Building for Judges

[Dphariss]

This comes from the "You Be The Judge" thread.
I think the building to suit judges is a MAJOR mistake. This will then allow a small group of people to control the rifles being made for display at whatever event.
I would suggest that anyone who thinks this is a good I idea look at the AKC and what breeding dogs for judges has some to some dog breeds.

Dan

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Rotating strong opinionated judges through every couple of years could mitigate this issue to some extent....... Wanna volunteer 

I really think the focus should be on the feedback you get...not the competition. Perhaps reserve the competition to the Mastrs Level??

Feedback from judges or members of this forum on a gun is a gift and the receiver can use it as he/she sees fit...Its a valuable gift! far more important than the competition in my eyes.... Getting feeedback from 3 or 4 expert judges who have the right to disagree on style issues is useful.

Honestly, I would rather bring a gun to an ALR gathering and take it around to 10-12 of you to look over and give feedback than submit it for competitive judging.....my ego doesn't need building..my skills do..

[Roger Fisher]

Rotating strong opinionated judges through every couple of years could mitigate this issue to some extent....... Wanna volunteer 

I really think the focus should be on the feedback you get...not the competition. Perhaps reserve the competition to the Mastrs Level??

Feedback from judges or members of this forum on a gun is a gift and the receiver can use it as he/she sees fit...Its a valuable gift! far more important than the competition in my eyes.... Getting feeedback from 3 or 4 expert judges who have the right to disagree on style issues is useful.

Honestly, I would rather bring a gun to an ALR gathering and take it around to 10-12 of you to look over and give feedback than submit it for competitive judging.....my ego doesn't need building..my skills do..

Well young feller, you are on the mark dead center

[Acer Saccharum]

Tim, just to keep things on the level, I was volunteered* to learn how to be a judge at Dixon's. This will take several years of training. This subject always was very interesting to me as a builder, and now I am going to be looking at the judging from a different perspective.

I totally concur that one should not build for the judges, nor for the ribbons. I build for myself. When I submit a gun, naturally I hope for ribbons. I have gotten all the colors, from blue to yellow. The real prize, though, is the critique of your work. I have gotten comments like fore end too square, inletting gaps, gun too green, etc. At first my blood boils, yet eventually I sit down with my paperwork and my gun and look it over, and yes, I can see what they mean. If I don't understand, I ask someone, or go back to the judges.The only reason for the Dixon judging system is to help guide us builders toward a higher level of building. It's educational. Period. That's how I understand it.

That said, the critique is just a guide, not law. Take what makes sense to you, and leave the rest.

I brought up the point that I will know many of the rifles that are entered. The judges said that I pass these on to the other judges. With Jeff I brought up the fact that I don't have the exposure to the originals like the current judges do. He said there will be a learning curve, for sure, but we'll start you out slow. I consider this an honor, and will do my best to make my efforts be as honest and true to the mission of Dixon's Judging program.

Tom

*Jeff Guillaume put me in a half nelson to convince me that I should apply for the position.

[ehoff]

Have to agree that the feedback is the real prize. To build something  just for the sake of trying to win a contest is a sure fire receipe for failure. Is it nice to win a ribbon? Yes, I was about floored when my fowler won first last year, but the critique was the real prize.  Like Acer said reading it can at first "make the blood boil" but when you reread it later it makes sense. I keep mine in my shop as a handy refrenence.

[Kentucky Jeff]

I agree--build the rifle that makes you happy.  You can build anything you want from a design and components standpoint and enter it in the "CONTEMPORARY" rifle category and still win ribbons.

I disagree if you want to win ribbons in the "TRADTIONAL" rifle category

If you don't enter the rifle who cares?  Build whatever you want...
Its a free country.

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Acer......You fit my criteria.................  

I love going to Dixon's and the faire is part of the whole.  That being said, If you are a master go for the gold. Otherwise submit for the feedback, AND get feedback form other knowledgeable folks besides the judges!! 

Show your worrk to Don Getz. He will critique  it AND make you feel good in the process..and he might carry it around and show other people what you did!!!   

[Dphariss]

It was not my intention to attack the judges or the contest.
I also understand that criticism is important, very necessary in fact.
One cannot improve with out it.
I have had a "master" look at a rifle for seconds and tell a line was "off", fortunately it was not yet finished and I took it home and fixed it. I had gotten too "close" to the thing and could not see it until pointed out.

