Is there a name for this type of models?

[Brimstone]

For representational origami I know three kinds of models and I tried to illustrate them in this picture
[img]http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/3373/backsuj7.jpg[/img]
They are from left to right:
- Montroll's Triceratops: seamless closed back
- Engel's Kangaroo: open back
- Triceratops by some other guy: ????

The last category is the one that I do not know a name for. The back is closed but there is a seam there. So how are they called?

[Fishgoth]

I've always called them 'closed back'. The seamless closed back designs are far better for wetfolding, and for producing 3D models, and where possible, all of my more recent designs used seamless closed backs. I guess you could call them 'seamed closed back' if you wanted to be a pedant.

[Brimstone]

In my opinion, seamless and the other ones are very different and should be differentiated with a aname. Would "seammed" be the best the origami world could come up with?

[origamimasterjared]

Yeah, I just call them closed-back. Seamed-closed-back does describe it, but it does sound a little pedantic.

I find those kind the best for folding non-wetfolded.


Hmm...looks like I just repeated what Fishgoth said...

[origami_8]

Is it really that important how to call that? I never paid greater attention if my model has a seam somewhere or not, the only important thing for me is does it look good and is it fun to fold, seam or no seam, who cares?

[kenongab]

Is it really that important how to call that? I never paid greater attention if my model has a seam somewhere or not, the only important thing for me is does it look good and is it fun to fold, seam or no seam, who cares?

I thought I was the only one who doesn't care for what those are called

[Brimstone]

Is it really that important how to call that? I never paid greater attention if my model has a seam somewhere or not, the only important thing for me is does it look good and is it fun to fold, seam or no seam, who cares?

I am just that kind of picky person who likes names for eveything. And about the seam, it DOES make a big difference if your model has it or not.

I thought I was the only one who doesn't care for what those are called

Certainly not or we would have a name already

[Fishgoth]

Is it really that important how to call that? I never paid greater attention if my model has a seam somewhere or not, the only important thing for me is does it look good and is it fun to fold, seam or no seam, who cares?

The simple fact is, if you are wet-folding, seamless closed back models look better in 3D. If you are using dual-colour models, you frequently end up with a coloured stripe down an animals back. Which is great for a skunk, but not most other critters.

With so many increases in design methods out there, is there really any reason NOT to design seamless closed back models?

[wolf]

With so many increases in design methods out there, is there really any reason NOT to design seamless closed back models?

Yes. Seamless closed backed models tend to lead to legs which peek out from beneath the body, giving the appearance of a skirt, like this model, for example. Smooth, seamless haunches are sometimes preferable to a smooth seamless back. It's a limitation that can be gotten around by having longer leg flaps, but at the expense of having a less efficient packing and a thicker base with more layers.

[Brimstone]

Smooth, seamless haunches are sometimes preferable to a smooth seamless back.

You mean having a seamed back and then just folding part of the haunches over the rear back to cover part of the seam? Roman Diaz Fox Terrier comes to mind under this description.

I still prefer a completely seamless back and haunches like Montrol's triceratops on the picture

[Fishgoth]

Badly designed seamless closed back models look like this