Hi folks!
Well, I did not expect to be back here so soon, but I feel that this is an important topic to address at this time. It's critical for judges to recognize and properly apply the fundamentals of each category. We'll start with an explanation of what each of these Non-Breed Halter divisions are. (There is also the Gender category that falls under the Non-Breed designation, but that is very closely tied to Breed so I won't be covering it today.)
As we traverse the definitions, keep in mind:
- All 3 of today's categories may be used to assess both realistic and unrealistic models
- While there may be some amount of overlap in criteria, each is its own distinct entity
- I will be explaining all 3 in terms of application to OF Plastic models only
- These criteria are applicable whether the judge is working a tailored class list (what they are judging is the main or only category being judged) or a double-judged class list where their category is the secondary one and thus they may see a lot of "apples vs oranges"
What is Collectibility?
Collectibility evaluates each model in a class on their individual collectible merits, then weights those merits against the other entries in the class to determine the placings. This is by far the most common Non-Breed category for OF Plastic models. The standard set of Collectibility criteria is as follows:
- Age (of the specific model) - Objective
- Rarity (how many were made, how was the model originally distributed, etc.) - Objective
- Condition (is there any damage present, if so, how much does it affect placing) - Objective with Subjective leaning
- Desirability (of specific run/color and also mold) - Subjective
- Overall Impression (judge's opinion) - Subjective
- Presence/Absence of documentation/ephemera - Can be either a soft or hard requirement for entrants depending on show policy
Let's dive further into each of those criteria!
Age
When it comes to OF models, this is the "survive-ability" factor. While it may not come into play (much) for recent releases, it is a factor for vintage models. As time goes on, the number of well-preserved copies of an individual run may decrease, even for what used to be considered "common" in the past. Judges may choose to be more forgiving of small flaws/damage on difficult to find vintage models than they would be on newer ones. Especially when a lot of newer "rarities" tend to go directly to serious collector hands from the start, compared to early rarities which were not originally intended for the high end collector market. In those cases, it may mean more for a well preserved copy. If you notice that judges in your area favor vintage models when competition is mixed, this may be one reason. I say that age itself is "objective", because you can't change when a model was originally from as an exhibitor or judge.
Rarity
This is the main element of Collectibility, with the other factors acting as additional context for determining placements. Rarity is inclusive of every other fact about a model:
- How many were made (if known)
- Where and when it was released (the method by which collectors could obtain one originally)
- If the specific example is an unusual variation for this run
- Identifying information such as model number, mold name, and model name assigned by the manufacturer (if it has one)
- If it is part of a series or was part of an IP/brand promotion
- If it came with any accessories or ephemera
- Optional inclusion of a mirror if the model has a signature or other writing underneath that an entrant wants a judge to see
- Note that original sale price and designing artists when known, are typically left off documentation for OF models to help avoid any bias in judging, but technically they are also just facts (In some cases, like the Stone Artisan Hall series, the designing artist's name is included as it was a main descriptive element of this series)
Run size can be something that folks get hung up on, and zero in on that with less regard for the other context present. I won't say it's the be-all-end-all, but it should still be weighed more heavily than elements such as desirability/popularity when there is a large gap in run size. For example, a 200 piece run should still place in most cases over a run of 2,000, even if the run of 2,000 is far more popular (unless of course, the run of 200 has a poor enough condition that it merits being knocked down that far in the rankings). We'll get more into nuance later!
It is important to note that many models, especially larger editions & regular runs typically don't have stated run counts, but judges should be aware in general of what the sizes likely are based on clues like run duration and era the model was made in. For example, a Breyer model made for 6 years in the 1980's probably has a lower run count than one produced for 6 years in the 2010's, simply due to the scaled up level of production and reach that the company has attained over time.
Release details give us a large chunk of context - was it a regular run, special run, limited run, very limited run, test or OOAK? Where and when was it made available - for example, many special runs are limited to one or a certain few retailers or are only distributed at a specific event. Combined with the other factors we've already detailed - age and run size - we now have a better understanding of a model's context.
