"What is the attraction for glossy Toy soldiers?" Topic

I am specifically referring to the "traditional" glossy paint job 54mm (or larger) toy soldiers that come in boxed sets.

I don't care for them and never have. My reasons?
1) The figures are very stiff, with awkward poses.
2) The sculpting leaves many details washed out.
3) The painting is crude, at best.
4) Gloss. GLOSS???

Frankly, I have seen many 15mm figures that look much more "realistic".

The only reason I can see for them is nostalgia, for stuff that seemed great … 50 years ago.
I just don't get it.

The only reason I can see for them is nostalgia

That's the only thing that makes sense to me, as well. Personally, I think they're mostly hideous, and most of them are not good enough figures to even warrant a swim in Simple Green and repainting.

Doug

Stiff: link

They are for display only though aren't they? They work really well as ornamentation in a way wargames figures do not. The truth is most Wargames figure become an indistinct untidy mass at anything more than a couple of feet and I have yet to see a really well displayed 'wargame army'.

You may think of them as reproduction antiques if you like, in the same way people will have a print of a famous painting or china building rather than an architectural scale model.
I rather like their naive charm and they appeal to those who want the effect of toy soldiers rather than historical accuracy.

I don't have any myself but do rather like them.

You don't have to worry about handling them with greasy fingers – you can eat your chili cheese fries and play with your toys without guilt.

Never understood them either except as nostalgic collectors items.

I would bet that for a lot of us Baby Boomer wargamers, a red box of Britains 54mm toy soldiers were our first model soldiers in our lives. They look kind of cool all lined up in straight rows in a display cabinet. I played with Britains soldiers for years. The metal Britains were always "the good guys" and the plastic Timpo, Swappets, Herald, Britains, Warriors of the World and basic green army men were collectively "the bad guys".

I still have several hundred of mine packed away in boxes, although they are mostly newer metal figures purchased since about 1980.

They are too heavy and awkward to use in a wargame, although I note that All The Kings Men seem to be doing well with their ranges of 54mm metal figures.

Couldn't care less.

I paint my figures in tube oils which are glossy.

Cuz down deep some of us think we are these guys:

And here I am planning my 54mm Zulu War game project which will include glossy Britains, Eriksson and Scruby for the British and Rose and Scruby figures for the Zulu.

Don't think I'd consider them too heavy or awkward for war games (maybe not well suited for really big games).

Anyhow. While not for everyone, they are 'Toy Soldiers' and can't be compared to today's 'Collectors' pieces. Those what like 'em, like 'em – those that don't, don't.

I view them the way I view Lionel trains…toys. However, I can see why people collect them.

Glossy figs in general I don't understand. IMO…

It's just a different aesthetic. I think they look great with similarly stylized terrain – and the gloss paint emphasizes that they really are toys, not toys pretending not to be toys. Realistic is not meant to come into it. And yes, there is obviously a nostalgia to them. There is no shame in being glossy!

Perfect for Wellesian toy soldier battles.

The glossy issue is just an imagination thing … people are neither gloss nor matt. Some people imagine in either gloss or matt – others imagine in both.

I have difficulty finding the lumpy clumsy look of modern 28mm 'realistic' (like they wouldn't even fit through most of the doors in these parts) but have much less difficulty with the more authentic build of 30mm flats …

Spraying them matt is neither here nor there …

None of them are real, of course, they are just imaginative prompts …

Sometimes I like to give a gloss finish to some minis. And I sure like to paint them as toy soldiers. I paint several units of Foundry AWI that way.. Neverer the less toy soldiers imo are not stiff they are left foot:

Those are just lovely, Ataulfo!

I like classic toy soldiers. They are, of course, all the things that John says. I say, "And your point is??"

They are heavily stylised, like – well – comic books and Impressionist painting and video games and hentai, and all sorts of things people either like or dislike.

Indeed, there is a vocal group on TMP who will point out that many, many contemporary wargames figures would (in real life) have 44" waists, 24" legs, hands that would not fit into OJ's gloves and heads that no hat shop could provide for. There's one brand of ancients, sometimes recommended, which look to me like cartoon fat men, but someone will always pipe up to say how much they like 'em.

