What is rivet counting?

[Blind Pew]

A button counter can be hard to define but we all know one when we see one.
They generally stand out by their lack of painting skill, or so I've usually found.

And when you think back and remember down the years to those figures that really 'wowed' you when you first saw them, were you counting those buttons? I didn't think so, you just sat back and admired how the piece made you feel.
You admired the modeler's skill in achieving that result - not how well he could recount an Osprey book.

 

[MCPWilk]

First off... WRONG!!!! The correct nomenclature for what we are discussing on THIS site is "Button Counter".... "Rivet Counters" are found lurking about on armour sites.

I thought 'rivet counters' first arose on model railway sites (or so I was led to believe by my forays into railway modelling!).

Mike

 

[Helm]

I thought 'rivet counters' first arose on model railway sites (or so I was led to believe by my forays into railway modelling!).

Mike

Did you just rivet count rivet counting ?
Steve

 

[MCPWilk]

Spot-on!

Mike

 

[Tubby-Nuts2]

I thought 'rivet counters' first arose on model railway sites (or so I was led to believe by my forays into railway modelling!).

Mike

I thought they were classified as a bunch of 'Old Chuffers'. However, I could be wrong.

Regards,

Mark

 

[swralph]

I model Figure's,aircraft,ship's,car's bike's,some afv's,I even have a model railway in progress.I'm fuc**d aren't I
If I was to rivet/button count,I would never get anything done,hence I am neither.
And that is why you rarely see a rivet/button counter's work.
Ralph.

 

[ChaosCossack]

Rofflmfao!!!!!!!! Thanks Steve, you just made hot coffee shoot out my nose. "Rivet count rivet counting" that's funny shit!

Ralphie, I think you just hit the rivet square on the head. Bravo.

Colin

 

[smudger1960]

I have no time for them what's so ever,complete bunch of dick heads,and I think Blind Pew is right,they're normally the ones who can't paint for s--t,sadly they pop up on this site from time to time,it makes me so mad how they can criticise and destroy someone's work,one guy this year decided to post his comment on my Waterloo imperial guard project and ended writing a bloody essay,it was as if he was there 200 years ago telling what's right and what's wrong,I'm getting to know some of them now by the different posts I read.

 

[Gaudin]

I have no time for them what's so ever,complete bunch of dick heads,.

There you go, I knew some one will not be able to resist

 

[Colin_Fraser]

Given that we are seeing everything getting automated, I wonder if these industrial rivet counting machines can be retrofitted to do buttons?

Colin

 

[Blind Pew]

I have no time for them what's so ever,complete bunch of dick heads,and I think Blind Pew is right,they're normally the ones who can't paint for s--t,sadly they pop up on this site from time to time,it makes me so mad how they can criticise and destroy someone's work,one guy this year decided to post his comment on my Waterloo imperial guard project and ended writing a bloody essay,it was as if he was there 200 years ago telling what's right and what's wrong,I'm getting to know some of them now by the different posts I read.

Exactly. That's the kinda thing I had in mind. And have you ever seen his stuff on here?
No, I didn't think so. I thought he was never going to stop typing. He could probably paint a figure in less time.

 

[Colin_Fraser]

Missed that one....not sure I have the gumption to go looking in the archives

 

[Babelfish]

Some great comments above that I can't really add a lot to!

I'm into armour and aircraft as well as figures, and the "rivet-counting" that goes on on the armour sites in particular is far worse than anything I've seen on here. You get people arguing for page after page and quoting chapter and verse from conflicting references over (just for example) how many bolt heads there should be on the drive sprocket of some tank or other - is it 15 or 16? As if anyone (aside from maybe the seriously, terminally anal) sees a model tank at a show or on a forum post and starts counting the bolt heads on the drive sprocket! And bear in mind the size of the things in 1/35 scale. It's bonkers!! It seems to me that a lot of the time it's basically just willy-waving, and arguing just to "prove" a point about how "knowledgeable" they are.

Seriously people - this place isn't too bad in the grand scheme of things.

When I got back into the hobby, I got swept up by the whole "accuracy" thing myself. Until I found myself fretting more and more over whether something was "historically accurate" or not to the point that I realised I wasn't actually doing very much glueing and painting at all - I was spending all my time reading reviews, books, critiques of kits etc. etc. and fretting over trifling matters.

These days I try to strike a happy medium - I'll still read reviews and buy the best kit available of a subject I'm interested in. But that also includes in terms of "buildability" and quality, value for money (added extras etc.) as much as any actual or perceived "accuracy".

I will aim for "accuracy" as far as my skills and patience will allow. But that said, I've also come to the conclusion that the "perfect" kit has yet to appear - be it aircraft, tank, ship, figure or whatever. Someone somewhere will always find something wrong with any kit you care to pick. So why worry?

- Steve

 

[theBaron]

I musta missed one helluva mustache kerfuffle at some point. Please catch me up. I have some SYW Prussians and would like to avoid getting bitch slapped for an ill advised moostachio.

Colin

"Don't encourage 'im, Colin!" I can hear the folks in the bleachers yelling.

