ReaperCon Painting Contest

[paintminion]

Hey Anne, we're both in the same Silver Medalist Club. Ahhh, but did you take a silver in Open at Chicago?! Maybe I have you beat! (bouncing)....well, um, yeah. See, there's motivation for ya people. We're still competing against each other...just in a more friendly way. And hey, does that mean I can finally have a chance at a Sophie Trophy?! I never was eligible for one before!

 

So, yes, I'll be a judge again if Anne still wants me...but the bribes this year...well, it might be easier to bribe my hubby and have him get in a good word for you. Otherwise, get painting people! Plan well, prep well, and paint well! I cannot wait to put this new system to the test!

 

Also back to a note someone made but I don't know if Anne answered...at Chicago, entries aren't anonymous, it's public knowledge on a card right there with each entry. Not sure how ReaperCon will do it, but I'd vote for public. Don't think that knowing who painted something effects judging in any way. I've been judging close friends for 10 years--and for some reason they are still friends. THAT's why I like the Reaper Team. ;-)

[Don Rodolfo Graziani]

Having the entries public would be great! Then I'll know who to track down to find out how they pulled off their amazing effects.

 

DRG

[paintminion]

Right! Suddenly you'll know exactly who to talk to, who to talk about and there's nothing hidden or secretive about it once it's there.

[LunchBox]

I like the idea of the entries being public. I know that if Anne was judging my piece, she would be able to tell if I had rushed an area, or taken a short cut...she would probably be tougher on me, and tear my mini to shreds. That's the kind of stuff that makes me, and everyone else better. I'm guessing that the "top painters" (definately not me) actually get judged more harshly, as their work should be near perfect.

[Gus Landt]

The only risk with making the painter known to the judge is obviously it introduces the risk of the judge taking that information into account. Given the particular judges likely to be used at most ReaperCons, that really isn't a risk. Like Anne said, the people she draws to herself are those with the greater good of the hobby at heart. Also, the fact that the highest & lowest scores are discarded remove any effect of a judge using the knowledge of the painter in the score.

 

Also, many of the judges are involved in local paint clubs. By making the painter's name known, there isn't the concern of a painter having to hide their work during paint club meetings.

[Gus Landt]

The only thing I'm still not clear on is the purpose of the ordnance category. The painter category is for judging just the painting, and the open category is for judging composition too. What specifically is the ordnance category being judged on? If it is being judged on either of the above two, why the need for the 3rd category?

[paintminion]

My guess, as I'm not an official here, is probably it's close to why we do Machines of War category...painting techniques for something that is mostly metal or machine of some sort, are generally different from painting that of , say, a face. And it puts similar items together in a group, making it all more impressive for someone who is viewing them all.

[ixminis]

To me, the it provides an opportunity to avoid the open category (which sure looks like it could be tough) for those that love ordnance, but don't want to go all out with a diorama... I think we should also remember where these rules were derived from...

 

Just like you, guesses, not official answers...

 

edit: DOH!!! I must've only *thought* I'd loaded this page recently and didn't have Sue's answer in my browser... I like her explanation as well.

[Gus Landt]

My guess, as I'm not an official here, is probably it's close to why we do Machines of War category...painting techniques for something that is mostly metal or machine of some sort, are generally different from painting that of , say, a face. And it puts similar items together in a group, making it all more impressive for someone who is viewing them all.

While the techniques may be different, I thought the idea of the painting category was to judge each model against its own ideal. The vehicle isn't being judged against what a 25mm mini would look like, but what that particular vehicle could look like. Techniques for painting a 15" resin kit are just as different from painting a 15mm soldier as a face from a vehicle. So the ordnance category can't be judged just on painting like the Painter category, because otherwise there would be no need for the ordnance category.

 

To me, the it provides an opportunity to avoid the open category (which sure looks like it could be tough) for those that love ordnance, but don't want to go all out with a diorama... I think we should also remember where these rules were derived from...

But if you wanted to avoid the open category because you didn't want to make a base for it, then wouldn't you just put it in the painter category?

 

 

Essentially, we have 1 category judged on painting and 1 category judged on painting + composition. What is the 3rd category judged on? If it is judged on either of those first two, there simply isn't a need for a 3rd category.

[eastman]

Gus,

 

to quote from the MMSI site (my emphasis added):

 

In the Painters Division, judging is based entirely upon painting skill. Although scratchbuilt and converted figures are not excluded, they are judged as if they were stock commercial castings.

The Open Division, on the other hand, is intended primarily for scratchbuilt and converted figures, vignettes, and dioramas; exhibits are judged on equal measures of imagination and skill.