Variation information, when applicable, can help to inform a judge about how the model in front of them is significantly different from the typical example of a certain run. This usually means things like chalky or pearly, socks on different feet, lack of markings where they should be, an entirely different finish than what the model was released in, or far more extensive appaloosa spots than typical. This does not mean things like "this model has exceptionally nice shading" but otherwise does not differ from the norm. In some cases, especially finish differences, an entrant would be expected to cite other known examples of this difference or provide provenance/certification of OF from expert hobby peers. The judge will still be left to determine if the documentation proves sufficiently believable, as fakes especially in finish are not uncommon in the hobby sphere.
The rest of the factoids we can include for documenting a horse still provide context, but not necessarily that which has a major influence on the outcome. Providing model name & ID, mold name, series/set information mostly ensures to the judge that the entrant knows what they are presenting. A good judge, in most cases, should not need to look up common models while evaluating a class (for Breyer, anyway - I do not expect that the majority of folks can easily identify any Stone model or other brands).
Ephemera & accessories for a model, when allowed by the show, may be presented with the model as long as folks are mindful of space taken up. Not all shows will be ok with entrants going "all out" and may ask entrants to restrict extra items. These items may include non-attached bases, boxes, tack, riders, brushes, flyers, COA's, stickers (from boxes), and more that either came with the original model, reference its original point of sale (such as catalog retailer sales sheets), or were also available during a promotion/event where the model was available (such as stickers or magnets from BreyerFest). Ephemera that ties to the model's original owner, when they are from a famous collector such as Karen Grimm/BHR or Marney Walerius may also be presented as supplemental documentation. Extremely rare and test piece models typically have more of a "paper trail" to ensure their authenticity along the way, when they've been under the care of diligent collectors.
Condition
I've touched on this a little bit already, but Condition can be an important part of evaluation for any model division, especially at the Open level. However, there is some perception within the community that it is absolutely critical to have a piece that is perfect and flawless in order to win. That is simply untrue! In all divisions, no model exists that is 100% perfect, nor do we seek them out as a main criteria. Unless you are attending a tiny show with only a handful of (incredibly patient) people and classes, no one has the time to go over every model with a magnifying glass. What a judge should be on the lookout for are significant flaws that are easily visible and hard to ignore.
That said, for OF models, I like to break down Condition further into two sub-categories - fixable flaws and non-fixable ones. I consider fixable flaws to be any that an entrant can take care of themselves with relatively low skill or have a friend/hire someone to fix. Non-fixable flaws are those that would require a level of restoration skill that would either be prohibitively expensive, very time intensive, or a technique doesn't readily exist to solve the problem.
What I consider "fixable" - examples:
- Most warped legs and ears
- Small areas of missing paint/scrapes/scuffs, especially on black areas or other easily matchable colors (matte finish)
- Black, gray, or colored marks on the surface of a model
- Dirt, dust, some surface stains, and mold
Not as fixable - examples:
- Any scuffed paint that's under a layer of gloss
- Debris in paint/finish, especially on glossed models
- Slipped masking/overspray (this technically IS fixable, but it is considered "customizing" rather than restoration for the purposes of model shows)
- Mis-alinged halves of a mold
- Visible mold seams or seam lines, including pre-splits
- Missing eartips or other areas on a model where they were painted over by a factory and still offered as-is
- Stains/imperfections deeper within the plastic (as opposed to surface stains which can be removed with some effort by the owner)
- Minor scrapes/gouges within the plastic not caused by the end user
- Drips/runs/other issues in the finish (especially gloss)
I always weight "fixable" flaws more heavily than "not as fixable" ones myself. Note however, that especially for Open level, any flaws regardless of which category that you see will likely be more on the minimal side. Folks tend to self-select for models with fewer obvious flaws due to the perception of the impacts on their show results.
Another important note here, is the placement of any flaws. The judge will see a model's "show side" first and foremost, but the top and off side will also be visible while judging (though we do not spend as much time for most looking at these). The underside is not usually seen unless there's a signature or other writing to show off, and the inner legs tend to be less visible too. So, a small scuff on the inside of a leg is not going to jump out at me as much as one on a model's show side hip, for example.
