. They loved it -- couldn't believe I included the toilet brush and all the other little details

I didn't make much for this build -- I reckon I averaged about 5 cents an hour on this project and spent almost all of it on materials -- but the reaction from Carl and his son made it worthwhile. It was better than any contest ribbon or trophy.

Will I ever be a "master modeler?" No, but the reaction I got the day I delivered the M1IP made me feel like I was the best modeler in the world for at least a few minutes.

Gunnie, you should be proud of your accomplishment in modeling the Bloommobile -- and your humility about the whole thing speaks well for your character. I'm glad you're sharing the story behind the model. It's a pleasure to know you, if even only through this forum.

Hi Gunnie, et al,

I appreciate all of the input so far. Very interesting.

A few questions:




What is 1-2-3 and G-S-B, not familiar with these? While an IPMS member I didn't pay any attention to their rules, judging criteria or bureaucracy.


Not in the least. Very interested in others' views. Constructive critique is never bad.

What is MFCA?


What is AMS?




I concur 100%! Part of my irritation with some modelers is that they expound that unless one does all of the above, one is not a serious modeler. That is why I am interested in the views of those on this site, whose' work and reputations are known.

Admittedly I am a bit dubious about IPMS. Not as its function as modelers for modelers, but from internal criticism I noticed while a member. It seems IPMS is fractured into several camps. Most of the criticism about IPMS I had not heard of until I started reading members' letters in the magazine and participating in shows. Yet, I do support the organization. In fact, my resubscription is on the table, awaiting the end of procrastination.

As for 'building for myself' and competition, I have won something in almost every show I've entered. A couple of times I have disputed the judging (even showed the a dissenting judge photos of the source of contention)--by and large I am satisfied by decisions.

However, modeling is both a craft and an art (we used to argue this battle in school, we commercial artists Vs fine artists), and like art, highly subjective. My building for an audience has won some awards, but I did not always like the end product. Thus, I build my view of reality and if it doesn't do anything at a show, I consider it my rejected gift to the Visigoths.

Thnak you, everyone, for your replies. I hope to read more.

Whew, what a thread! I have pondered these questions about "Master Modeler" titles a few times when coming across the term. After reading the long replies and all the conjecture on qualifications, I have come to the conclusion that I'll be concentrating on mastering MY modeling and not chasing the Master Modeler that could be in me. If you judge my work as Master worthy, you do. If not, do exactly what I've done only better and tag yourself! I have learned much from many of you and have answered a few stumpers for a few of you as well, and I think if you can ask for help to do a build, you've mastered the hobby as well as anybody.
Do it for you, show it to us, love it enough to do it again!
Keep Gluing!!!
Cuhail

For starters 1-2-3 vs GSB.
Simply put, the former represents the most common form of contest/show awards system. There's a first (best model on the table in class), second and third. In this system, no matter how poor a kit is, if it's the best (or only) to show up in a class, it gets an award if the rest of the models in class are not as good. Soap box mode: on
Judges HAVE to pick the best, a sometime daunting task when there are several excellent pieces of work and sometimes frustrating task when you have to give an award to a model that clearly has many faults but there is nothing better. This is particularly frustrating when you've just had to pass up an award for a model significantly better but in a different class. Soap box mode: off
GSB is used to represent an open system of judging, very common in the figure shows. Models are judged against a standard for gold, silver or bronze awards. Often, there's a level of skill rather than a class definition. The best builder/painters compete at a higeher level of expectation than the averaga or beginner builder/painters. On any given day, there could be any number of gold, silver or bronze awards handed out.
This system rewards the good models/modelers and the judges don't have to look down the barrel with a flashlight and optivisor to find the half millimeter of seam to drop an excellent model to second and there's less feeling of nitpicking, rivet counting and such.
Someone also commented that IPMS is inconsistent in that a model did well one day and not the next. Several factors could be at play here. One, there's no guarantee that one will always have the best model to show up at an event. Two, different judges weigh things differnrntly, even within the general IPMS rules. THird, the judges at one show may notice an error the previous judges have missed. And, fourth, full IPMS rules currently aply to the National contest only. In time, they will be applied to the regional events as well. Local contests base their local rules on what they want, in terms of classes as well as how to weigh certain factors. And that makes for interesting events, especially here in New England, where there are about 8 contests each year. If every one adhered exactly to the same rules and standards and everyone who judged looked at everything exactly the same way, things would get very boring.

Now, as to master modelers, the topic of the thread. At his point, in the plastic world, there is no such formal designation. We all have our masters and mentors, the builders we strive to emulate (or beat in a contest) and those who guide us in building better models.

Many yuears ago, when I first began building and competing as an adult, there was a guy named Dave (I'll leave his last name off). He did extremely great small scall armor, with beautiful drybrushing and shading. I spent several years improving my technique and one year, finished ahead of him in a class. That made my day.

I also learned a great deal from the late Jim Jones from central Massachusetts. Long time readers of FSM may remember his highly detailed Shinano aircraft carrier in their Showcase. Anyway, it was Jim who tauhgt me the skill of stretching sprue, among other things.

I currently look at the figure guys in the club as my mentors and one or two of the up and coming guys look up to me the same way. One guy want to beat me at a contest. And that's good, because it gives him a goal and is helping him improve his skills.

put bold text here

I also think Gunnie has said it all. I try to do my best on each model I build. Yes I also enter contests. I do not put anything in a contest that is not the best I can do at the time. I accept what I earn and keep trying to improve. The problem is finding the correct goals for me to strive towards. At this point I am attempting to crystalize the 'look' I like. If others like it fine, but I am not doing it to please others. MODEL FOR YOURSELF.
capnjock