Critique sheets at the Fair!

[Roger Fisher]

We have seen several nice rifles posted here.  I know it would take some real canolies to be willing to share the judges critiques of your project; but looking at photos some good some not so good and hard to see the small defects or errors (some @!*% small) that our members have no idea what was wrong if anything with the rifles posted.  

We realize that the critique sheets describe in multiple choice form the common errors that occur frequently with the builds.  

Would anyone be willing to post good photos of each section of his rifle and the critique that resulted of each section...., This may be a good learning project for all of us.  I would be willing - $#*! I'm not proud....   Although it would take a lot of film in my case......

[smylee grouch]

I wished I had been there and had one to share but I know it would help those out that have never been there as we could see what we can expect if we ever go. I would be gratefull to any one who would participate in such a plan. I wouldnt hold it against anyone for not doing so though.      Gary

[Long John]

Roger,

I did not take close-up photographs of all my mistakes.  But here you go -
1.) Nose cap - rivets are rough - minus 1 point (YUP!  That was the 4th try to make a grooved muzzle cap.  When I finall got one formed correctly I filed too much draft on the edge where it fits to the fore stock so when I filed it down gaps started to open.  In trying to remove it the drill popped off the rivet and cut a big hole in the muzzle cap.  That meant I had to make huge rivets to reinstall after correcting the draft issue at the back edge.  When done there was NOT a nice clean line where the rivet met the muzzle cap)
2.) Thimbles - pins are a bit rough - minus 1 point ( I round of the point of the pin on the right side. I should have filled the holes with beeswax)
3.) Entry thimble - flats are dented - minus 1 point  (YUP! that was the 4th try to make an entry pipe, I was out of .040 brass and I was a little careless when I tapped it into the mortice while letting in.)
4.) Side plate - chipped out wood in front - minus 1 point (you can see it in the photos I posted.  I just could not think of a solution to that problem.  I knew it was there!)
5.) Lock - gaps - minus 1 point (you REALLY have to look hard to find a gap)
7.) Barrel - chip of wood missing - minus 1 (Yup there was one place where the curl was my enemy and as I thinned the fore-end down to meet the barrel the wood disintegrated, Oh Well)
8.) Trigger guard - front finial too deep - minus 1 (If you run a fingenail from the stock to the finial it is smooth, the other way you get a litte hiccup at the joint)
9.) Butt Plate - not finished nice at toe - no deduction (I don't quite know what that means but I will find out)
10 & 11) Sights are marked "incorrect" but no explanation no deductions.  (I think its because I am supposed to upset the steel of the barrel rather than cutting .040 deep.  Or it could be that they were made with a Patridge patter not the traditional pattern. I will find out.)
16) Raised carving - needs to see original work, rough areas, needs practice - minus 3   (I copied the carving from RCA 53 for the cheeck piece and comb carving.  The tang and entry pipe are my own designs. Try as I might there WERE some rough spots that I did not detect until after the finish was on.  Oh Well)
21.) Wood Patch Box - Too bulky, dovetail too big - minus 2 - (I like my women slender and my butt boxes proud, my decision, I'll take that one on the chin)
23.) Overall style - belly is rough and slightly pregnant - minus 1 (I don't know what that means!  I'll have to find out)
25.) Cheek piece - too large - minus 1 (This is a hunting rifle!  The cheek piece was cut so I can close my eyes, throw the rifle up, open my eyes and see the sights perfectly aligned; my decision, I'll take that one on the chin.)
27.) Upper forearm - rough spots - minus 1 (YUP!, when you scrape a rifle some times that curl just won't cooperate.  It did not show up until I had the finish on.)
29.) Transition areas - wrist to lock panel and Lock panel to lower forearm pregnant - no deductions (I have to find out what that means.)

There you have it.

I entered the rifle as "traditional with old man sights".  The sights are cut with a Patridge pattern and the front is a full 1/8th inch thick - so I can see it!  I expected deductions for non-traditional sights.  They were checked off as "Incorrect" but no deductions in points were taken.

