Collectibility, Part 2

Up front: I think documentation is a very good thing, and something that I'd be doing if I were showing more actively. But I'm not a big fan of making documentation a requirement in Collectibility judging. Suggested and highly recommended, yes, but not required.

Collectibility, as it is judged now, is something relatively “new” to the live showing world. When I was showing in the mid to late 1980s, Collectibility was definitely a factor in judging, but it was not a separate class unto itself. The eight to ten piece “Collector's Class” was a regular feature at many shows, but then as now, placings were awarded to the assemblages, not to individual models.

Collectibility as a “judgeable” class category is mostly a reaction to the influx of newer, more “realistic” molds, and the desire to keep these older molds competitive in the show ring who would not otherwise be able to compete.

Since it is a something newer, and something that has no corollary in the real horse world to model it after, I think there needs to be either some degree of flexibility in the rule, or a transitional period to get everyone up to speed on the practice. The first step would be in making it “suggested” or “highly recommended” practice in the show rules, rather than a requirement. How that would be implemented, I have no idea. Like I've said, I've been an infrequent shower in the past decade, and I haven't had much involvement in NAMHSA beyond the occasional lurking in the various discussion boards.

Personally, I'd be reluctant to disqualify something entirely just because it lacked documentation, especially when it's something that could be extremely competitive without it. A mint in box Woodgrain Stretch Morgan with a gold foil Tenite sticker really doesn't need further explanation: if a collectibility judge doesn't know what that is and why it's being judged for collectibility, they probably shouldn't be judging collectibility in the first place.

However, I think documentation may be still be very useful, even in the most obvious of cases such as a Woodgrain Morgan.

First off, documentation at its most elemental level is useful as a tiebreaker: if you have two equally fabulous models, the one with the superior documentation has the edge, because it shows that the hobbyist has put in that extra work, as opposed to someone who just plops a model into the class and hopes that their model's sheer greatness will overwhelm all comers.

Second, documentation demonstrates the hobbyist's knowledge about what he or she collects. Any hobbyist with a little bit of luck could find something exceedingly rare, but I'd give the edge to the hobbyist who knows why it's rare, and is able to articulate why. That's showing me that they're a collector, and not just an accumulator.

And third, documentation may help in further distinguishing a model in ways that are not visible to the naked eye. It may be a particular rare, obscure or subtle variation. It may have an interesting or significant provenance. It might have a unique or important history independent of its mold or color.

Documentation isn't an automatic pass: not all research materials are created equal. Internet sources, for example, are of varying and sometimes dubious quality. I wouldn't discount them entirely, especially if it is the only source of information about a particular model or variation, but I'd give a strong preference to printed sources, or back them up with other relevant citations and cross-references.

Some arguments have been made that documentation removes the need for a Collectibility judge to even know the subject at all. On the contrary, I think that the judge would need a strong working knowledge of the available reference materials to be able to judge if the attribution and documentation has been done properly in the first place. Someone who misidentifies their models in their documentation is hindering, rather than helping their entry.

In cases like that, an absence of documentation actually works in the hobbyist's favor. You get no added benefit by not including it, but you also aren't accidentally sabotaging your entry, either, with sloppy or incorrect research. Sometimes it's better to let the model speak for itself.

(For the record, if anyone wants to use anything I've posted here as part of their documentation, feel free. Just cite the web site address and the date of the post. No guarantees are given or implied: whether the judge accepts it as credible or not is their own prerogative.)

Programming Note: I probably won't be home for any significant amount of time tomorrow. Next post on Thursday!

Collectibility, Part 1

Sorry about that – I was a little under the weather there for a couple of days. I'm appreciating the extra hours the boss has been giving me (as does my bank account) but it's certainly starting to take its toll on me physically. I think I've spent most of the past two and a half days sleeping! (And when not sleeping, quilting. Good for the nerves, not so good for the fingertips.)

I was just thinking about the issue of showing in Collectibility classes and the need for documentation. It was a bit of a heated topic there on Blab last week, but I was a bit too exhausted, both mentally and physically, to add my perspective to the discussion when it was going full blazes.

