Kristina Lucas Francis recently prompted members of the Facebook Group "The Clinky Connection" to share their thoughts on Collectibility and Workmanship judging in the world of showing china model horses for an article she had been asked to write. I found myself writing a massive response, which I've decided to reproduce and expand upon, here. It was a really useful opportunity to organize my thoughts about the different challenges and factors that I feel should be taken into consideration when engaging in these more specialized types of show judging - with a particular focus on chinas. So, here goes!
I. RELEVANCE OF BREED STANDARDS
First and foremost, I think that it only makes sense that Original Finish
models should not be judged for Workmanship, and Customized models (whether custom glazed and/or claybody customized) should not be judged for Collectibility. Breed standards should have
a limited application to Workmanship and Collectibility judging. Halter, also known as Breed, judging
is where accuracy to breed standard and biomechanics are rewarded. Therefore, I
believe taking breed into consideration for Workmanship and Collectibility judging is only appropriate to the extent that the conformational failings
of the underlying sculpt/claybody customized portions are so significant as to
render the piece less desirable to a collector from a reasonably objective perspective.
Otherwise, there isn't really a point to separating out Halter from Workmanship and Collectibility divisions.
So, with that out of the way, I'll go into my breakdown of what I believe should go into judging for each category.
II. COLLECTIBILITY CRITERIA
I assess collectibility in the following order of priority; Rarity, Age, Condition, Extras, Star Power (RACES).
Those who know me understand that I am a big fan of
"Old Euro" chinas. So for purposes of collectibility I will use
Theodor Karner's prancing stallion "Mohammed," produced by Rosenthal,
as a test subject. Here's a couple photos of mine:
Rarity: The original number of examples of a piece
produced is the first thing I look at. Did the company make 5? 50? 500? 5,000?
More? In my view, the number of pieces available sets the baseline for
collectibility, because it shows unequivocally how many examples of a piece
there are to go around to begin with. For example, "Mohammed" was originally
designed for Rosenthal in the 1930s, but was produced as part of the Rosenthal
line for several decades, at least through the 1980s. Therefore, there are a
lot of them - thousands at least - out there. The same applies, I think, for
more commonly-found Hagen Renakers. We have to remember that Hagen Renakers and
Rosenthal and other collectible brands were mass market items that at one point were relatively widely available
in retail shops. So, any specific product by such companies that was produced in
great numbers weighs against their individual collectability.
Age: I recognize, of course, that there is a
"survivability" factor to take into consideration for older clinky
pieces, but as I explained above with the number of Rosenthal “Mohammeds”
produced - just because something is old, doesn't mean it's rare. Of course, if
you’re judging more than one “Mohammed” on a table, the one with the older hallmark will be more collectible under this standard simply because of how
long it has survived compared to a newer-production example. This is particularly true for models produced in European countries most devastated by World War I and World War II, given the sheer scale of destruction wreaked by both conflicts. However, I don’t
think any “Mohammed” – even one from the 1930s - would be more collectible than, for example, a
Royal Worcester Princess Elizabeth on Tommy, even though the latter was made
in 1949 (limited to 100 pieces), or compared to a very
limited modern hobby release of 25 or fewer pieces.
Condition: One of the things that frustrates me is when I see an
obviously, visibly damaged piece get given high marks for collectability,
particularly if it is not particularly old and/or rare. In my opinion, with almost no exceptions, a
clearly damaged piece is not show-ready. After all, we’re not talking about broken Ancient
Greek pottery with cracks and missing pieces, here! Of course, it is commonplace in the hobby
to buy broken pieces and have them restored, and for now I won’t get into whether or
not a restored piece has to be disclosed as such for purposes of collectability
judging. However, I think it is common-sense that an obviously broken piece is
not as desirable and does not present as well as an undamaged piece or equivalent
rarity, or possibly even a more common piece. Of course, there are also manufacturing flaws that may occur, such as
glaze bubbles, firing cracks, unusually prominent stilting marks, stray
dark marks within the glaze. For Old Euro production, these more significantly flawed pieces were marked as seconds by having a scratch scored through the underglaze
maker's mark (though such indication is not normally examined at shows since judges generally are not permitted to touch exhibitors' models). Condition also applies to how "complete" a piece is. Does it have its old company sticker label/hangtag? Original wooden plinth?
Certificate of Authenticity? Original factory shipping box? Original owner invoice from the factor? Having these things
will definitely give a piece a leg up against other examples that have become separated from
such factory original accessories along the way.
Extras: The “tie-breaker” for me once Rarity, Age, and Condition are assessed,
are any additional attributes that make the entry exceptional. Returning to “Mohammed,” glazing techniques can vary widely since Rosenthal, at one time a very large production operation, had many glazing artists. So
a “Mohammed” with exceptionally detailed and realistic glazing would be more
collectible than one that has a more slapdash application (and the dreaded “human
eye” that you sometimes see, yikes!), or a heaviness of glaze causing opacity that obscures the
underlying sculpt. Crispness of the underlying bisque is also something I look
for. For example, two rare Hagen Renaker horses of similar age and condition –
but one has soft detail and the other has crisp detail; obviously the crisper example
would be more collectible.
Star Power: This is that admittedly
subjective extra “something” that makes a piece really stand out compared to
everything else on the table in the eyes of the judge. I think there is no escaping that this added "oomph" is going to vary widely from judge to judge based on what they personally find appealing. This is not to say that it is impossible to find a fair and impartial collectibility judge, simply acknowledging that even after taking all the above factors into consideration, there is still room for "the curator's eye," as it were.
III. WORKMANSHIP CRITERIA
I assess workmanship in the following order of priority; Realism, Execution, Details, and Suitability (REDS).
