Do you think there's a hierarchy in the modelling world? I.e., one speciality/discipline is above the other? Example: if you're a ship builder, you can build anything.

Example heirarchy: (in ascending order)

armor modelling
car modelling
plane modelling
ship modelling

What thinketh the forum?

Personally, I think that if you can build highly detailed warship models in any scale, the other disciplines are easy. BTW, I have only built two ship models - none are finished. :-) And I always find it hard to produce a seamless, clean fuselage of a plane, as well as ruin almost always the canopies.

Nope.

Just because someone can build one genre does not mean they can build another...no matter the other genre.
Each type has their own "special" techniques, that may or may not apply to another.

Just my thoughts...

Ships are definently harder for me espicially when working with pe railings.
Otherwise i agree with kencelot.
Brandenus Pimpus

models are models, no matter what you build. that is the way it should be. and, rivet counters should be banned from all competitive shows , and penlights should be banned at the door .i believe in Art over accuracy .

Chris Pig no.1

pak, you would like this quote from an article on another armour modelling site: "An important point behind armor modeling is to reproduce history, not artistic fantasy."

I disagree with this statement, too. Though I do like to make my models as realistic as possible (some moreso than others) I have much more fun doing the stuff that makes them look good to the eye and I don't care if someone wants to get artistic or not, in fact, I support it.

To answer this model hierarchy question, I have to agree that they all require different techniques and have different tough spots to them. I have built planes, trucks, military vehicles, and figures and they all require very different methods that usually take time to be perfected, whether you have experience with other forms or not.

Nic

I have found that creating a seamless fusalage to be extremely hard. Rescribing panel lines is also difficult.Finding that perfectly smooth gloss coat on a car is testing as well.Each genre has it's own techniques to master. I am an armor lover for the simple fact that,I love building them.If I start to burn out I will build something in one of the lesser catagories(LOL).
As for rivet counting,color chip carrying,penlight in the shirt pocket,fun sucking "experts",I feel that our hobby can benefit from a liitle interpetive model building. I will never say to someone,"You know there is a drain on the bottom of the hull! If you look at my handy dental mirror,it seems that your drain plug has a hexogonal head,when the plug supplied with this vehicle was clearly square headed.Also,Your plug is 2 shades too dark due to scale effect. You clearly have alot to learn!" These people seem to get an ego boost by blustering about thier own knowledge rather than the type of workmanship that has gone into a piece.This is not always the case but,please,give the peasents of this world a break!When I get my masters in plasticology,I won't do the same.
(:-)

After I got back into the hobby I picked up a few car model magazines. From the pictures and articles in those, and the few shows I've been to, and based on my fear of gloss finishes, I'd say the car guys may be the best at painting.

Space/fantasy modelling has to be the easiest, after all, apart from Neil Armstrong and his colleagues, who can say 'that bit's wrong' with any degree of confidence LOL!

Good one holocost
Brandenus Pimpus

I for one like to have a compromise between artistic and historic accuracy. I love tank looked exactly as the one in old pictures, and I am also really into Pak40's what-if scenes. And if you ask me, I think the difficulty level goes like this:

1. Airplane (Got to give those wingy thingy builders credits for masking a perfect canopy and all the nice seamless wings and stuff)
2. Armor, because the PE parts sometimes can be a pain
3. Ship, they are easy, PEs are just simply cut and paste.

And Space I think is hard too, be damn impossible to come up with reference, right? #:-)

My 2 HK cents. and that's about USD 0.006.....

I think the big difference is concentration on the hobby as a calling vs. dabblers, like myself. To me it is fun and relaxing... though still an art form. I have few other modelers and no other armor modelers in town. So, I have to get my kicks here on Armorama. No shows to attend or clubs to belong to...

Genres of models have different skills. I can't put the kind of finish on a plane that some can, and would not even try. I can weather the hell out of a tank and am getting better at figures, which are my true love now...

Heirarchy? Naw... just a level of commitment and interest.

Professional modelers are another case altogether. Their skill, tools and time to model make them a different group altogether.

I biuld armor and figures and I have seen car models at contests that were beautiful. Flawless paint. And the people who build the plank on frame wooden ship models always impressed me, too. I guess it's all in what you like to do. I won't buff 10 clear coats on a car model but those can't won't be paint SS pea cammo anytime soon, either.

Hope that made some sense.

There are some who model well in most categories, there are some who model well in a couple. I personally build armor, with an occasional journey into ships or planes. (when I run out of military vehicles) I do neither as well as I do armor.

I think armour is at the "top" only because it the most prolific. Case in point look at the post in the armour forum compared to most of the other ones. I don't think there is any hiearchy. Just the level of craftmanship put into anyone genre by the "artist". Oh well.

i look at it this way, the stuf is out there i build it. i do tanks mostly, but i can do a gloss finish with a nice effect, and aircraft, thats a fun subject for me, and ships love'em. i've been to the show and the contests, and seen guys do well in all categories. i my self am trying to learn all i can because they all overlap in one way or another. I.E. the pic of a Tiger IE rolling out of the factory in a nice GLOSS white finish for the eastern front, or the great models of the reno air races GLOSS again. see what i mean it comes together in the end. btw to the rivit counters go bite a barrel, i bring my references for my artwork and i follow the rule of the modeling gods "LRTM" (looks right to me).

stug

They are great at painting gloss finishes and detailing engine bays, but may only be able to paint a figure to look look a mall manneqin. (A couple of the local car club guys have been actually seeking out figure painters to learn how to do figures better, realizing their own desire to improve in this are to make their car displays look better.) They may have no skill whatsoever in weathering a tank. Doing a bare metal finish and successfully appllying a full set of stencilling decals might be totally overwhelming to them.