Seriously, though, it's a minor issue, but to me, it's a sign of how well someone has done his research. And that, too, is one of the lines someone walks, isn't it, as someone pointed out in a previous post, a fine line, between striving for detail, and just picking nits.

As to the mustaches, from around 1720 or so, in Europe, facial hair had fallen out of fashion, certainly for the nobility and for gentlemen. Since they made up the ranks of officers in armies at the time, it was their fashion, too, and so, officers should be represented as clean-shaven. There are exceptions, of course, most notably hussar officers, copying the Hungarians, who still favored mustaches (though those who moved in circles closer to the Hof could follow fashion).

Among commoners, facial hair was worn, but again, fashion being what it was, it wasn't as common to wear a mustache, for example, as it became during the Revolutionary period.

And it seems to have fallen out of fashion for just about everyone, of all classes, in Britain.

So, when I see a sculpt of a Hessian officer from the American Revolution, sporting a finely waxed mustache, and I look at the price of the kit (or finished figure--King & Country put them on its officers), I have to ask myself, how much is it worth to me to buy this, knowing that I'm going to have to fix it.

Same goes for beer mugs.

But I try to be polite about it, too

Prost!
Brad

 

[Colin_Fraser]

Steve - wise words and nice to have the perspectives of a tread head

This is probably the wisest thing I have read on the topic. It comes from the MMSI page where the rationale for the open judging criteria system is explained. This excerpt discusses why historical accuracy is not recommended as a criterion. The criteria and discussion were published in Campaigns decades ago....clearly ahead of their time.

HISTORICAL ACCURACY

"Readers will notice the complete absence of "historical accuracy" as a criteria. This is no oversight. The problem is that with the multitude of subjects seen at shows today, it is simply impossible to judge all models with equal severity, even within a narrow historical period. An entry on a familiar subject is likely to be penalized for even the slightest error, while major errors in a more obscure subject escape totally unnoticed. Even acknowledged experts in a given field (and there are few enough of these) cannot possibly carry enough information about in their heads to judge all entries in that field fairly.

Moreover, while minor errors can always be found, it should also be recognized that in a day when kits are provided with coloring instructions, the lack of historical accuracy is not a major problem in figure exhibitions. Many modelers are themselves amateur historians, who do original research of their own; surely it is better to let a few historical culprits go free than to unjustly penalize an enterprising researcher for information the judge could not have been aware of. Still, historical accuracy is one of the cornerstones of the hobby, and some effort must be made to ensure that it is accorded the respect that it deserves. Ultimately, the best advice for judges is this: if you see an obvious and blatant error, it cannot help but shade your judgment; but if there is any doubt, give the competitor the benefit of that doubt - he has
devoted more time to the model than you have, and he just may be right.

We acknowledge that there will be those who disagree with this view. If they wish to add historical accuracy as a criteria, they are certainly free to do so. We would suggest, however, that they a) publish a list of criteria similar to those presented here, and b) require their exhibitors to submit a brief list of their references used in preparing their exhibit. If the error noted was the fault of the reference, and not of the modeler, he/she should not be penalized for it."

Hard to argue with such wisdom.

The full article is worth a read....or a reread. You can find it on the MMSI site by clicking the "Open System" balloon under the intro paragraph.

Colin

 

[Babelfish]

Here's a couple of typical examples of "rivet-counting" from an armour site I'm a member of. The 'handles' of the posters have been censored to protect the guilty:

"Dragon did include a small error, in that the front mudguard should be in two pieces, with the joint parallel with the end of the side edge piece. There should also be a small triangular support welded to the hull holding the front mudguard in place. Also, as built, the commander's hatch did not open directly to the side, it opened to the 4 o'clock position. Cupolas fitted in the field to earlier 75 mm gun tanks varied though, as in the rear angle photo you posted (it's a rare 75 mm gun tank on the early large-hatch hull). The commander's cupola on M4A3E8 tanks during the Korean War did open sideways, so presumably, a directive was issued to update the tanks after World War Two (it was a simple matter to unbolt the cupola and rotate it to the next set of bolt holes)."

"The single link tracks and 18 tooth drive sprocket were installed on a small test batch of tanks in August, 1944, when Zimmerit was still in use, and these tanks were assigned to the 506th Battalion, who used them in the fighting around Aachen, and later in the Ardennes. If you want to use the kit decals, you must add Zimmerit. You should also backdate a few features, like removing the rain gutter over the gunsight opening on the turret front, as this didn't appear until December."

Exactly the kind of s**t that would leap straight out at you if you saw the thing on a show table! But then again ........ maybe not!!

- Steve

 

[Colin_Fraser]

Hilarious...don't they reread their posts before pressing "post?" Always a good practice, especially when as typo prone as me.

 

[Martin64]

 

[smudger1960]

There you go, I knew some one will not be able to resist

Not sure about shit!,it's just my opinion

 

[Martin64]

Not sure about shit!,it's just my opinion

yes and it was expressed so well. "rivet counters" = "dick heads" means SHIT in my humble opinion as well
Cheers, Martin