Realism: As a baseline, I first look at whether a pattern makes sense. The pattern on a horse can be well-executed, full of details and all kinds of intricacies; but if the pattern is too fantastical and has features that simply don’t appear in nature, that is a big turn-off for me. Even a flashy coat pattern has to reasonably resemble how such patterns manifest in real horses.
Execution: Next I’ll look at the quality of how the glazing
artist finished the piece. Since custom glaze pieces are not mass-produced, and in fact are one of a kind creations where glazing artists often spend more time than they would with a regular run color, they should be as free as possible from noticeable
flaws. Are there any glaze runs or bubbles? Fingerprints in the glaze? Overspray? Likewise, if any claybody customization has been done, does the resculpted area match or even exceed the quality of the original sculpted areas?
Details: These are the added details that make a
custom glaze piece really sing. Things like attractive shading, well-blended
dapples, haloed spots, mapped pinto markings, kissy spots, realistic eyes, striped hooves with ermine spots, and hair-by-hair
details all elevate the quality of a piece in terms of Workmanship. This doesn't mean that a piece with a more complex pattern and details will automatically place well. It is entirely possible to have a beautifully realized traditional plain coat colored horse place over a fancy-patterned horse that doesn't satisfy the Realism and Execution standards.
Suitability: As with Star Power in Collectibility judging, this is where the more subjective element of a judge's placings comes into play. As a failed artist (meaning I graduated university with a Bachelor in Fine Arts with a concentration in Studio Arts, but ultimately decided not to pursue a career in the arts - despite the encouragement of my professors and colleagues) I am constantly assessing whether a particular pattern or color suits and/or enhances the underlying sculpt. Patterns that are disruptive to the lines of a sculpture, or shading that is very flat and visually obscures the forms of a sculpture, will not perform as well in my eyes. I understand that this may not be an element that every judge takes into consideration, as much as I understand it is often not the choice of the artist to execute the specifications of a client's order. Again, this is that little extra element that should only come into play after taking the previous three standards into consideration.
IV. JUDGES’ QUALIFICATIONS
I think it is much more difficult to find good Collectibility
judges than Workmanship judges. While Collectibility classes usually require
that entrants provide documentation explaining why their entries are Collectible,
you can’t just rely on someone who is used to judging based on Breed standards
to trust in the Collectibility documentation. There’s a whole lot of clinkies
out there – and they have to be weighed against one another in a variety of ways
that is made more difficult if you don’t already have a working knowledge of
what exists and what is rare. Also, just because a piece looks impressive, or is popular and/or a new release, doesn’t
mean it’s necessarily more desirable than a piece that is older or has a more humble appearance. Essentially, a china Collectibility judge has to act as a museum curator - with vast knowledge and a quick eye for assessing the relative quality and rarity of the pieces presented for their consideration.
Workmanship judges, I’d argue, are a little easier to find
because judging for Workmanship is sort of like a more focused version of Breed Halter judging. In Workmanship, the Breed aspect of the entry is taken out of the equation, and the focus is on the finishwork. As such, at least a basic knowledge of equine colors, patterns, and directional hair patterns is definitely useful in Workmanship judging.
V. KEEPING THINGS SEPARATE
A constant challenge with china showing is that china collecting comprises a much smaller (but I believe growing!) percentage of the model horse hobby than original finish plastic, customized, and artist resin models. As such, at a general model horse show, the china division will often be the smallest, and will not have breakout subdivisions for Collectibility judging for original finish chinas, or Workmanship judging for custom chinas. In most cases, even where china models are broken out into original finish and custom divisions, they are only judged for breed.
However, some shows offer a compromise in the form of double-judging; where the the original finish chinas on the table are concurrently judged for Breed and Collectibility, and the custom chinas are concurrently judged for Breed and Workmanship. While double-judging provides greater opportunity for china showers to win prizes, it offers its own set of challenges, particularly for Collectibility purposes. As we've established, Breed judging operates on almost entirely different criteria than Collectibility. A newer and/or more common model may be an excellent breed standard compared to an older, rarer model that exhibits more artistic and less hobby-driven breed realism attributes. Therefore, if an exhibitor is limited in the number of figures they can show in each breed class, they may have to make a choice between whether they bring out pieces that would be competitive Breed entries, versus competitive Collectibility entries.
This is where china specialty shows (some historic and more recent shows that come to mind include Bring Out Your China, Breakables, Break A Leg, Clinky Classic, All Fired Up, and Clinky Mania) come into play. These china-focused shows don't have to share time and space with other model types, and therefore have a great opportunity to have expanded china classlists that permit an "apples-to-apples" comparison of similar models - and encourage a greater variety of china models to be shown in a single event. In my view, the optimum organization of a china specialty show would be something like this:
Breed: Judging strictly based on breed standards and biomechanics, with separate subdivisions for original finish and custom chinas.
Workmanship: Only for custom chinas, with a classlist organized by coat color and patterns. Possibly additional classes for models created by particular artists/studios to compete against one another.
Collectibility: Only for original finish chinas, with a classlist organized into subdivisions for mass production and small scale studio production pieces. For the mass production subdivision, classes can be broken out to smaller subdivision based on geographic production, and individual classes based on the companies that operate(d) in those regions. For the small scale studio production subdivision, classes could be broken out by individual manufacturers.
On a closing note, however, I would not discourage china collectors from showing their precious models at general model horse shows that have limited china divisions. I think that exposing collectors of other model mediums to china models is a positive thing, and may help more hobbyists appreciate the beauty and quality of china models - and possibly even start collecting them, too!
Until next time - and hopefully that doesn't mean three years from now, either. (Yikes.)