Each broad catecory of building has very specialized skills needed to build a top notch model. Very few builders excell in more tahn one and it's the true master who excells in all. Ultimately, we can all learn from each other.

If this is being done in none competitive situations, shame on these people!

If, however, they are judging, that's their job. In a field of 20 kits, it's a rare case for a judge to be able to walk up and say, "1, 2, 3, best oob." Sometimes, there will be one outstanding kit, head and shoulders above the rest that stands out. More often, there will be several contenders for the honors. Sometimes the decision has to be made on looking for the tiniest flaw to put a kit in second place and sometimes it comes down to who has the least number of flaws. Our competition isn't like a race where a photo will tell you who leaned fathest and crossed the line first. It's more like judging a diving competition.

As to workmanship, we are all highly prejudiced towards our own great work. There are times that can be to our detriment. I had to judge a very speculative "conversion" a year or so back. This guy had combined parts from the spares box, a FAMO rear spade and a 1/25 scale truck as a "by the end of the war they were doing weird stuff so this might have existed" conversion. There were numerous construction and painting flaws, not based on inacurate colors, but, for example, a chrome exhaust tip on a combat vehicle. He was incensed that he did not take an award over several very well done, but simpler, softskins, even when he was shown some of the glaring errors.

Put a kit on the table at a club meeting, you should get praise from the more experienced builders. Ask for advice, you should be ready to learn. Put it in competition, and please be ready to take whatever lumps you get. Don't expect your off the show room floor Kia to win the 24 Hours of Le Mans.

From my perspective - no, there is no Hierachy in the Modeling World that the modelers don't make between themselves.

A true "Master" of any of the modeling subject areas we enjoy is a builder who likes to build what they feel a passion for. It doesn't matter if it is a car, ship, plane, or diorama - it only matters that they build it and display a high-level of craftsmanship and interpretive skill in the completed effort. A true 'Master" doesn't care about whether or not anyone thinks he or she is actually considered a "Master" - he or she just exhibits the love of the hobby in the work they share. A true "Master" isn't someone who has to go out any build subjects in every genre like a Marathon to display their skill and technique. A true "Master" does their own thing and follows no trend. Their work is singular and stands out amongst a sea of models. A true "Master" is someone who is eternally humbled whenever their peers acknowledge their skill and efforts.

Model Hierachy only comes up when modelers introduce the concept. I find it painfully boring for modelers who take sport in blasting what they call "rivet counters" - while not even acknowledging that these same said people create and produce their favorite aftermarket parts to enhance their "humble" models. I find it equally banal for accomplished modelers who look down on those of lesser experience or depth in modeling. These people obviously have forgotten where they came from. Both extremes make modeling forums pretty boring - and neither participants of these two camps are "Masters" of this hobby - regardless of what they think of their own efforts.

My thoughts...

Gunnie

I hope there isn't one, as it sort of defeats the enjoyment of the hobby. remember that thing we do because we ENJOY it.placing anthing above somthing else simply demeans the others. All modelling irregardless of medium should be concidered on equal standing. aSmentioned each has it's own particularmethodology and technique. Many of which can be used in others.This is why I like AMPS fo instance, moddels are judged by those who build the same things. this I feel decreases the yelling I hear from other groups about airplane guys not giving proper due to tanks or vise versa. As to the issue of "rivet counters",I think your opinion is welcome if it's constructive. Always try to remember someone else's model was not built to suit you. Alot has to do in the manner in which advise is given so take care. lts remember this is FUN, There is no singular RIGHT WAY. And remember what your mother said, "IF you don't have something nice to say, keeep it to youself ".


Josh WEingarten
aKa shiryon

I agree with many of the posters here, ,that each category has its own difficulties. The thing thaat I am taking from this discussion is the idea that by looking at, and learning from other types of modelers, we can all improve in our own categories. I have built Cars for the past fifteen years. I can lay down gloss paint (Usually) and I can detail, plumb, wire, and scratchbuild little mechanical bits. I can also bare metal foil trim, and get some big ugly decals down over some really compound curves. (Race cars!) By going into planes for a couple of years, I learned some new skills that helped me when I went back to cars. I learned how to make seamless fuselage joints. Now my engine blocks, and trannies look a bit better. I learned how to work with varying shades of metallics, and how to make them stand out a bit more. Now my chassis, and engines look a bit more realistic. I learned how to apply matte and semigloss finishes more convincingly. Now my interiors look a bit less shiny, and much more realistic.

Now I am tinkering with Armor. I hope that I can learn more about photo etch, and more about washes and drybrush techniques. I also hope that my techniques from model car building will help improve my armor models. (If anybody knows of a Gloss tank serving in any army, with a bunch of chrome trim, please let me know. I will build it!)

Just my few thoughts on the matter.

p.s. Truck and big rig modellers also can get pretty good. The late Joe Cavorley (sp?) used to kit bash old pre WW2 trucks, and scratchbuild cranes out of brass. Amazing stuff there!