Condition can be used both to rank models within the selection chosen to be placed, or to push a model out of these rankings that would have otherwise placed. Here is where subjectivity comes into play. While the flaws that any model has are objective - they exist and can be identified by anyone who looks at them - a judge must use subjectivity to determine how "bad" any given flaw they've noticed is, in comparison to the rest of the context for a model. Then, that context as a whole must be compared to the context of each other model on the table that is being considered to place. Typically, a judge will develop their initial thoughts on what they want to place during the 1st or 2nd trip around the ring. (Side note - for shows that gather large classes, this is where the act of "chipping" or "stringing" techniques can be used for judges to help keep track of what they are considering to place, or alternatively what they do not want to place.)
While determining the placings for a class, once the top models are identified (in most cases, anywhere from 6-10), this is when a judge needs to decide how much of an impact, if any, condition issues matter for the group of horses in front of them. You can practice this at home on your own herd! Just gather 12-15 models that fit a similar enough criteria that you can assess the context of handily with your current skill level, set them up on a table or other flat surface in your home, and give yourself something to take notes (digital or paper, whatever works for you). Using what you've learned so far, plus the other Collectibility elements yet to come, inspect each model visually and take notes on their condition and individual details. If it helps to learn, try rating them using one criteria at a time (Age, Condition, Rarity, Desirability, Impression) first before combining those together.
To validate your practice, take photos of your mock class (get a pic of every horse and their documentation materials, plus a few wider shots of the full class) and send your notes & final choices to a trusted mentor who is a well-experienced collectibility judge and ask for their thoughts on your evaluation of the class. Ideally, they should be letting you know what you are narrowing in on correctly and if there are things you are missing to work on. Of course, the best way to learn is to attend a judging clinic or to shadow a judge at a local show. If you don't have in person opportunities, look for digital clinics - Model Horse University is a great hub to watch for upcoming educational content in the community.
Desirability/Popularity
Moving along, our next element of Collectibility is Desirability (may also be referred to as Popularity). While this element does add an important layer of context, it's also the most fluid and fickle to keep tabs on. It is next to impossible for any judge to have a constant working knowledge of the small changes over time, but generally speaking anyone who is plugged into community discourse ought to have some awareness of larger trends over time. Desirability is all about the opinions of the hobby as a whole, and should not be impacted by the judge's personal feelings. Despite this being objective from the judge's perspective (it is based on their knowledge of hobby trends, not their own opinions), I still consider it a Subjective element. Most importantly, not every person is in every place where popularity discussions are taking place, especially as the hobby expands and more spaces exist for discourse than in the past. So two people may develop different impressions of what is popular, even if they both spend a lot of time paying attention - if they aren't watching the same spaces.
Generally speaking, what is most important here is the knowledge of the more enduring trends - such as being confident in saying that the Breyer Lady Phase is more popular than Breyer's Ideal Quarter Horse, or Stone's Santa Fe Morgan is more popular than their original Morgan. Certain series tend to retain interest and desirability, such as Breyer's Connoisseurs or Stone's Signature Series. Also, models that were made in collaboration with certain media IP may look more "desirable" when going by sales metrics, because they'll also receive interest from the IP fans as well as model collectors. Consider Breyer's portrait of John Wayne's horse Dollar. He was sold via Tractor Supply, in an edition of 3,000, yet he can still be difficult to find for a price that collectors might expect to pay for other models of a similar run count. This is because fans of John Wayne also seek out this model, thus there is more competition.
Dollar also happens to be a very well executed, popular color and is glossy. While Smart Chic is not the most popular mold these days, Dollar is one that many still consider a "grail". Color and finish are often a driving factor of popularity, regardless of a model's other details. Glossy models (especially in North America) usually receive greater interest than matte/satin/semi-gloss options. In some cases, models with both matte/glossy options, the matte models will actually be rarer in number. This can be either balanced out by the popularity of gloss when the numbers aren't terribly far off (such as the case with some of the 2020/2021 BreyerFest LE that had pre-order glossies) or the matte will be so much rarer that the popularity of gloss finish has no impact (like with Claude from the Vintage Club - the matte charcoal only has 30 made compared to 470 glossy).
