Re: How a minature should look

On 22 Dec 1997 11:04:13 -0000, David Maslen <david@binary.net.au>
wrote:

>Why don't minature makers build slightly larger, precision
>plastic models, rather than dull lead minitures that lack definition.

Hi, David. I'd like to say that this is a good question and one that
many on the list were probably thinking but hadn't asked.

Jon Tuffley has explained the reasons quite well (the primary being
cost). As a one time model maker, I have to agree with Jon's
observation that only one side of a plastic model has extreme detail.
Most of the plastic, 3D models (i.e. models you don't have to
assemble) that I have seen are actually less detailed than metal
models. An example are the plastic Silent Death ships, though even
GW's plastic figures are less detailed than their lead.

One thing that no one else has mentioned. Metal figures have heft.
They are heavier than plastic. I have some plastic ships I've used for
FT and they are a lot easier to knock over or shift than metal
figures. They are also easier to break. Metal figures are often more
top heavy, but lead tanks and sailing ships (with a lower centre of
gravity) tend to stay in place better than plastic equivalents.

Oh, and Jon is right about some metal having a great deal of detail. I
have a fair number of C-in-C microscale tanks and they are very well
detailed. 

Allan Goodall			   agoodall@sympatico.ca

"Unlike serial killer profiling, writing is a lonely and
depressing profession." - Jose Chung, Millenium