Help support TMP

"Accurate or with Character? " Topic

17 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Sculpting Message Board

Action Log

15 Feb 2017 10:54 p.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Removed from TMP Poll Suggestions board

Areas of Interest


Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Showcase Article

GF9 Fire and Explosion Markers

Looking for a way to mark explosions or fire?

Featured Profile Article

Smart Finish Sander/Filer

Do you do so much file work that your fingers hurt? Maybe this tool can help...

Current Poll

Featured Book Review

970 hits since 31 Aug 2016
©1994-2020 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Personal logo Flashman14 Supporting Member of TMP31 Aug 2016 5:53 a.m. PST

Do you prefer old fashioned, stylized sculpts like Copplestone, Pulp Figures, and Foundry or more anatomically proportioned ones like Fife and Drum or Alban miniatures?

Basically I think it boils down to the size of the heads relative to the body but that's not all.

Let's assume the newer, more slender sculpts are not inherently more prone to breakage than the older squatter ones.

Winston Smith31 Aug 2016 6:39 a.m. PST

There is also the issue of durability. RSM figures are anatomically accurate, but I had a lot of horses snap off at the base.

Having said that I bought a unit of Fife and Drum cavalry. The issue of the feet at the base seems to have been addressed. It could also be that my RSM figures were purchased on the 1980s and the alloy was fragile.

I have about 30 different manufacturers in my AWI armies. There are very few that I don't like. (Cough cough. Redoubt. Cough cough) and they run the gamut of styles.

Personal logo Buckeye AKA Darryl Supporting Member of TMP31 Aug 2016 7:30 a.m. PST

Accurate, with durability. :)

Extrabio1947 Supporting Member of TMP31 Aug 2016 7:30 a.m. PST

Fife and Drum, Minden, and Crann Tara are exquisite. Regarding durability, I've yet to experience even a broken bayonet.

When I got back into gaming after a 15 year hiatus, I wanted to finally create an ImagiNation. Minden and Crann Tara proved to be just what I was looking for.

John Armatys31 Aug 2016 8:47 a.m. PST

I much prefer anatomically proportioned figures.

Cerdic31 Aug 2016 8:53 a.m. PST

Anatomically and historically accurate for me.

Surely we can also have 'character' as well? Not so important if the figure is a Napoleonic line infantryman, but if it is a Viking…..

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP31 Aug 2016 10:06 a.m. PST

I can do both!

Sometimes Iike the big and easy to paint others I prefer more realistic.

I paint both front rank (WSS) and Crann tara/minden ( SYW). Even tho they are as polar opposite as 28mm can get)

Also remember we have the inn betweens like perry. Not minden style but not front rank either.

If I HAD too choose I say Minden/Crann tara

Old Contemptibles Supporting Member of TMP31 Aug 2016 11:51 a.m. PST


cavcrazy31 Aug 2016 12:21 p.m. PST

I love Minifigs so I may be out of this conversation :)

wrgmr131 Aug 2016 7:57 p.m. PST

Winston Smith Cough cough Redoubt Cough cough…. Too funny!

I like Calpe – accurate
I also like Front Rank – thick but accurate
And Elite – looking for Stukas!

So really both.

The Man With Two Bryans31 Aug 2016 10:02 p.m. PST

The OP's premise is wrong. Foundry, Copplestone and Pulp are the modern style – caricatures of people with fat hands. Once upon a time we had elegantly proportioned figures from the likes of Stadden – the 30mm SYW from Stadden are lovely sculpts, if the moulds are worn and the detail not as great as achieved by modern techniques. Crann Tara and the like echo that older style. The rot set in when Citadel went down the road of caricatures, and the GW style was born.

attilathepun4731 Aug 2016 10:26 p.m. PST

For me, anatomically correct proportions, historically accurate details, and believable postures are essential. "Character" is not essential, nor is hyper detailing of the surface.

Martin Rapier31 Aug 2016 11:11 p.m. PST

If "character" means bloated dwarves with oversized weapons, I'll take anatomically correct any day.

Joes Shop Supporting Member of TMP01 Sep 2016 5:59 a.m. PST


Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP01 Sep 2016 9:49 a.m. PST

If "character" means bloated dwarves with oversized weapons, I'll take anatomically correct any day.

Where does one get anatomically correct Dwarves?

I agree with The Man With Two Bryans that this is not a new/old thing.

To the OP – I am relatively sure (I have books, you know) that I am not anatomically correct, so either way, I would prefer to have a well made figure that is easy to paint (which could be either).

jwebster02 Sep 2016 7:53 p.m. PST

anatomically proportioned

Is unfortunately a misnomer, as proportions need to be exaggerated to look good at different scales.

The question becomes, to what degree should the proportions be exaggerated, and this is a matter of taste and sculpting style

My two favourites are Perry and AB Napoleonics. In my opinion, the balance is just right. There are many other sculpts that are just as good.

There are also limitations on what can be cast, or injection moulded. This means that most weapons, particularly swords have to be out of proportions. However it is no excuse for young ladies with weapons Arnie couldn't lift, or a certain large company's obsession with massive swords and whatever.


Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.