I would not DREAM of judging at Dixons. First its a 3-4 day drive and I am not qualified.
Yes they have to gig people on things. But assuming all the photographs were to scale I think the wrist gig of the rifle that started this discussion was groundless. BUT THEY ARE THE JUDGES.
While it might no be wise to build for the judges this does not mean the there should be no judging.
My point is that building specifically to win a contest of this type will result in a rifle/gun of the "judges school" and I feel this would be a mistake.
People should built to the best of their ability.
Just as a side bar I was wondering about the patchbox cavity thing. Depth at least. A shallow PB cavity IS a pita. I know, BTDT. I also tend to make them about as large as I can. If the shooter wants to use it it needs to useful.
In fact I have rifle I may deepen after reading the associated discussion. But I might be lazy and leave it as is...
Dan

[T*O*F]

There are only two people required to judge a gun......yourself and your customer.  If the customer is happy, so be it.  If he's not, but you are, then his opinion don't count anyway.  Wait, that's contradictory......only one person is required to judge.........yourself.  Everyone else can go pound sand.

Chuckles,
Dave

[jerrywh]

I all guns were built for the judges it wouldn't be long until they all looked the same.  BOOOORINNG
 I build for me. So did Jacob dickert.

[northmn]

The comments I can agree to are 1. We build for ourselves and 2. We could get into a "judges school" of building.   Sometimes it is fun to build a gun that is not a copy of anything specific, but one that could have been built.  These are fun and can be a way of expressing oneself.  Also what are the standards the judges look for.  I ran field trials with retrievers and even judged a few.  I quit and now enjoy my bird dogs and do not train for some of the d--n fool requirements of trails.  The quest for perfection in building isn't there.  There are certain things that stand out, like quality of inletting, lines and shaping.  However while most go for super slim, even that can be varied within reason.  Do you finish with a scraper or really put on a shine with sand paper.  Also as stated, are you religiously aping something one of the master's built or building your own gun within a general school guideline?  I just have never been a fan of judged competition.  Quite often there starts to get to be favorites, whether conscious or not, that get preference because of past performance.  You see that in any of the judged events. 
Actually Dan had to go mention how competition had wrecked some dog breeds, which has little to do with this forum but is one of my pet peeves as I have seen it totally ruin good hunting dog breeds.  If one would enjoy competing against others in that manner thats their thing, just not mine.  Each to his own.

DP

[E.vonAschwege]

Definitely agree with most that's been said here.  Don't build to please the judges or specifically to win a ribbon.  Winning a ribbon is lots of fun (even if they don't have a clue how to pronounce your name), but the critique sheet should be what counts.  My first rifle had so many mistakes, must have been one of the lowest scoring guns that year, but after reading through it I realized just how right they were. 

Don wasn't at Dixon's this year, I missed him, so I entered the French pistol.  I agreed with some of the critique and disagreed with others.  As we learn and our skills improve, we become a judge ourselves, but it's great to have the Dixon's judges to help jog our minds and make us think a bit.  I actually sometimes find myself looking over the previous year's scoring sheet when building, just to keep some of the critique in mind, but not to build TO that critique. 

There's FAR more competition at the Apprentice level, simply because there are more apprentice guns entered.  The Journeyman and Masters guns may have better workmanship, but there are fewer entrees.  That said, if an apprentice level gun is entered in the masters category, they apparently won't give it a ribbon unless it's master's quality. 

TOF, I agree!  But...Anyone can be satisfied with their level of craftsmanship, but being judged by others and accepting that helps you become a better judge of your own work.

Back to packing... Leaving for school in Asheville, NC on Saturday. 

[T*O*F]

TOF, I agree!  But...Anyone can be satisfied with their level of craftsmanship, but being judged by others and accepting that helps you become a better judge of your own work

Eric,
I forgot to mention that I am never satisfied with my craftsmanship, but in most cases "it's good enough for who it's for."  Some day the perfect storm comes to everyone.

[northmn]

Dan had to hit one of my buttons concerning dogs and judged competition.  Actually it sounds like the judging has both good and bad points.  There is a contemporary class, but I would guess that it is kept within bounds.  Likely one would not win if they engraved a 57 Chevy on the patch box.  Really I find it interesting that builders have gone more classic than when I had started.  Several builders I knew would not touch a swamped barrel.  Dixons and organizations like this one help keep us focused as builders.  While I like to drift off and do "my own thing", my own thing, falls within the parameters of what could have been made.  We recognize styles and stay within those parameters.  I have heard the arguement defending inlines that they are still a "primitive" weapon.  I argue that ML's are not primitive, they are historical.  BIG difference.

DP

[Long John]

I think that in an ideal worled there would be no distinction between building for one's own personal sense of achievement and what is recognized as exemplary work by the judges.  As I said earlier in my thread, I am grateful for the time the judgges took in critiquing my work.  I disagreed with some of their opinions and concurred with others.

That being said, I have noticed, as others that the number of guns being submitted is decreasing each year.  And I think this is indicative of a general discontent with the judging at the Fair.  Its not the judges' fault - they are the messenger. 

I think this general discontent is wth the judging program itself.  The judging program gives no credit for what you do, instead it penalizes for mistakes made.  A gun maker can submit a rifle that is highly carved, fully engraved, with inlays of contrasting metal in the barrel etc. etc. and if out of the 100 lines of engraving he made 5 mistakes he/she will be docked "points" and end up with a lower "score" than a dead plain rifle.  The dead plain rifle does not represent a higher level of skill - just either a lower level of bravery or a different sense of aesthetic.  Such a judging "system" looses credibility rapidly.  And this is what has happened.

