Re: How a minature should look

On 22 Dec 1997, David Maslen wrote:
> Why don't minature makers build slightly larger, precision
> plastic models, rather than dull lead minitures that lack definition.
> I suspect some of this is that historically using lead in molds was
> the only real option, but surely this is not true now?

It's a question of economics -- it's much cheaper to make a hard rubber
mold for casting metal miniatures than to make the steel molds needed
for plastic models. The cost of the mold (for metal figures) is in the
$100's, while the startup cost for a plastic model is in the $10,000's.

The large model manufacturers (Monogram/Revell, Tamiya, Italieri, etc.)
can recover the cost of a new mold for a new model because they sell
huge
volumes of model kits -- after all, the plastic only adds a few pennies
to
the cost of the kit, and the cost of the mold is a one-time expense.

The market for metal miniatures, on the other hand, is much smaller, and
the volume of figures sold is also much smaller. Since miniature figure
makers would like to make a profit on all the different figures they
make,
they cut the production cost per figure by making metal miniatures
instead
of plastic models.

--
Rick Rutherford
rickr@digex.net
Private Networks Group
DIGEX Inc.