Desirability in the context of judging, should only be used to provide additional support for the other factors, and for making more fine-tuned choices between rankings. Like condition, it can be used to align rankings or exclude a model previously considered for placing when the other factors are equally weighted. No judge should use Desirability to place a model significantly above another that should outrank it heavily in other factors.
Overall Impression
This element is the most difficult to explain, and as such is also the last factor that should effect judging decisions. Impression is the only entirely Subjective criteria and encompasses the judge's personal take on the model and its presentation for this class. In Breed, this factor would be akin to a judge's personal taste between equally valid varying body types for a breed such as an Arabian or QH. In collectibility, this includes things like how impressive the model's setup is (how thoroughly it was documented, how nicely that was set out on the table, etc.) as well as exceptionally nice color/shading (outside of distinct variations), or even a mold/color preference of the judge's.
I will be clear here that Impression should ONLY ever be used as a tie-breaker when ALL other factors are equal. I find it to be the most useful in particularly tough/competitive classes and in callbacks, where I've already given myself a field of very eligible models. I would also see this as more useful in a very granular/specific Collectibility based class, where most of what is being judged is fairly "like with like" to begin with. Such as "Breyer Vintage RR Glossy Charcoal" - here I'd expect most of the models present to be of a similar caliber in the other factors, so I may need to inject my own opinion more than if I was at a double-judged show with a class list based on breed. I'd have far more variation for Collectibility in say an "Arabian Stallion" class, for example.
On the Topic of Documentation
It's becoming more common for shows to require attendees to provide documentation for all models they wish to compete in Collectibility. However, it varies from show to show as to whether this is a steadfast rule or not. In an absolute condition, any model without documentation will either be skipped over or actively disqualified, no matter if the judge knows what it is or its rarity. In a "soft requirement" condition, it will be stated in the show packet rules, but in practice if there's a few missing docs here and there the judge may still place models if they know what they are and a model fits into the placings for a class. The latter is more flexible and forgiving, and makes sense for smaller, more laid back shows. If someone lost a couple of index cards while prepping, don't worry about it. Larger shows, especially major destination shows like BreyerFest Live, must stick to the letter of their law to maintain order in their potential for chaos.
Unfortunately, another piece of this discourse is that well qualified, well studied Collectibility judges are fewer in number than those who prefer Breed, so sometimes hosts find themselves in the position of needing someone to fill a role even if they are less experienced. In that case, documentation gives these less confident judges a quick reference/confirmation so they're not having to look things up frequently. It's certainly not ideal, and it can lead to some sticky situations if the entrant's information is wrong and the judge isn't aware. I do hope that more people will be open to learning about Collectibility and stepping up to help fill judging positions in their area. And to folks who are helping out even if you aren't super confident or can't explain yourself well, thank you! It means a lot that you are willing to put yourselves out there to help your community. I would absolutely recommend attending some judging clinics or getting yourself a mentor to improve your skills if you are up to the challenge. I say this as someone who has judged Breed numerous times over the years, in order to help friends put on their shows, but I'm also not at the point of understanding well enough to teach others. I need to attend some clinics myself!
What is Workmanship?
You might be asking, why am I including Workmanship here? Isn't that the Non-Breed category for Artisan divisions? And yes, that is correct! Workmanship is most commonly seen in Artisan divisions (AR, CM, CMG, etc.) However, there is a growing interest in the application of Workmanship ideals to OF Plastic. This is especially true for Stone models, and has been for a while, but we are starting to see it applied to Breyer & Other Mfg Plastic as well.
Workmanship in an OF context is for all intents and purposes, the actual division where factory flaws as well as damage are the most critical to assess. The folks who are worried about having perfect models would do great here! Again, no model is truly 100% perfect, but what we are judging based on here is craftsmanship, so quality is more forward than the other divisions.