In the current system if there are two rifles with identical design, fit and finish, but one the builder started with a blank, made her/his own barrel, lock, castings and screws but had one gap in the inletting, while the second the builder bought a kit with a machine carved stock but managed to finish up without that one inletting gap, then the second rifle would win a higher score.  Which represents a greater accomplishment in gunmaking?  We all would probably agree that it is the first.  We would then wonder how it is that the judges awarded the second gun the ribbon.  I think the judging system itself is inherently defective and that leads people to criticize the judges.  Good shot, but wrong target!

I think it would be far better to have a judging "program" that recognizes skill and accomplishment rather than the current system that rewards timidity and penalizes the gumption to try to attain new heights.

Best Regards,

John Cholin

[Jim Kibler]

Besides the difficulty with developing an accurate set of criterea to judge by, I think the biggest difficulty with such a thing is that by nature it must focus primarily on the mechanical aspects of rifle building.   Design and asthetics are far more important, but it's pretty hard to quantify this sort of thing.  Tactful critique along with praise is probably best.  I don't think ribbons and a competition have any place.  I've not participated, but these are just my thoughts from the outside.

-Jim

[northmn]

John, your comments kind of remind me of when my daughter went to state in speach when in High School.  She tried a much harder reading with more characterization than others, including the champion.  She did not make the finals because of the mistakes she made that others did not even try.  Thats the nature of judging.  I  liked the attitude of the Versatile Hunting Dog Association when they basically set up standards for their trails but did not declare winners.  In other words th edog had to complete certain tests to qualify for a ribbon or classification, but there was to be no winner as such, no "best" dog.  They may have changed that, but the concept is good.

DP

[jerrywh]

The American firearms engraver Guild has the best way of judging in my opinion. All the members of the guild vote by sealed ballot on the entrees. The winners are 1-2-3 .
  I think the top or master class should be judged by master builders only.  That would be a very reliable way to find the best in my opinion.
  When you are picked by your peers it means everything. There is no denial. Nobody knows who owns the guns that are on the table. They only have a number.

[t.caster]

Let us not forget....EVERY gun we build WILL BE JUDGED! Some will make it to Dixon's Fair, but all will be judged by anyone who comes close to observe it, throughout it's lifespan! The judges at Dixon's don't know your name, but all others who handle your piece will! I think the judgement I respect the most is from those who shoot my creations. I believe the greatest award I can recieve is neither written or verbal, but seeing someone win a shoot or make an impossible shot with a rifle or smoothie I built. The silent eye contact at the end of the day, between a satisfied shooter and a builder is, and always will be...absolutely PRICELESS!!!!

[cglynn]

Here's an idea.  It seems many builders like having their guns professionally judged as it gives them feedback and from this they improve and refine their craft.  That is a great thing.  However problems arise as John so accurately pointed out.  So what about this.  At a fair or event where rifles are judged, the guns are still submitted for critiquing by the judges, and scored by them.  However the judges score only counts for a precentage of the builders' total scores.  The remaining score could come from the difficulty of the build, other builders' critiques, and the attendees of the fair.  It might alliviate some of these issues as you can still get feedback on your build, and ideally the "best" guns will win the ribbons.

I do realize that this is highly subjective, and what one man thinks is a beautiful rifle, another may not enjoy.  Case and point.  A friend of mine is an avid hunter and fairly set in his ways so if I show him a gun with brass inlays, a nice patchbox, and other artistic and technical bits of work, he will say its too bright and might scare the deer.  He prefers plain rifles, wooden patchboxes, and a rifle that is simple and utilitarian. 

The point is, it really boils down to personal preferences.  Build the gun that you want to build, to the best of your abilities.  Don't think you can go wrong there.

My $.02
Happy building all
Chris G

[David Rase]

I have refrained from commenting on this thread for many reasons.  Chris G. hinted around at it and brings up a good point.  When you enter an item at Dixon's it goes through 2 phases.  The critiquing process and the judging process.  You must remember not to get the 2 confused.  They are independent of each other.  The judging panel first critiques all the entries and then they pick the winners of the various catagories.  When you get your critique sheets they are just that, critiques.  Take the comments for what they are worth.  If you get a ribbon, enjoy it and take the recognition.
DMR   

[Pete G.]

Competition breeds excellence. Folks may not like criticisim, but remember something; you don't win a match by shooting 10s, you win it by NOT shooting 9s.

[Evil Monkey]

Competition breeds excellence. Folks may not like criticisim, but remember something; you don't win a match by shooting 10s, you win it by NOT shooting 9s.

So you mean that I can win by shooting 5's and 6's, so long as I don't get a 9???  Woo Whooo, I'm gonna come shoot with you guys!.