Oldhammer... A Point Of View

 I am fortunate, nay, blessed to have 'come up' at a time just before the Warhammer Fantasy Battles rules hit the shelves - and stayed there, being sold off for a  mere fraction of the RRP in literal stacks at the front of GW store.

It's something that we who refuse to die and in not doing so, irritate others, comment on quite often at our coffee and bullshit 'salons' - no, really...

And then we get teary eyed over whatever metal based figures one of us has brought to the table for discussion and pawing over, that day, before the conversation turns to the scourge that is 'Oldhammer'.

Now, don't get me wrong, the idea of preserving what was arguably the high water mark of fantasy gaming, and introducing others to it, is a fine sentiment. But, re-writing history and claiming that paintwork and styles which were not contempraneous or even available  in the case of materials as 'authentic' is taking it a step too far.

If you were not there, you cannot pronounce on authenticity in any way, until you have actually done some research. I suggest that you get hold of some White Dwarf Magazines in the 40s and 50s, track down the first 'official' painting guide written for the Citadel catalogue by the late Pete 'Greblord' Armstong (long before Tabletopo Heroes or that Johnny-Come-Lately 'Heavy Metal'. Oh, and don't forget the articles by Rick Priestley and the seminal article in the firs Citadel Compendium by Tony Ackland, which segued very nicely with 'Stretch's' (yes we called him that and were constantly rebuked right up to his way to early demise)

The majority of us were using oil based enamels and very early and extremely pungent early acrylics from the Poly S range which cost an arm and a leg. Andy Ritson worked in the stupidly expensive Liquitex acrylic tubes which trust me, were £7 on average in 1983 and were often toxic, being made for real artists and not snotty nosed teenage Rockers with one foot in their Hi-Tecs and one in the grave...

By 1982, we could use the very limited but never bettered, Humbrol 'Bobcat' acrylic jars, the first truly child safe acrylics with the best green ever... I mean ever.

But I digress...

There was a style and a standard of the times,, much as there's a tendency now towards the use of washes and airbrushes rather than steady hands and learning how to use a limited range of materials and colours.

Models of that period had a particular 'look', until the very (very) late 80s and the 'Midhammer' (ack! ack!) era... 

It wasn't a look that was actively pushed as the standard by any publication or company, it was a general evolution based on materials and observation of the work of military and large scale modellers. Also, the majority of painted figures back then were historical and so we looked to the leading lights of that hobby such as Peter Gilder and Dave Hoyles. Hell, John Blanche did some stunning historical figures back in the day...

Armies looked different and personalto their owners. I was lucky in that Pete worked in GW Sheffield and was by 1982 already a 'Top Gun' in the local scene, because of his constant experimentation and innovation, and his 'previous' as a large scale modeller. I pestered him and ran the gauntlet of his ire many times until he showed me this or that (grudingly)and I then came up with my own 'variation on a theme' of sorts.

(Incidentally, Pete led the charge at the dawn of the first arrival in the UK of plastic 'mecha' kits - but that's another story)

So, it is my conclusion that when we paint vintage models or modern models purporting to 'an authentic look' we should limit ourselves to the types of paints that were available at the time and aim for the style of painting that was contemporaneous to those times.

And now that thorny question of 'authentic' figures...

Look, I'll just out and say it... If you are going to claim something is 'Oldhammer inspired' at least make it look like it fucking is!

Just making a figure with an integral metal base, does not make it 'Oldhammer' - ever.

Again, study the styles and look of the thing. Stupidly large weapons are not Oldhammer, they are Midhammer, and there are many, many people who do not like, nor did they ever like, figures with stupidly over-proportioned extremities.

I have no problem at all with 'in the style of' or 'inspired' but just adding that tag because you've sculpted something which looks like a modern figure but so crudely sculpted that it can't compete with wjat's out there, is not the done thing. You are simply pushing sub-standard tat onto people who really care about the aesthetics and thereby the history of their hobby.

I have just seen some Chaos Dwarves which look absolutely nothing like any Chaos Dwarves that could be legitimately called Old or Midhammer, being pushed as just that. If you cant't at least make an effort to vaguely reflect even the slightest 80s aesthetic, just put them out there as 'Chaos Dwarves' and let the market decide.

I know that there are a lot of people who were not there due to their parents not being able to deliver them at the time, unto that golden age, but that is no excuse for solid research, particularly in this age of signs and wonders.

Come on people... Get off your collective arse and make some effort and stop this lazy 'cashing in' on the 'lived' experience of others who truly hold those early days sacred in their hearts. 

I am not saying that Oldhammer is exclusive, its not, but  neirther is it a sandbox for those who want to redefine an era and re-write the aesthetic history books.