Damage
Here, I consider "damage" to be anything that has happened to interrupt the model's condition, that is NOT something that could be purely attributed to factory quality. This includes missing paint from rubs/scratches and marks on top of the finish, and less severe warping (basically, most things that I'd consider "easily fixable" by the entrant when judging Collectibility).
Craftsmanship - Prep & Finish
For this section, I am looking for visible seams that missed smoothing, roughness/gouges in the plastic, mis-aligned molds, and other issues that could have been solved at the prep stage, plus finish issues such as unevenness or rough texture, debris in the finish, and other problems that came out of the finalizing stage. This is where mold detail is also important - was the model's detail smoothed out too much and is missing? As an example, an older G1 Stablemate may have an advantage over a modern G1 from that angle (these molds have all lost some amount of fine detail over the years, some more than others). For Stone models, this step is where I'd consider the quality of any factory customization that's been done.
Craftsmanship - Paint Quality Application & Impression
Separately, I'm considering the skill level of the painters, who are not also responsible for prep & finish (I assume in most cases for factory settings). Masking should be crisp where applicable, dapples should blend well and not be oddly shaped, eye details should be well applied, and shading should provide an appealing visual, for example.
As a footnote, any restoration work done on a model entering this division should be seamless and not detectable to the judge. (This is also important for Collectibility, but it's even more on display here.)
Setting the Bar
What I found most critical with differentiating this division from Collectibility, is how to avoid just placing the same models here that would do well there. In 2024, I had the honor of not only judging Collectibility for NAN, but also the inaugural OF Workmanship for Non-Stone at Equilocity in the same week. So, I had the opportunity to think deeply about how I could make sure this happened.
I came up with the following rule for myself - every model, once evaluated for the factors above, must then be weighted against how nice an example it is of it's run/tier of model. So, I could have a Connoisseur and a $5 Stablemate on the same table (and this definitely did happen!) and the Conn would not have an automatic advantage just by being more detailed to start with. Consider this the "upgrade factor". Many experienced collectors, once they have a wide enough collection and fewer that they want to add new, will go back and seek out the best examples they can find of models they already own - upgrades. If you were shopping for a model in front of you on the table, would you consider it an exceptional example of that particular horse? Or going by tier/type of run, would you consider it exceptional for a regular run/special run/OOAK/etc. By using this method, you can then assess each model as average/good/great/exceptional against itself before then weighting it against the others in the class.
This does not guarantee of course, that models who would also win in Collectibility won't come out on top - my Overall Champion at EQ was an absolutely stunning test PAM by Tom Bainbridge - but it does level the playing field a little more equitably.
Overall Impression
Impression is also a factor for Workmanship, but mainly in the context of how well the piece flows overall and the visual harmony that comes from that in the judge's personal opinion. Again, it is not an element that I use to determine anything beyond tie-breakers or callbacks.
What is Color?
Finally, we get to the least familiar division - OF Color! This is a category that I've seen a few times over the years, generally seen more as a fun division rather than qualifying for anything. However, with proper criteria applied, I don't see why it can't be just as valid of a Non-Breed Halter division as the other two.
Color is meant to purely focus on the paint work on the horse alone - like with Workmanship, the core elements of Collectibility are missing (Age/Rarity/Desirability), but it is more similar to Collectibility in the weight that is applied to condition and non-paintwork quality.
So, for this division, a judge should not give any merit to how rare/collectible a model is, and while models can be marked down for obvious condition issues (factory or not), that's only if said issues aren't a major distraction from the model's overall appearance. The most well-executed, visually appealing examples of each color will come out on top. I do suggest to judges here to take a page out of the Workmanship guide above and apply the same "upgrade factor", just with color weighted the highest over condition & non-paint craftsmanship. Color and visual appeal certainly are subjective, but we still want some semblance of guidelines for judging that folks can come to expect across different events.
Color and Workmanship divisions may both be sorted by color, but they may also be separated further by things like run type, scale, or brand for example, just like Collectibility. (Collectibility tends to be a mix of color-based and run-type-based approaches, usually sorted into divisions by scale, age, and/or brand.) Like with the other two divisions, both Realistic and Unrealistic/Fantasy models can thrive in Color!