I have given a great deal of thought to what standards I would apply if I were to either show or judge collectibility. That's where my interest in history intersects with the live showing aspect, after all: if I'm going to show or judge in the future, that's where my focus is going to be.

I'd like to preface my comments here with a few qualifying remarks. One, I've only occasionally live shown in recent years. Not for a lack of local opportunities – there's a show literally less than a mile from my house – it's just that my hobby energies have been focused elsewhere. Two, I've also never judged: I've been consulted a few times on collectibility standards, but never actually been asked to show up and actually apply them. (FYI: I haven't been actively seeking that role either, but I'd consider it if it ever came up.)

I'd break it down into four basic criteria: Condition, Quality, Rarity and Desirability.

Condition is the easiest to explain, and understand: it is a measure of the state of preservation of a model. Is it yellowed? Are there any flaws visible to the naked eye, such as rubs, scratches, chips, breaks, paint skips, missing pieces? If restoration has been done, has it been done well? Has it been brought back to its original factory state, or have questionable enhancements been made?

Quality is a measure of the production value of a given model. Not all models of a given run are created equal: some have better shading, cleaner seams, tighter masking or more details. If I were to hazard a guess, only about one in ten production models is live show quality, and only about one in 100 approaches flawless (no model is completely flawless: you can always find something.)

Rarity is not simply about comparing piece counts: some models may have higher piece counts than others, but that doesn't necessarily make them “less rare.” The way the model was distributed, sold, or advertised has an effect on rarity, as well as the when. This is particularly a factor with older or less well-known special runs from the 1970s and 1980s. Some of these weren't necessarily targeted exclusively towards the collector's market: many of them were sold to the general public, and have since become “lost” to us, like the recently discussed Black Blanket POA.

Finally we have Desirability: I call this the “Want It” factor. Some models are simply more desirable than others: an Indian Pony is going to be more desirable than a Lady Roxana. Certain colors are more desirable than others, too: Glosses are the hot trend currently, as are certain non-realistic colors such as Silver Filigree or Charcoal. This is the most subjective of the criteria: every judge is going to have slightly different biases and preferences when it comes to what they would consider “desirable.”

Documentation will have little effect on the judging Condition or Quality. Most flaws or demerits in these criteria are plainly visible to the eye, and can rarely be explained away. There are instances where documentation can spin the less than pristine state of a model into a positive factor in its collectibility. I have a couple of test colors painted on bodies with rough, uncleaned seams: I would explain that these rough seams indicate that they are probably true test colors, likely from the preproduction phase. The rubs and dings on a cull could also be explained away: they are to be expected on models thrown into reject bins, which were likely rejected because of a previously detected mold or paint flaw in the first place.

Documentation is more of a factor in the criteria of Rarity and Desirability. As I hope I've demonstrated in some of my posts, there are many models that are more – or less – rare than we perceived them to be. Not every judge is going to be as well-versed in the scales of rarity for every single model. Faced with a large or involved class, they may opt to ignore what may appear, at first glance, to be a more common version of a model.

The original release of the Midnight Sun is an excellent example here: there are several different versions of the original release in black. One of them is actually rather scarce: the earliest version, which came with distinctly light gray hooves. (And quite different than the more common gray-brown hooves version, which I'd show you if I knew exactly where my Midnight Suns were. Which I don't, at the moment.) Pointing out that particular detail, especially if it is done accurately, not only helps the judge evaluate the Collectibility of a model more accurately, it also demonstrates that the shower has done their research, and that's also a plus.

Desirability, as I said earlier, is the most subjective of my criteria. What is it beyond Condition, Quality and Rarity that makes this model special enough to be considered “more collectible” than others? This is where documentation can make the difference between placings: in a way, it's sort of the “interview” question in a beauty pageant. And like a good response to any interview question, it's the short, concise, and well-phrased answers that give you the edge. And again, it's another opportunity for the hobbyist to show that they've done their research.

See. Told you I spent a lot of time thinking about this!

In regards to the original discussion on Blab, my opinion is this: if documentation is required by the show rules, then that's where the discussion ends, obviously. But for a number of reasons, I'm not in favor of documentation becoming a mandatory requirement, at least not yet. And as for why, I'll explain that tomorrow.