Just an observation (1 Viewer)

[thebritfarmer]

Currently I only collect glossy figures but there are a couple of matte pieces I wish to add. I haven't actually seen any matte figures in the "flesh" as it were.
After reading the gloss vs matte poll and the thread on inaccuracies it got me thinking about the matte figures.

The definition of matte is dull finish or surface, now with that said, how can a matte figure be accurate ??? Most people have a sheen to the hair, skin and their eyes are glossy. Animals also have a sheen to them. My dog laying at my feet right now, his coat is catching the light and shining.

Another thing I am seeing is that some figures are outlined on their uniforms with black lines. What is this for? To create shadows? I have looked at all my clothing and can't find a sigle black line around any of my buttons, zippers, pockets etc. To me it just ruins the look of the figure which is a shame. I would like to see what they look like without the lines.

Has anyone else had these thoughts? Maybe it's just me be being a crazy Englishman


Scott

 

[maddadicus]

Currently I only collect glossy figures but there are a couple of matte pieces I wish to add. I haven't actually seen any matte figures in the "flesh" as it were.
After reading the gloss vs matte poll and the thread on inaccuracies it got me thinking about the matte figures.

The definition of matte is dull finish or surface, now with that said, how can a matte figure be accurate ??? Most people have a sheen to the hair, skin and their eyes are glossy. Animals also have a sheen to them. My dog laying at my feet right now, his coat is catching the light and shining.

Another thing I am seeing is that some figures are outlined on their uniforms with black lines. What is this for? To create shadows? I have looked at all my clothing and can't find a sigle black line around any of my buttons, zippers, pockets etc. To me it just ruins the look of the figure which is a shame. I would like to see what they look like without the lines.

Has anyone else had these thoughts? Maybe it's just me be being a crazy Englishman


Scott

The black outlining on some of the figures, is a painting style based from wargaming artists. On the smaller 25mm soldiers, it was meant to offer a way to show more definition as to details. I have matte soldiers done in this style and others painted more conventionally..Michael

 

[VIRIATO]

Currently I only collect glossy figures but there are a couple of matte pieces I wish to add. I haven't actually seen any matte figures in the "flesh" as it were.
After reading the gloss vs matte poll and the thread on inaccuracies it got me thinking about the matte figures.

The definition of matte is dull finish or surface, now with that said, how can a matte figure be accurate ??? Most people have a sheen to the hair, skin and their eyes are glossy. Animals also have a sheen to them. My dog laying at my feet right now, his coat is catching the light and shining.

Another thing I am seeing is that some figures are outlined on their uniforms with black lines. What is this for? To create shadows? I have looked at all my clothing and can't find a sigle black line around any of my buttons, zippers, pockets etc. To me it just ruins the look of the figure which is a shame. I would like to see what they look like without the lines.

Has anyone else had these thoughts? Maybe it's just me be being a crazy Englishman


Scott

No you're not a crazy Englishman. I agree with you completely. Those black lines you mention, I just don't like them: they surely are not real and they surely are ugly. Don't know why they keep coming up in matte figures, they certainly spoil the look on some K&C figures, the best don't have such noticeable lines. Also shading sometimes looks bad on the so called Russian style figures. That said, there are some great matte figures, K&C or Russian style, I am fortunate to have some excellent WWII and Napoleonic ( Black Watch ) K&C figures and Napoleonic Art Ig figures ( from Latvia ), matte figures.
I believe realism can be found as easily with matte figures as with gloss figures: just look at the most recent Britains or Tradition figures, or Shenandoah Traditionals, some Fusilier or Tommy Atkins, Little Legion or some Trophy. Those are great examples of well sculpted, painted and proportional figures, all gloss made. It all depends on the kind of painting you prefer. I prefer matte for WWII and gloss for all the periods before WWII, it's one of those things I can´t explain. I also prefer the more recent gloss figures ( I appreciate old Britains, for example but my preference goes to what I call something like «more realistic gloss»: better faces and bodies and painting, the new gloss if you'd like ). Of course unrealistic or badly done figures can be found both with matte and gloss...

 

[VIRIATO]

No you're not a crazy Englishman. I agree with you completely. Those black lines you mention, I just don't like them: they surely are not real and they surely are ugly. Don't know why they keep coming up in matte figures, they certainly spoil the look on some K&C figures, the best don't have such noticeable lines. Also shading sometimes looks bad on the so called Russian style figures. That said, there are some great matte figures, K&C or Russian style, I am fortunate to have some excellent WWII and Napoleonic ( Black Watch ) K&C figures and Napoleonic Art Ig figures ( from Latvia ), matte figures.
I believe realism can be found as easily with matte figures as with gloss figures: just look at the most recent Britains or Tradition figures, or Shenandoah Traditionals, some Fusilier or Tommy Atkins, Little Legion or some Trophy. Those are great examples of well sculpted, painted and proportional figures, all gloss made. It all depends on the kind of painting you prefer. I prefer matte for WWII and gloss for all the periods before WWII, it's one of those things I can´t explain. I also prefer the more recent gloss figures ( I appreciate old Britains, for example but my preference goes to what I call something like «more realistic gloss»: better faces and bodies and painting, the new gloss if you'd like ). Of course unrealistic or badly done figures can be found both with matte and gloss...