The aim of Color is to remove as many barriers of entry as possible and provide a less potentially intimidating experience than Workmanship or Collectibility, especially to newcomers. If you have nicely colored models, you can compete, whether they are regular runs or rarities or anything in between! Color also pairs nicely with either of them to create a double-judged experience that's less jarring to the secondary category than the pairing of OF Breed (primary) & OF Collectibility (secondary) that has been so popular for years.
I'm looking forward to seeing the Color + Collectibility division combo in action on December 6th for Percherons & Ponies in CT!
Let's Judge a Class!
For this example, I've chosen a set of models where we can apply any of the 3 criteria. As a note, they should have documentation for the Collectibility assessment, but my workspace area is a bit of a mess at the moment so it's not easy to get to the box where their ID cards are. So, for these purposes they are all equal since none of them are documented.
Here I've set up a "Vintage Woodgrain Color" class, that mostly features original woodgrains but also a couple of modern ones. Any show could of course restrict to just the actual vintage ones in any of these categories.
- Woodgrain Five Gaiter, RR 1961/2-1965. This example's tassel tip was broken off at the factory and he was finished and sold as-is.
- Woodgrain Fighting Stallion, RR 1961/2-1973. This is a lighter example (darker were found on lamps) and has the typical 4 socks and stripe.
- Woodgrain Quarter Horse Gelding, RR 1960-1964.
- Woodgrain Family Arabian Stallion, RR 1959-1960. This example lacks a mold stamp which specifically dates him to this smaller window. Mold stamp versions were available 1960-66.
- Woodgrain Family Arabian Mare, RR 1963-1967.
- Woodgrain Clydesdale Stallion, RR 1958-1961. This is the "no muscle" version. The "muscle" version was available 1962-1964.
- Woodgrain Family Arabian Foal, RR 1960-1966.
- "Cypress" Connemara Mare, SR 2017 Vintage Club, optional purchase. No more than 500 made. Features replica blue ribbon sticker.
- Woodgrain Mini Clydesdale Stallion (A/left), RR/SR 2020-2021. 70th Anniversary Mystery Horse Surprise sold via RR & through TSC.
- Woodgrain Mini Clydesdale Stallion (B/right), RR/SR 2020-2021. 70th Anniversary Mystery Horse Surprise sold via RR & through TSC.
I know it's not the same as seeing them from all sides, but I hope these close-ups help to give some sense of their details. What I'm looking to accomplish with this exercise is to tell you how I've placed these on each of the 3 categories, given that I can actually inspect them in person, but you are of course welcome to try applying what you've learned and make your own guesses based on what you can see.
*To note here, not all of the models are those that I bring to shows myself, so for those ones I may place them lower based on the flaws that make them shelf pieces in my opinion, or for some examples I may downplay the condition aspect to show off other details about the horses.
COLLECTIBILITY
For this interpretation of the class, I found it important to have couple of modern examples included to illustrate how a judge may need to balance between older models that have survived a long time and newer ones, including those with known quantities.
Let's work backwards from 10th to 1st!
10th - Lighter Stablemate. You can't see from here, but he has a small rub on his off shoulder, so he places under the darker copy.
9th - Darker Stablemate. Being both modern and plentifully available, he does not have a reason to place over the older and more limited horses present.
8th - FAF. She does have some small flaws, including those visible in her photo, and the Family Arabians are the most common vintage woodgrains. While they may hold a soft spot in many a collector's heart for nostalgia reasons, they still aren't very popular to collect.
7th - TR Clyde Stallion. This guy is somewhat common, though certainly not so much as the family Arabians. He's also more popular. However, his clear damage issues means he's not going to place any higher than this.
6th - FAM. Being a Family Arabian, she's incredibly common as woodgrains go, but she gets extra points here for being in better shape than the CS and her daughter.
5th - QHG. While he is one of the rarest of the Vintages who are present, he also has extensive damage and as such I can't justify placing him any higher.