In the late '80s I went through a phase of painting up recast Britains (nobody spoke too much about legalities), using acrylics and using some limited shading and highlighting, but then adding pink cheeks and gloss varnish. Absolute joy to paint, completely relaxing compared to the wargames armies I was building.

A gloss finish can look excellent on the more stylised sort of wargames figure. I know someone whose 1870 armies are all old school figures, shiny and drilled. They look fantastic.

I don't know what there is to "get." You either like them or you don't. Why do some people like to use black primer? Or white primer? Or gray primer? Why do some people collect 6mm armies? I think the old figs have a certain charm to them. I am thinking about making an imaginations army or two consisting of 54mm glossy plastics. My soon to be seven year old daughter likes to play with my toy soldiers, so I can give her an army to play with and (for ease of painting) not be bothered about whether the toys "look real" or not.

I love the glossy look, my first wargame figures in any great number were Minifigs and they look gorgeous with gloss. I remember toy soldiers as a kid and the painted ones I saw and later had were all glossy, so for me its nostalgia. Go to my blog "CavCrazy" and you will see that I gloss all of my figures, right now I'm doing the AWI, and my figures look great, if I do say so, plus the style of painting I do and the paints I use seem to blend nicely with a shiny gloss on them.

I don't care much for the high gloss finish but certainly there are a number of good looking 54mm "Toy soldier" companies out there that have very nice figures.

King and Country immediately comes to mind and for more of a classic look Lucotte and Mignot certainly look very nice.

I've always fancied doing a couple of toy soldier armies for HOTT.

Not all people game !! Collectors prefer them for display purposes only .Most modern manufacturers give a choice of gloss or matte

They are also good investments as older models sell for much more than the original price. A figure set purchased new today will probably increase by 100% or more in just a few years once out of production. Old Britains etc sell for thousands of dollars (see attached link ) giving a higher return then most investments

link

Now go and kick yourself, like I have myself , for getting rid of your old toys.

54 mm matte figures from King and Country are expensive but certainly could be used in a game:

Different aesthetics and style.

What we now know as 'the wargaming look' is very close to what model railroads look. But if you look at older wargaming books (60s), the visuals of the battlefield followed a different style. Tony Bath used flats on stylized terrain. I guess it was probably during the 70s under the impulse of people like Peter Gilder that the current visual style was developed.

I like experimenting with different visual styles. Classic Toy Soldiers fit into that view. Take also a look at e.g. the style of Deutsche Homage, sold by Irregular: link

Some have used paper-miniatures drawn in a contemporary look, e.g. billybonesworkshop.co.uk/3.html
A medieval battle with figures in the style of the Bayeux tapestry would be splendid, IMO.
Etc.

There are different styles of visualization. It just happens we have all converged to the same one.

Why do gamers like the mutant caricature that is the current style for 28mm figures?

I agree with Cosmickanga

The newer 28mm all are caricatures and have Warhammer smeared all over them. It's one of the reasons I still use Surens and Staddens- they have human proportions.

I have recently finished a large 54mm toy soldier project for Funny Little Wars. Mixture of Armies in Plastic, Call to Arms, Italieri and odd Britains etc. Mad staring eyes, block painted, gloss varnish, the works.

We shoot at them with matchstick firing cannons.

I did it because it was good fun.

As well as being a detailed military sumulation of late nineteenth century brigade level combat:)

John – people like them. YMMV

Me, I started with gloss Minifigs (a la Peter Gilder), went matte, now back on gloss with my Imagi-Nation armies. All look good, some just look shinier than others :-)

But WW2 in gloss does not work for me – but then the Britains 54mm plastics I had as a kid were matte, so maybe that has soemthing to do with it.

I never grew up with shiny toy soldiers, but I am still tempted to get some. They have their own charm to them, a boyish sort of innocence.

Nostalgia, for those of us old enough to remember such toys; 'retro' appeal for younger wargamers/collectors.

The aesthetic appeal of simplicity, as opposed to a level of detail that is, if we are honest, both unnecessary for the purpose of wargaming, in which one simply needs to be able to identify nationality, arm of service and whether infantry 9for example) are Guard, line or light, and inappropriate to the range at which the models will normally be viewed.