Now, does this make me a crazy Portuguese?

 

[Saber]

I'm not sure but as a long time collector of W Brit/ATradition glossies it was the WWII "mattes" that seemed to pull into the dark side of matte soldier collecting. I had tried a few of the glossie WWI product but it just didn't look right, just IMHO. As a product of being in and around the Army for 30 plus years and having been from Germany to Turkey to California and points in between I have seen plenty of museums with the real thing, probably served on a few too but thats another topic, and I don't think IMO that any figure is ever 100% accurate. I think its just combination of the improved sculpting and subtle shadings/colors of the matte that give them the realism.

 

[jazzeum]

Certain traditional figures look good in gloss (marching bands for instance) but certain don't (modern wars, e.g. World War I or II). WW II doesn't look right in gloss although I have a few old K & C gloss soldiers.

As far as people go, their clothes don't shine, notwithstanding they may have a sheen to their hair or shoes. I don't know about you but when I got dressed this morning, I didn't have a shiny shirt or pants

 

[OzDigger]

Scott, the glossy look is most effective on ceremonial uniforms, but imo you can't beat matte finishes for service uniforms. Maybe you should buy a matte figure and check for yourself

Btw, the "Gloss v Matte" issue has been discussed on a number of occasions, and it all comes down to personal preference inevitably.

 

[The Lt.]

Scott both figures are in their service uniforms and I find them both appealing....The Lt.

 

[VIRIATO]

For me, the best WWI figures I have ever seen are very clearly from Charles Biggs/Britains Premier, and they are glossy.... I also love Tradition's WWI range and K&C's WWI figures ( gloss and matte respectively as you all know ). For Crimean War I would also prefer gloss ( Imperial and New Monarch Regalia ), despite the excellent K&C Crimean range. Colourful uniforms surely play a part in all this, the most colourful the better they look in gloss.
I would also prefer the glossy Zulu War figure in the previous post, the matte one doesn't appeal to me, shading and face just don't look right to me ( just my very personal taste...).
But these days I am not a fundamentalist, and indeed appreciate and have both gloss and matte figures although I am now collecting mostly gloss due to time periods and having to make choices. Also have to admit that realism is just a part of what I like in a figure....

 

[thebritfarmer]

Thanks for the comments guys.

First let me say I wasn't meaning to start a gloss vs matte debate.

To each his own as they say. Whether you collect matte or gloss and who the manufacturer is it makes no odds to me. I just wanted to hear others opinions on what I had noticed on the matte figures.

LT, I think it would be hard to choose between the two. They both look equally as good.

jazzeum, my clothes weren't shiny either


I am anxiously awaiting the release of the Britains Royal Field Artillery and the RFA officer. Funds allowing I will be purchasing these. The pics in the catalogue look absolutely amazing. I only hope the real thing is just as good.


Thanks again chaps

Scott

 

[TomB]

No you're not a crazy Englishman. I agree with you completely. Those black lines you mention, I just don't like them: they surely are not real and they surely are ugly. Don't know why they keep coming up in matte figures, they certainly spoil the look on some K&C figures, the best don't have such noticeable lines. Also shading sometimes looks bad on the so called Russian style figures. That said, there are some great matte figures, K&C or Russian style, I am fortunate to have some excellent WWII and Napoleonic ( Black Watch ) K&C figures and Napoleonic Art Ig figures ( from Latvia ), matte figures.
I believe realism can be found as easily with matte figures as with gloss figures: just look at the most recent Britains or Tradition figures, or Shenandoah Traditionals, some Fusilier or Tommy Atkins, Little Legion or some Trophy. Those are great examples of well sculpted, painted and proportional figures, all gloss made. It all depends on the kind of painting you prefer. I prefer matte for WWII and gloss for all the periods before WWII, it's one of those things I can´t explain. I also prefer the more recent gloss figures ( I appreciate old Britains, for example but my preference goes to what I call something like «more realistic gloss»: better faces and bodies and painting, the new gloss if you'd like ). Of course unrealistic or badly done figures can be found both with matte and gloss...

You have a good colour scence....Uniforms prior to WW1 were wonderfully colourful..ideal for gloss....since WW! uniforms are dull...on purpose....imagine wearing bright red coats ...the Brits finally woke up to the fact that they made great targets in India...I find it strange to see glossy uniforms that are covered with dust..mud..etc.....specially jungle troops....well okay glossy skin from sweat...but if your a fair dinkum jungle soldier the only skin showing is your face and hands...and cam cream can be used on exposed skin....I guess it boils down to whether you like shinny soldiers or matt soldiers.....TomB

 

[Poppo]

Scott, I totally agree with you about " black lines"....Some KC have black lines too strong in some figures, even recent....And I would add that I also don' t like "many shadows" painted on uniforms..FI: I think often First Legion paints many unuseful shadows on uniforms...

 

[Larry Allen]

A quick point on Matt and Gloss.

I have a collection of K&C AWI sets. Although they are listed as MATT there are many items on the figure that are actually glossy. SO I guess I am not sure what to call them? (Glossy matt or a Matty Gloss??)

For example the belts and some backpacks are Glossy, the Indians have a lot of gloss and so forth.

I guess I got the BEST of Both Worlds!!!! -- Larry