 

The Ordnance division is for models without figures. Figures may be included, but they will not

count in the judging.

 

Painters = painting of figures

Ordnance = painting of non-figures (vehicles, artillery, weaponry, etc)

[eastman]

Hey Anne, we're both in the same Silver Medalist Club. Ahhh, but did you take a silver in Open at Chicago?! Maybe I have you beat! (bouncing)....well, um, yeah. See, there's motivation for ya people. We're still competing against each other...just in a more friendly way.

 

Don't forget, I'm in MMSI Club Silver now too. So that right there should be enough inspiration for Anne and Sue to work on getting golds

[Heisler]

While the techniques may be different, I thought the idea of the painting category was to judge each model against its own ideal. The vehicle isn't being judged against what a 25mm mini would look like, but what that particular vehicle could look like. Techniques for painting a 15" resin kit are just as different from painting a 15mm soldier as a face from a vehicle. So the ordnance category can't be judged just on painting like the Painter category, because otherwise there would be no need for the ordnance category.

 

To me, the it provides an opportunity to avoid the open category (which sure looks like it could be tough) for those that love ordnance, but don't want to go all out with a diorama... I think we should also remember where these rules were derived from...

 

First, and answered correctly, you have to remember where the rules originated. One of those reasons is how vehicles at that point were constructed as well. I have seen modelers put as much or more time into the assembly of a vehicle than in the actual finishing work on the vehicles. It depends on how "all out" the modeler goes. I would consider ordnance to be in many ways a modeler's category, you don't have to scratchbuild or convert it to put a lot of time into it. As far as painting techniques I use an entirely different set of techniques on my vehicles as opposed to my miniatures.

 

As an example I have some PzKfw IIIJs (WWII German Afrika Korps tank) that I rebuilt the air intakes, opened up side hatches, added sandbags on the front and plenty of gear heaped on the back. I spent more time on the prep of these vehicles (15mm at that) then I did in the painting of them (not that I painted them quick). So in this case the vehicles were far more important than the crew that could be seen dangling out of all the open hatches (gets hot in a tank in the desert). So I think its entirely appropriate for ordnance to appear in a its own category. The painting techniques may not be different but the other skills needed to pull off a really good looking vehicle or piece of ordnance are substantially different.

[paintminion]

Gus said...<<I thought the idea of the painting category was to judge each model against its own ideal. The vehicle isn't being judged against what a 25mm mini would look like, but what that particular vehicle could look like. Techniques for painting a 15" resin kit are just as different from painting a 15mm soldier as a face from a vehicle. So the ordnance category can't be judged just on painting like the Painter category, because otherwise there would be no need for the ordnance category. >>

 

Not quite right...the idea of the Open System is that the entries are judged by a standard, not against other models. The idea of a Painting Category is based on allowing those who wish to only paint stock figures to not be penalized by not doing elaborate modeling. The idea of the Open Category is to allow modellers the freedom to create and be judged on that creativity. The idea of the Ordnance Category is to let ordnance and machines of war modellers do their thing without the figures if they want to and show it off to people on a united front--it encourages folks both viewing and participating. MMSI has now added a Fantasy Category not because it's being judged any differently, but because they wish to get the message out that they welcome and encourage Fantasy painters.

 

I believe the difficulty is the assumption that separate categories are needed only because of different judging criteria. Not true at all. More categories are to allow different types of painters to showcase their work amongst others of the same type, and sometimes to allow for judging of different types.

 

At MMSI judges are teamed up and assigned according to their own interests. Those more familiar with ordnance modeling are assigned to Ordnance, those that were more familiar with fantasy modeling were assigned to Fantasy. But any judge at MMSI is perfectly qualified and willing to judge any category. All have gone through apprenticeship and been approved by Shep, the man in charge of judging.

 

So as stated...Ordnance is judged on the non-figures, Painting on the figures, and Open on all of it.

 

As an example: Entry is aool scene of a tank being ambushed by riders in the dessert. Tank = Ordnance, but it has riders, so it was fine as Painters division, but it set a cool diorama and was modelled a bit to create the scene and proper interactions--so it was placed in Open and judged on all aspects, not just the tank, not just the figures, but the entire piece as a whole.

 

So...does all that help bridge the gap a bit better in understanding the system?

[Heisler]

That just helped me a lot! Thanks

[Gus Landt]

Thank you very much, Sue, for the wonderful & detailed explanation!

 

Next question - having not been to a painting competition judged like this, but I have to imagine that there are far fewer large models, and even fewer troops, entered, especially in the Painter category, than you would see at a show with separate categories for Large and Troop. Is that true, and if so, should there be separate categories, so that we can encourage entries of those 2 things?