Since it was my impression that pre-revolutionary war rifles were sparcely engraved, if at all, I did very little engraving; just my name on the top flat, No 14 on the left oblique flat, outlining the tang, 8 lines extending from some screw heads and outlining on the side plate and toe plate (yes I put a toe plate on even though they are generally NOT found on pre-rev rifles)  A more aggressively engraved rifle would have more opportunities for errors.  That is where a points-added system of scoring might be better at encouraging makers to stretch their abilities.  I basically called it quits with minimum engraving.

If you guys want photos, I will take them but it might be a while.

Best Regards,

JMC

[Roger Fisher]

Thanks John:  I do believe this subject can really be a learning opprotunity for everyone (well most of us) Showing what was wrong in the judges eyes at least can help us all.     Otherwise we have no idea what to clean up on our projects and errors to try to avoid or correct. 

Judging is just that 'judging' or the judges opinions on what is correct and not correct...   We have a great source here for information if we wish to build them 'better' rather than stick'em together.....

Oh yes, welkom to the Journeyman class

[Mike Brooks]

Thanks for posting John, I betcha I'd get dead ass last!.

[rich pierce]

They do a good job of adhering to their standards and being consistent.  The comments about how the carving could be improved is one area where I'd like to see improvement in the critiques.  I realize they have limited time and this is just one category but "needs to see originals" isn't constructive.  "Too high", "rough", "poor design", "not well molded", would be as easy to write as "needs to see originals".

[Jim Kibler]

I've not participated in the judging and have no desire to.  With that being said, from the outside it seems the evaluation weighs toward execution rather than design.  I can understand that this is easier to consistently judge and is an aspect important for those gaining gunbuilding skills, but in the end, I believe design is king.  A rifle with great design, but somewhat sub par execution can still have a great deal of appeal.  The opposite is never true.

[Rolf]

How many points do you start out with before they start deducting?

Best regards

Rolfkt

[rdillon]

The one with the least amount of points wins !

[tallbear]

Roger
This is my entry in the Journeyman class.I've posted it on here before


I had a nice conversation with one of the judges after it was over.I have always found the judges more than willing to answer any questions that I might have.

I entered this rifle as a traditional entry.The judges changed it to contemporary as they felt is was not Representative of a particular school and would score better in the contemporary class.

SCORE
1) -1 "Tang not inlet deep enough" You can see a sliver of the tang rising out of the wood as the tang meets the barrel.


2) -1 "Trigger guard not properly finished" I scraped the inside of the bow of the guard and did not polish it.I have seen this done on originals but the judges felt it should be polished the same as I polished the outside.

3)  -1 "Finish too thin" This is self explanatory

4) -1 "Lower forearm to base thimble transition" The judge felt this needed to flow a little more smoothly


I have always found these critique's and the judges explanations very helpful even when I didn't always agree 100% with them.

Mitch

[J. Talbert]

Tallbear,

I'm amused that the judges changed your entry from traditional to contemporary since they didn't feel it fit into a traditional "school".   From the one overall view, it appears to me to be a pretty good rendition of an original I have seen in the flesh on several occasions.  Of course, I could be wrong!

I like it regardless,

Jeff

[rich pierce]

You're better off with the contemporary designation at Dixon's as they have standards for each school they know that would downgrade many originals that are not archetypical of that school.

That "feather gun" was a dandy and so it got a pile of ribbons.  But they would not know the feather gun from an Old Holston gun.


The judging is what it is; most disappointment comes from not knowing how they do things.

[tallbear]

Jeff
You are correct my rifle is a close copy of an original.The judges point was that it is not a representative of a "classic"recognized school.Although some of my friends say it's a good example of a Reading School rifle
Rich's point is a good one if your rifle is not a Representative of a "classic school"
is would be best judged in the contemporary class.

