raducci | 11 May 2010 2:44 p.m. PST |
@ Pijlie No, I can't agree. Their are several nice 20mm metal ranges: ABs for starters. The best plastics are, though, a little better than the best metals. |
artaxerxes | 11 May 2010 6:37 p.m. PST |
<<The problem is that a lot of Armand's links are to paintjobs that really do not warrant too much detailed attention, and so the whole vicious circle starts off.>> I agree Marc tpf, which is why I usually don't click on those posts. I mean, how hard is that, really? |
Pijlie | 11 May 2010 9:27 p.m. PST |
I can get bumped to the DH for bumping? Owww, it is a harsh world. But I take my chances. There is a first for everything. Actually I thought this thread needed some more innocent humour, although the tone was already lightening a bit. When musing over this thread, I thought that we really should not bash each other for principles. We should bash each other for victory conditions, as any good wargamer should :o) And yes, the best 20mm plastics are a little better than even the best 28mm metals, as far as natural likeness goes. |
Marc the plastics fan | 12 May 2010 1:37 a.m. PST |
When I see the new mini on the TMP header – Fijones was it – then I know that there are fantastic scuptors working in metal. The lass with the sword is a very fine sculpt – fantasy, of course, but very nice. ABs – in 18 or 20 are, in my not very humble opinion , the best metal figures available for their size, and easily compare to the best plastics. But linking to poor paint jobs in any scale is probably the real bone of contention, and I am veering more and more to the "don't do it" school. This is perhaps even worse when it is to rather simply painted 54mm plastics – my early inspiration was Military Modelling mag, and that used to (probably still does) include some first rate 54mm paint jobs. So a simple block paint is never going to win plaudits. |
Marc the plastics fan | 12 May 2010 1:38 a.m. PST |
And is "bumping" excess posting? Neat name. Never knew that (not that I am that interested in such tactics – I think a post should be maintained by interest alone, not by fakery) |
raducci | 12 May 2010 2:04 a.m. PST |
Marc and Pijlie, this thread was never about indifferent paintjobs but a snide and unjustified attack on all 1/72 figures. I am glad to see that Bravox has now shown a little discrimination but the OP has slunk off with no apologies or regrets. I agree that no comment or constructive criticism are the ONLY way to respond to figures you do not like. |
Duck Crusader | 12 May 2010 3:28 a.m. PST |
Jup. There's a lot of good stuff there, some indifferent, and some 'beginner' class. The issue was in blanket dismissal, or 'plastic tat', to quote. |
BravoX | 12 May 2010 3:41 a.m. PST |
How can you say it wasn't about indifferent paint jobs, that was why Allen started the topic in the first place. The snide and (IMHO) fully justified comments are about the paint jobs and more specifically about third parties posting link after link to ETS. The issue with ETS is not the scale, its not that they are HaT, its that they are bad paint jobs. It has never been about 1/72, the same comments would have been made whatever the scale (and some were 1/32 I believe) and regardless of whether plastic or metal (though because plastics generally don't look as good there might be more complaints about painted plastic figures). After 4 pages we can't even agree what we are arguing about! "bumping" Yeah I found there were a couple of guys in the dawghouse at the moment for bumping
though don't worry not my style to complain to 'sir', smacks to much of a primary school mentality.
|
BravoX | 12 May 2010 3:44 a.m. PST |
"The issue was in blanket dismissal, or 'plastic tat', to quote." The issue was all that was being linked to WAS plastic tat regardless of whether ETS has any non tat in it. (and so far the only non-tat posted was by Marc and he said that that guy never posts to ETS anyway) |
raducci | 12 May 2010 3:47 a.m. PST |
Read the OP. I think most of us agree about what the issue was. |
Frothers Did It Anyway | 12 May 2010 4:31 a.m. PST |
|
Marc the plastics fan | 12 May 2010 8:58 a.m. PST |
I recall a record (black vinyl disc that spun and transferred music by way of a stylus to speakers) in the 70's by, I think, "Kenny", called "the Bump". Hope that helps :-) |
Duck Crusader | 12 May 2010 12:29 p.m. PST |
Oh good, now you can be our standard of taste, just looking over the links to the many beautiful
oh wait, you never posted any did you? Personally I like the 'toy soldier' style of painting, which is what a lot of the ETS stuff is. In fact there's some more good ones here: link Now we're going to have taste police? Who nominated you and Allen for that? |
raducci | 12 May 2010 2:46 p.m. PST |
We going for 5 pages? "I'd like to dedicate to this thread to all those who've sweated over a paint brush trying to bring some colour into the lives of a few, despised yet still noble plastic figures
." |
BravoX | 14 May 2010 10:44 a.m. PST |
"Oh good, now you can be our standard of taste, just looking over the links to the many beautiful
oh wait, you never posted any did you?" Well since this topic is about NOT posting links to poorly painted figures why would I post a link to my own stuff. I have said that several times already, please keep up or don't bother to post. "Personally I like the 'toy soldier' style of painting, which is what a lot of the ETS stuff is. " Good for you, that was the OP's point as well, there is a place that specializes in this kindergarten style of painting and its called ETS if that what you like go and look in the best place for it. This site as it says is about "miniatures" rather than "toys", the painting style that predominates here is a more adult style than the "toy" style you like. It not a question of taste police thats just a fact of what this site aims for. If you don't like that as Allen said bookmark ETS and look at what you like rather than what you don't. |
Duck Crusader | 14 May 2010 11:59 a.m. PST |
Ah, my mistake. This whole section is a figment of my imagination then? TMP link Oops, how does that shoe taste? |
En Avant | 14 May 2010 12:02 p.m. PST |
Ha!Ha! Monsieur Duck Crusader
le terrible!. Amicalement Armand |
BravoX | 14 May 2010 1:01 p.m. PST |
Well I guess then you should be posting those links into the toy gallery then shouldn't you. Anyway glad you realized your mistake, hopefully then Allen wont need to start another topic like this then, seems were making progress! |
Duck Crusader | 14 May 2010 2:28 p.m. PST |
Nice way to cover up your total failure. Oh wait, no it wasn't. The toy soldier style seems to be just fine by a couple of other sites I've posted polls on. In fact both seem to be swamped by by the options "block dip and get them on the table' and 'I like both'. So it appears you and Allen are firmly in the minority view. No surprise to me really. |
raducci | 14 May 2010 2:44 p.m. PST |
Someone's on a crusade here and its not you Duck. |
En Avant | 15 May 2010 12:57 p.m. PST |
C'est fini?. Amicalement Armand |
Duck Crusader | 16 May 2010 3:25 p.m. PST |
Allen's fled long ago, and BravoX is in da Dawghouse
|
Pijlie | 15 Jun 2010 6:44 a.m. PST |
Well, we didn't reach 5 pages, but it was a noble effort! |