"Gloss vs Matte varnish" Topic

I think we're all familiar with the contention that gloss varnish has better protective qualities than matte varnish. In fact many posters here say that they use two coats of varnish, first gloss, then matte, on their figures for that very reason. But I've also heard from many sources that that contention is an old wive's tale, and that there's no difference between the two.

I'm no chemist, so I was wondering if anyone could make a definitive case one way or the other, as to whether gloss is actually more protective than matte?

I'm sure I could google it, but I think the discussion here will be much more entertaining.

Please disregard the other entries with the same title as this one. They are the result of a disastrous attempt at cross-posting(with a glitchy computer). Hopefully the E-in-C will remove them.

Matte! Looks more realistic. I always do two coatings. Krylon matte

Titch…I prefer matte as well…but that's not the question. Let's stay focused on the question: is gloss more protective than matte, and why?

I do one coat of matte spray or one coat of figure flat. I have never cared for the glossy toy soldier look.

OC…but is gloss more protective than matte, and why? That's the question.

Neither. I have never used varnish on toy soldiers in over 50 years

MajorB…Yes, I know. You always chime in with that when the subject of varnish comes up.

So what's your secret? Enamel paint, or do you wear those white cloth gloves like they do at museums, when you game? Or is there something else to credit for your extraordinary run of success?

My understanding is that a manufacturer's matt varnish is the same as their gloss varnish with a small amount of matting agent added. This should make very little or no difference to the protection offered.

citizen…Yep. That's one of the things I've heard supporting the no difference argument. Thanks.

Matte

Although I have no scientific evidence I have always followed the two coat policy although I use semi-gloss under my matte.

Blackhorse MP,
You might want to contact a manufacturer to see what they believe is correct. Either that or search the web for true experts who know and can prove it. IMHO.
Craig

My assumption has not been that gloss provides better protection, but that multiple layers provide better protection, and multiple layers of matte may obscure the painting a little--so undercoats of gloss or satin and a final coat of matte, after which I paint metallics, trading protection for shine.

But rustymusket has a point. This is just rumor and stacked-up guesswork.

It is logical that Gloss will be stronger than Matte.

The logic goes: Matte finish is achieved by adding very fine solid particles into the otherwise gloss varnish. These fine solid particles disrupt the curing (polymerization) of the varnish. The result should be weaker than pure gloss. Now, I do not think you will find a test of this logic, as so many factors would need to be controlled to test it. The old school way is to first varnish with gloss, and then overcoat with matte (if that is your desired finish). One side benefit is for much handled figures, when the gloss starts to show through, one can recoat with the matte.

I do two coats of Matte.

"So what's your secret? Enamel paint, or do you wear those white cloth gloves like they do at museums, when you game?"

I don't bother with varnish either, except on soft plastics painted after the year 2000 and on decals. It isn't like the figures are going to get thrown around or anything.

You might want to contact a manufacturer to see what they believe is correct. Either that or search the web for true experts who know and can prove it. IMHO.

It's not that big a deal to me. I just thought I'd see what my fellow TMP'ers thought. Actually I thought there would be more strident views from partisans then we've actually seen so far.

My assumption has not been that gloss provides better protection, but that multiple layers provide better protection, and multiple layers of matte may obscure the painting a little

I've not heard that theory before. So using gloss for visual purposes and not protection. Hmmm.

It isn't like the figures are going to get thrown around or anything.

Well, you've obviously never gamed at my house.

My experience has been that when a metal figures hits the hard floor it chips regardless of gloss or matte varnish. I try not to test this too often.

Fusilier…That's one reason I use the Polyshades "Dip" sometimes. For the extra protection.

Many years ago, a lot of Napoleonic gamers did gloss varnish then matt the reason being they said was that they played so often that the constant handling of the troops that when it wore down to the gloss it was time to respray them with a matt varnish. I'm unsure how aceturate this was but it was more than a few that did this.

VonB…That makes perfect sense. Kinda like knowing you need new car tires when you can see the steel belts through the rubber treads.

But then we don't know if the underlying gloss would last longer than the matte if the figures get rapidly re-sprayed. You'd have to wait till the paint rubbed off beneath the gloss and then compare time frames.

Gotcha! In a single pass of spray, gloss is thicker and potentially more protective. However, that difference can be overcome with two coats of matte.

Modge Poge Matt is actually satin and really a good single coat and very protective if you want that in between look of slightly shiny.

MajorB…Yes, I know. You always chime in with that when the subject of varnish comes up.

So what's your secret? Enamel paint, or do you wear those white cloth gloves like they do at museums, when you game? Or is there something else to credit for your extraordinary run of success?

I use acrylic paints (mostly Coat d'Arms, aka the original Citadel acrylic paints).
No I don't wear gloves when I game
I've just never had any problems with unvarnished miniatures.

I have always used matt coating.

@DieHard: It is logical that Gloss will be stronger than Matte.

Nothing logical about it at all. Your explanation is pure supposition.

[1] The matting agents are present at very small percentage inclusions and do not interfere with the setting of the varnish medium by what ever means (cross-linking, polymerisation, or deposition due to evaporation of the carrier solvent).

[2] Matt varnishes do not wear off when handled. They gain a layer of sebum from the players hands which produces a sheen.