Mitch

[B.Habermehl]

The heck of it is, wood moves with humudity changes more than what your breech tang shows. It is allways something of a $#@* shoot with the judges because of seasonal wood expansion and contraction. I have been burnt on buttplates especially, with the toe of the plate hanging down a bit in relation with the wood in the winter and the wood flush or proud in the summer.    BJH

[Tom Currie]

Thats an interesting thought on what Comtemporary vs Traditional means. I had thought it meant design elements based on original work vs inlaid butterflys and things like that.

Let's say you're building a Newcomer ( not yet school conformed ) rifle , or the early Holston rifle, as Mitch did, it would be nice if there was an attached 3x5 card on the entry slip where you could put some info without  writing a whole book on what you are doing. Maybe that would help the judges understand what you are doing without taking up too much of their time.

I would like to know what the proper finish expected is on brass components. There a few differnet ways to do things here, Brasso ( mirror like ), I usually finish with 400 grade paper and then various grades of steel wool, you could scrape, and you could age some . I've got my share of " not finished properly" checks. There's quite a variance in brass finishes at the fair.

Expected wood finish also. Shiny, matte, just oil, varnish ( a little thicker than oil ) , wax ? Is there an expected look ? Expected finish ? Or are different techiques evaluated independantly.

I have taken home some ribbons when I didnt expect to and brought home some green ones when I expected better so it''s still a bit of a mystery to me. Certainly craftsmanship is #1. You cant get points for gaps if you don't any . However I do think you can pick up a lot of subjective 1, or 2 s if you are not building what appeals to the judges eye.  I quick example : My recently posted rifle has scaled down dimensions from the Christian's Springs examples in RCA. Yet I got points for " Too Bulky" I can only sum that up to personal taste.  I also picked up points for barrel inlet too deep, yet it is dead nuts half way. I also chalk this up to subjective taste in style, not that it was inlet too deep. I look every year to get a consensus on style for the blue ribbon winners. Besides very clean work, I would say majority of the big winners build thinly built rifles. I had my best ribbon day with a thin Bucks County rifle 2 years ago. I think thin is the expected look.

On my recently posted rifle, My big points came from my haste mainly and to a lesser degree of what I consider "degree of difficulty". I can make a 2 piece nose cap with a soldered end fit almost perfectly, but my much harder one piece effort does not look like it came off a CNC machine, as it shouldn't. That cost points +3. Relief carving +4 my best carving so far IMHO. Acer pointed out some background waviness , you will see that under my cheekpiece especially, that falls under the " my haste " category.

55 points total. My Bucks 2 years ago had 35.

While I appreciate the effort and time spent of the long established judges I am glad they have recruited new blood in the judging tent if only to bring in new ideas and challenge the expected norm.


 

 

[smart dog]

Well Guys,
I got an e-mail from my brother early last week saying that my dueling pistols I gave him won 1st and 2nd place for traditional pistol - apprentice level.  I was flabbergasted because I had no idea he was entering them.   I knew he wanted to attend Dixon's and display the pistols and case that I made for him, but he never mentioned to me that he was entering them for judging.  To say that my jaw dropped to the floor was no exaggeration.  Anyway, my score sheet for Achilles (the first place winner):

Ramrod Thimble - gaps + 2 
Lock - gaps + 1
Triggers - inlet too deep +2
 Total +5

For Hector (second place)

Ramrod Thimble - gaps +2
Entry Thimble - gaps +2
Triggers inlet too deep - +2
Transition Areas - lock panel to lower forearm too bulky +1

I don't have photos here that show those areas well enough to see the flaws.
dave

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Well I would think so!!     I bet he is proud of those ribbon!! As you should be.. Congratulations!!

[Tom Currie]

Dave, I thought I heard your name mentioned. Well deserved !

[B Shipman]

Pregnant means too much wood.

[sidreilley]

Dave.
  Congratulations, your work is quite deserving of any awards it receives!

[smart dog]

Thanks Sid, Tom, and Tim,
I was pretty tickled by it and am grateful to my brother. I appreciate the work of the judges at Dixon's and I also am glad Roger asked folks to post their score results.  I think it does pay to understand how our peers judge quality.

dave