4th - Fighting Stallion. He is in great condition, and even has some of his remaining original pads under the hooves and tail. He's also a pleasing color. However, the FS is almost as common as the Family Arabians, and he's not an unusual variation, such as the FS who don't have any white markings.
3rd - FAS. Despite the small smudges on each barrel (factory flaw, under the sealer), he's still a no-stamp guy which means he was likely originally sold with the very rare PAM & PAF in woodgrain, or alone in the short period of the contract negotiations with H-R before the FAM & FAF were introduced.
2nd - Five Gaiter. The missing tassel hasn't hindered his show career, in fact it's kind of intriguing to some folks. The FG may not be super rare, but he's also not in the most common tier and he tends to be decently popular among vintage mold enthusiasts.
1st - Cypress. She has no condition issues, along with being a modern SR with a stated run count. That alone shouldn't automatically place her first - if I had a better vintage example, she could definitely be beat. However, there's nothing keeping her from the top of this group for this category.
WORKMANSHIP
This one will be interesting! Woodgrains, especially the older ones, are not often the tidiest colors out there. We also have plenty of seam, prep, and finish issues common on older pieces.
10th - QHG. Since Workmanship places a higher degree of importance on condition, those with obvious damage issues will be towards the bottom.
9th - TR Clydesdale Stallion. Also very obvious damage.
8th - FAF. She does have some very minor bubbling on the legs are one of her flaws, which currently is not fixable.
7th - FAS. The smudges on his barrel are in very apparent spots, unfortunately.
6th - Lighter Mini Clyde. The rub on his off side keeps him lower here.
5th - Five Gaiter. Despite his overall pleasing appearance, the tassel issue is technically a factory flaw.
4th - Darker Mini Clyde. While his color is interesting, it is kind of "streaky" in a way that could indicate lower technical mastery.
3rd - FAM. She is also kind of "streaky", still in a pleasant way, but she also has a less visible rub on her tail and the eartips are a bit worn.
2nd - Cypress. For a modern horse, her prep work is quite good, there aren't a ton of seams that got missed. Her finish is also nice and smooth.
1st - Fighting Stallion. He lacks any significant flaws, and the color application, while streaky in some spots, is not unappealing.
COLOR
Finally, let's take a look at this group purely based on color appeal/accuracy. Remember, for this one condition is closer in importance to Collectibility, but here I paid it even less mind (I get that it's an extreme example, and some of the models here would not actually make it to or place in a live show, they are here to help me show off the concepts).
10th - Cypress. Yes, she may be superior from the other perspectives, but taking into account if her paint looks like "the best woodgrain color", that she is not. Her flat appearance barely has much visible grain.
9th - Darker Mini Clyde. The Stablemates have more contrast than Cypress, but as far as technique matching the style of the originals, they're not the best modern attempt.
8th - Lighter Mini Clyde. Overall, his pattern comes a little closer to the old style on the vintages.
7th - Fighter. While his softer visual is pleasing to look at, it's less "accurate" to what comes to mind when one thinks of a woodgrain model.
6th - FAM. She's lovely, but a bit streaky.
5th - FAF. The foal similarly has some odd streaking and patches, but less so than the mare.
4th - TR Clyde Stallion. He's nice, but not striking enough for me to ignore the condition issues (again, in a real situation I would place him lower or ignore depending on class size!)
3rd - FAS. The darker color is quite interesting, just that darker spot on his face is a bit odd in my opinion, in consideration of visual cohesiveness.
2nd - QHG. This delightfully stripey guy is only just shy of the top because even if I am bending the condition requirements a bit for this example, I still can't justify placing the most damaged horse in the group first!
1st - Five Gaiter. This guy hits all the points of a quintessential "woodgrain" in my eyes. The striping effect on his mane and tail, plus the extra color of the tassel just serve to accent his visual to me. And being one of the ones that's actually in good enough shape to attend shows certainly helps!
I hope this has been a fun and educational read! I had a fun time with this one :)
Comments
Post a Comment