[3] The myth dates back to the last century when hobbyists used spirit based varnishes and aqueous matt varnishes were weaker. Plus people tend to compare apples with oranges: resulting in false comparisons and misconceptions (see second link below).

[4] If you chip a model to the metal the bond that has broken has nothing at all to do with the varnish layer and everything to do with the primer coat. Priming lead & tin is chemically very difficult due to their microscopically smooth surface which inhibits the binding of any paint. Ferrous materials are much rougher and therefore easier to prime.

[5] Nothing wrong with two thin coats of any varnish but it's not a necessity and one doesn't have to be gloss. Thicker does not mean stronger: the key bond is in the contact layer between the paint and the primer.

Painting Tips #4 – Gloss vs Matt Varnishes

The Unvarnished Truth, Miniature Wargames, 369, 57-60, 2014.

Give up Martin, they aren't listening. Science v hearsay and hearsay always wins. "My Grandad did it that way so it must be right."

My father was a paint specialist and he laughed in derision at there being a significant difference in protection between gloss & matt on a figure. The only point he made was that matt finishes are slightly more abradable than gloss but usually all that does in make them shine a bit.

When I first broke into The Hobby, back in the previous century, dogma held that you first use gloss, then matte.
So I did.
Then, I became lazy and didn't use anything at all.
I noticed no difference. 🤷

That's right, John. For a long time the generally held belief was to use an initial coat of gloss for protection, followed by a coat of matte. I always followed that formula, and it always worked for me.

But that was then, and now is now. Newer matte varnishes may offer better protection than Dullcote, so the need to use gloss may no longer be the case.

Martin…Great info and links. Helps bring clarity to the issue for me. Seems like the real key to success is the bond between figure and primer and not so much what kind of or how much varnish you use.

MajorB…I suspect you must use some very good primer.

@GildasFacit :-)

MajorB…I suspect you must use some very good primer

I used to used Humbrol enamel as primer but now I use artist's gesso.

I don't use anything after I'm done painting the figure. Never had a problem with wear (but I don't play often to be honest).
Paul

Gloss varnish is essentially pure acrylic medium. It cures to a clear shiny transparent finish. Matte varnish is the same mix but with a matting agent added; this interferes with the light passing through the cured acrylic skin, so it is less shiny.

Too many layers of matting agent can result in a cloudy effect. For this reason paint manufacturers don't recommend multiple coats of matte varnish. If you want a thick seal, put on as many coats of gloss varnish as you want, topped with one coat of matte varnish.

Here's the guidance from Liquitex, but any manufacturer will tell you the same thing:

When using Liquitex Matte or Satin Varnish, apply no more than 1-2 thin coats as thick applications may result in cloudiness when dry. If more than 2 coats are desired, first varnish with Gloss Varnish to the desired thickness and apply Matte or Satin Varnish as the final coat.

From: link

Myself, I do 2 coats gloss followed by a coat of matte. Often I'm mixing finishes on the model and depending on the proportion, I brush spot some areas. For instance a knight may get 2 gloss coats sprayed then brush matte on the surcoat. Whereas a big wolf may get 2 gloss coats plus a matte coat, all sprayed, then brush gloss in the eyes and mouth. Spot gloss brushed over matte doesn't look as good as pure gloss, but it works well enough that I don't bother masking when I spray.

Matte varnish is the same mix but with a matting agent added; this interferes with the light passing through the cured acrylic skin, so it is less shiny.

No. Matting is a surface phenomenon. The finish appears matt because the surface is irregular and broken by the matting agent such that the light is not reflected from the surface in a coherent manner (the shine). This is also why matt varnishes changes the colours slightly.

Matting definitely a surface phenomenon.

A bulk phenomenon would be translucent (cloudy or white) not transparent. My understanding is that the matting agent is a clear "pigment" of refractive index matched particles that are added to the varnish media to texture the surface once the solvent of the bulk of the varnish is off-gassed. And like anti-foaming agents, the actual shape of the matting agent is tuned to produce the effect.

The gloss (spirit) vs matt (water) is a straw man, as one can get gloss or matte in the same media.

While the second article is quite good, the statement "With matt varnishes the same coating happens but the matting agent migrates to the surface of the coating during drying." I believe is in error. I do not believe these are surfactants.

What force would drive this "migration" ? I think the matting agent is distributed throughout the bulk (as with pigments) and the thinning of the bulk results in the deformation of the outer surface by stacks of the matting agent particles. If migration were true, one could dilute the matte with unlimited amounts of gloss and for a limited surface, the results would remain matte. Experience informs me this is not the case.

It is the shape and concentration of the matting agent the prevents it from being fully lost in the bulk.

So the contention of the logic is: matte varnish is really just paint with clear pigments. These pigments disrupt the polymerization, thus this may result in a weaker coat. Or at least a coat no stronger than paint of the same media. Again, putting this to the test would be very difficult, but there is a logic to it.

But in anything but the most extreme cases, the whole thing is mute. If you really need to protect the figure, move to a stronger polymer, acrylic is not very strong, polyurethane is better, the UV curing dodecyl acrylate (n-LA) and 2,2-dimethoxy-2-phenylacetophenone (DMPA) are, I believe, the next up in strength, and there is always Epoxy.

Choose matte or gloss for the appearance not based on strength.

Thanks to The Waving Flag and DyeHard for correcting the technical part of my explanation.