A standard of painting that even the most ham-fisted, short-sighted &c., &c. of us – including youngsters – can achieve.

No need to purchase three shades of each colour and spend ages painting, shading, highlighting &c.

Freedom from the tyranny of uniform pedants, and no need to invest in lots of uniform plates and/or books to discover the 'correct' details.

Hard-wearing, able to withstand frequent handling and the hazards of the tabletop.

The intellectual honesty of a toy that makes no claims to be other than a toy with which to be played and enjoyed.

arthur1815--well said.

Shiny is good.

My introduction to toy soldiers was Major Henry Harris's book; Model Soldiers. The one that had a light green cover with a Napoleonic French dragoon model by General Agenot. The book had what I can best describe as Technicolor photographs; they were gorgeous and mesmerizing.
I collected hollowcast Britains as a teenager. There's a lot to be said for a simple slash of paint to convey the idea of a detail.
Those of us who wargame, Little Wars style, with glossy toy soldiers have simply had the decency to let our inner child out to play. While the rest of you sorry lot, those who insist on every persnicity detail and wrinkle, have your inner child chained in the dank recesses of your dark little souls.
stez

I think perhaps the "charm" of it for many is that it sanitizes/abstracts a little bit the reality of what you are actually gaming and having fun with, i.e. war. A subject, when thought about as being used for entertainment, starts to betray a certain sense of the macabre in the thoughts of reflective individuals. Of course, the intellectually honest thing to do for one what was confronted with these conflicts would be to play chess, but some of us prefer to accomodate our demons and live a conflicted, if compromised, life. Some, like H.G. Wells, eventually just packed it up and recognized it for what it was.

I've often thought of getting some toy soldier style armies from Irreguler.

I thnk they look neat, they have their own particualr charm – like all figures in all scales. The gloss finish just seems to suit them. And makes them more hard wearing.

I don't "get" people who put up pointless threads about what they do or don't like based on their own subjective opinions, but hey, thats just me.

It's a widely used didactic technique to generate a discussion. The OP position then acts as a baseline for further, and I would say in this case interesting discussion. As soon as you see it for that it appears less facile?

Durability and color.

I paint all my minis in Grumbacher oils. They all come out with a slight to high gloss. Love it. Oils are far superior to acrylics (I only use the latter for structures or painting on paper. The Soldiers all get oils.

The advantages are durability. First, I have minis I painted in the 70's which are still excellent today. The colors are as vibrant and hard handling has not worn off the paint at all. I recently had to recondition a regiment that had seen hard use. The only thing I really had to do was reline the hat braid and some small details. The paint job was the least of the problems. The real work was soldering back weapons, colors, getting broken figures standing up again, and rebasing.

The second is that oils are tremendously workable. I can match any shade with them and with the thinning agent I can vary the intensity from a pale wash to brilliant hues. The colors are also "fast" acrylics fade and are affected badly by moisture, dust, the grease from human fighters and the like. Oils are proof against all that.

The third is that oils are ridiculously cheap. A tube of Grumbachers costs about twice what a can of acrylic does (sometimes less!) and that tube when thinned a little last for years. I have Grumbacher tubes from the 70's which are still as useable, vibrant and excellent todayas when I bought them. I saw one tube for a Grumbacher RED that was still half full! By the way I keep saying Grumbacher, but any of the high end oil paints are the same.

THERE IS A DRAWBACK! They take a LONG time to dry. Sometimes up to two weeks. What I do for that is I have project boxes made from old computer paper boxes. I cut down the base till it fits completely inside the lid. Here I leave the figures as on a "tray" and they can be stackable. Thus you can have dozens of projects going at a time, keep them neat and clean, and when you've put one coat on a figure, go on to the next painting box and work on that.

The fourth thing is the consistency. You can thin, you can dilute, you can also use straight color. Mothing is as durable and controllable as an good white or yellow oil for braid. In pure color you're dealing essentially with a loose putty and you can bead it up to give some texture. You can do wonders with this, and you won't get a watery spot or a run.

Otto