Interesting to see the words 'sculpting' and 'painting' used many times throughout this thread, with a view to establishing what makes a superior figure.
My view is that both the painting and sculpyting (if people are using this as a generic term) can be divided up in to a lot more areas.
Whilst some of the high end Russian figures are quite obviously incredibly detailed (and I could only dream of achieving anything close to this level), there are a number of things I would look at re the paint work.
Brightness / colour - Whilst acepting that some of the colours used on K&C (and more recently CS) are brighter than they would have been in the field, I actually like this approach. Having shelf after shelf of boring Dirty Khaki, Olive Drab and Field Grey doesn't necessarily make for an attractive display.
Detail - The detail on a lot of the FL figures is very neatly done. I sometimes feel that too much detail can be a negative thing however. The painting of things like fingernails and sometimes teeth, doesn't look right on small figures (Figarti, for instance).
Shading - Although sometimes a bit hit and miss, Figarti's shading is IMO the best of the current reasonably priced figures (I use the word reasonably, very loosely!) Many of the other manufactiurers use a more simple (not suprising, given the numbers that are turned out) two tone approach to shading.
Outlining - Obviously, K&C use this to accentuate the details of the sculpt. Sometimes this works better than others, but there are many figures out there that have no outlining and this can make the figure appear very bland.
I would also break sculpting down further.
Detail - How defined are the features on the figure, facial, equipment, weapons, hands etc.
Anatomically correct (believable) poses - Figarti have fallen foul of this in the past. They have some very wooden figures amongst their releases (although some are a lot better than others) . FL, I would say have also got a fair few 'that don't look natural poses' amongst their releases. K&C and TGM tend to look fairly natural, although some of the poses by K&C can be repetative.
Proportionality - How does the equipment, uniform etc look on the figure. K&C rifles - too fat, TGM rifles - too skinny, FL WWII helmets - too small etc
Faces - Each manufacturer seems to have a broad style (or several styles). Early Figarti WWII faces were all clones of Ernest Borgnine (excuse the spelling), K&C seem to have one sculpter doing a particular range so the faces within that range are very similar (eg, the FJ series), FLs WWII, as has been mentioned previously on this thread - detailed, but many are very similar. CS are likewise, with the gaunter look
Clothing / uniform - how the creases et al in the uniform are portrayed, from the very creased of CS to some of the less obvious and more subdued from other manufacturers
But,
after all that is said, what makes a 'must have' figure for me, is neither the painting or the sculpting. It is now mainly down to the pose. I like the action figures, and the ones that get my money are those that actually look like they're in action, rather than holding a weapon for the camera. And for my money, there are 2 brands that stand out in this field. Thomas Gunn and Conte.
Conte have led the way (IMO!) in consistently turning out all out action poses right from their first WWII releases, through the Spartans and on in to present day, with leaping Zulus and hammer wielding barbarians.
TGM have done likewise. Take the FJ kneeling MP40 and FG42 poses (and the latest SS officer with the MP40) - they actually look like they're firing the weapon. The Para sentry, foot on crate - that, looks realistic.
Now with Conte, I make sacrifices in terms of painting (generally), but the kid in me wants the action poses that they produce.
With all of these manufacturers, I don't think anyone of them has got the complete package (at least not to my mind), and I view this selection process as to where a collectors priorities lie. Mine are with the pose, others are more concernd with a high level of detailed painting.
As to the original question (for anyone still awake after reading these ramblings), are FL 'cutting edge'? My humble opinion is no, they're not, but they do produce figures generally that are of a high standard in most of the above areas. They charge slightly more (but not a huge amount over current prices) which allows them to get more of these factors to a high standard.
Can't remember where I was going with this post........^&confuse{sm2}
