What constitutes a well built model?

[Softscience]

Here is another one of those random thought, random opinion topics.

I'm curious what you all feel makes a completed model look "good", or in other words, what makes or breaks a kit?

To me its well defined paint lines. Nothing ruins a finish more than sloppy demarcation lines; whether thats on camouflage, or on detail parts, like missile fins, canopy frames, or wheel hubs, etc.

I have far too many kits where I didn't take the time to properly mask something, and end up getting sloppy, wavy lines of demarcation. On the models where I did put in the extra effort to mask everything, other errors seem insignificant, and I'm super proud of those kits.

Ditto on other peoples' builds. The models with the crisp lines look the best.

[BWP]

I'd largely agree with Bruce's comments. More generally, I'd call a well-built model one where I can say "I wonder if mine would look as good, if I did it". That covers a wide spectrum -- it's not just reserved for the "man, I could never do that" level of finishing, but also includes the occasional "I think I could do better".

Perhaps it's easier to categorise the "not well-built model". Where there's something obviously "wrong" with the model -- be it a sloppy paint job, an unfilled seam or what have you.

[Chris]

I wouldn't know, I still haven't made one yet.

[flakmonkey]

Well built models aren't necessarily good models. You can find lots of models that are technically flawless in so far as they are free of fingerprints, seams, silvered decals, stray cat hairs and what have you, but they just don't have what I would describe as the look. How to go about describing that I don't know where to begin, but I do know when I see it and when I don't. Some models are plain Janes and just look like models no matter how beautifully built they are. The ones that stand out are those that can fool the eye and I think that you can put that down quite simply to creativity on the part of the modeller. There may be control surfaces offset "just-so", a finish that captures the characteristic quirks of the real thing (how many perfectly built Skyraiders are let down by dropping the ball on those trademark exhaust stains) or any one of dozens of other tiny details that bring a model to life. These are the models that encourage a roving eye and keep it busy for a few moments as you take it all in. Rule of thumb; get down so that you have the same perspective you would if you were one inch tall and take a look. If it still looks good, it is good.

Of course this is all opinion and what works for me isn't going to work for the man standing next to me. That's what makes it such an interesting world.

[MerlinJones]

For me, it's visible seam lines and gaps, with bits of sprue left on, unattended.
Following that, it's the apparent non-use of masking tape, for demarkation lines and/or canopy framing.

Bad weathering is next and that includes too-heavy panel lines. I don't care if it's the trend, it stops a model looking like the subject and makes the model looks like a model.

Something not mentioned yet and something I believe is too often overlooked is the quality, or lack of, photography. If something is presented to the world, it should at least be in focus and on a relatively plain background. Simply cropped could be enough.

It's amazing just how much improvement appears with a basic, even poor, painting, when it is framed with an apropriate border. Same applies to photos of models.

Regards,
Bruce

[Beowulf Shaeffer]

interesting question

we are always the biggest critics of our own work.....ive built plenty that i consider to be well built for the skills i have.......others might not consider them well built but that dosnt bother me at all.........i build models for me not others!.......as long as i am getting enjoyment from the hobby im happy

and im always mindful of comments i make on forums of other peoples work..........you might think something is crap but thats someone else's pride and joy......constructive criticism is ok in my eyes by dismissive criticism isnt

on another forum i used to frequent there was a guy who openly ridiculed peoples work, and cos he was in the 'in gang' with the admin he got away with it every time any one reported him...one reason i left the place

on other peoples work i would put sloppy paintwork at the top of the list.........another thing is over weathering on afv's.........i can appreciate the skills involved but when its over done it just dosnt look right, this is especially when it concerns rust.....military vehicles just do not get that rusty as some would like us to think

[m1ks]

For me it's personal and depends entirely on the model and subject. The dual captured gb i'm doing currently is a simple relatively clean build and as long as it reflects the story i'm setting it to i'll be happy, one of the kits is poor quality anyway. Other kits I want more realism.

[jssel]

Clear parts! I've seen many great models but if they have ill fitting,poorly masked glass it just screams at me. Especially after a fortune spent on aftermarket. Followed closely by poor aliagnment of parts.

In other words, just plain ol basic modeling skills make any kit stand out.

[Dirkpitt289]

I wouldn't know, I still haven't made one yet.

I second that remark

[Saxon]

I'm pretty laidback, especially as I am an average modeler myself! But one thing that can irk me is decals being applied incorrectly, I once saw a beautiful diorama in Fine Scale Modeler magazine of a crashed USAF bomber. Very well done, except the stars and bars were applied upside down. That struck me as odd that the builder went to so much effort only to either not take the time at the end or not research something that should have been pretty obvious.

I also don't go for heavy panel lines and weathering makes the subject look more toylike than an actual model.

[Dirkpitt289]

I'm pretty laidback, especially as I am an average modeler myself! But one thing that can irk me is decals being applied incorrectly, I once saw a beautiful diorama in Fine Scale Modeler magazine of a crashed USAF bomber. Very well done, except the stars and bars were applied upside down. That struck me as odd that the builder went to so much effort only to either not take the time at the end or not research something that should have been pretty obvious.

I also don't go for heavy panel lines and weathering makes the subject look more toylike than an actual model.

The question I have is how the heck did it get into a magazine with such an obvious error

[flakmonkey]

There was, if I remember correctly, a D.H Vampire on HS a few years back that had the most perfectly executed NMF you could wish to see. In RAF markings. Case in point.

[Saxon]

I'm pretty laidback, especially as I am an average modeler myself! But one thing that can irk me is decals being applied incorrectly, I once saw a beautiful diorama in Fine Scale Modeler magazine of a crashed USAF bomber. Very well done, except the stars and bars were applied upside down. That struck me as odd that the builder went to so much effort only to either not take the time at the end or not research something that should have been pretty obvious.

I also don't go for heavy panel lines and weathering makes the subject look more toylike than an actual model.

The question I have is how the heck did it get into a magazine with such an obvious error

I'd be speculating, but the editors were probably mainly concerned with photographic quality (what MerlinJones was talking about), rather than accuracy of the model.

I've seen, in that same magazine, a Reader's Gallery photo of an Airfix Fokker Dr.1. The poorly-represented engine stuck out like a sore thumb. Good photo, though.

It was a great diorama and although only one photo it was a good one. It's just an example of my attitude I guess, I am far more forgiving of badly painted canopy frames (I am shocking at this myself!) or poorly done seam lines (not guilty) because in most cases the modeler tried their best. The decals upside down on an otherwise great build said to me that the builder didn't really understand the subject they spent so much time on. Just my opinion.

[johnsan]

Let's not get sidetracked into photography issues. Photography has little to do with whether a model is well built or not. Photography is presentation. I'll also not blast a model should a marking appear applied incorrectly. It's entirely possible that particular subject had misapplied markings in reality. It's a possibility. In all probability, the modeler has screwed up. Then again, maybe not.

To me, a well built model meets two criteria: precision and crispness. Are the parts to scale? Have the parts been trued? Is the build clean? If the builder has taken the effort for proper alignment, proper shapes, and clean parts, the kit is well on its way to being well built. Apply the same considerations to paint & decal application: paint coats should be thin enough to not obscure detail, weathering should not detract from the overall effect. Above all, the model should be kept clean during the build and during the finishing steps.