It's Not Always In The Detail...

 Greetings,

I was looking at some pictures of similar armies, down the ages in assorted magazines and books. It occurred to me that the base line for painting detail, is completely off the scale these days, which may explain (together with some companies thinking they are selling fine artworks and not toy soldiers which cost them pennies to make) why there are so many skirmish based 'armies' many of which never get finished.

Now, let me say at the outset that I am paid to paint very detailed miniatures for some of the most discerning collectors in the hobby. I do it well, and I do it consistently. But, when it comes to my own armies I am less demanding.

Does that musketeer's uniform have two or three lines of conjoined lace?

At 28mm in a unit of 36 models it doesn't matter because there is a vanishing point for visual detail, and beyond that, if you are painting your models to actually play with (I know... How odd) a well turned out army, painted with care, to a reasonable standard, well based and using the 'paint it if you can see it' rule being enforced, will look stunning.

I was at a show recently and saw a unit of Napoleonic cavalry which were overdetailed to the point that the painter's skill was cheapened. They had transfers for the shabraque and pistol covers which were just too precise against the rest of the figure, and must have taken an age to apply.

To me, the less time spent getting an army on the table the better. As the late Ian Smith (and he should know) said, it was 'flags, faces & bases' which made or broke an army.

In the 90s I purchased a collection of block painted 30YW figures from an old timer in Sheffield, based on flat green tetrion. They looked OK, it's true, and were good value for money. In two days I reworked the faces, added nice flags and painted the bases an earth brown shade with a taupe drybrush and some static grass, ending with a new matte varnish, and they looked brilliant. The faces, bases and flags made them pop. When I sold them I made a considerable profit on them, far in excess of two days of work.

The right choice of varnish can also totally change a good looking unit into a great one. Spend time too, choosing the brand. Just because a company tells you how good their product is, means fuck all in the real world. I always go with brands that are used in the fine arts world. Why? Well, because they work day in and day out, because they enhance your work and protect it from your mates Cheeto-tainted fingers.

A good varnish can make those important things like facings, lace and the like stand out.

On the table, if you have omeone saying 'Those grenadiers have 11 button holes and should actually have 12', tell them to fuck of. Of course at a show, you should add 'please' to that - courtesy costs nothing.

I someone ask the other day, 'When is a unit finished.' and replied that I think it's when you are happy with it.

Rick Priestley has written in some detail on the idea that over detailed painting is detracting from the hobby in terms of actually playing games. 

"No, no!" you cry..

'BOLLOCKS!' say I.

Go and find some of the old Wargames Illustrated mags with the S.O.D.S display games or Peter Gilders WHC games in. They look exquisite, even today, but look closely at an individual figure. They are bright, well based and competently painted. Nothing more, yet en masse they are truly exquisite and worthy of anyone's collection. 

 

 

That's because those guys understood just how far to go, to get the 'Wow!' factor. After that, it was time wasted, when you could be out at a show or a club game, setting the standard for wargaming aesthetics.

So, before you tie yourself into hundreds of unnecessary man hours, consider what you really need to do to get your army on the table where it truly belongs.

TTFN