"Gloss or Matte or Nothing at All" Topic

The vast majority of figures I paint are infantry or cavalry types, and so I don't bother with a varnish. When I'm painting AFV's etc, that I want to put some decals on, I use Dullcoat to provide an even finish.

I voted gloss as that's my preferred finish but I always use matt for WW2 as it looks more appropriate. So really I'm more open-minded and go with what I think looks best for a particular period/scale/collection …

Phil

I use matte on just about everything for protection – but I am thinking about gloss for a very specific type, which is the Eureka Toy Soldier range – I have a whole bunch I need to get working on

It depends on what the mini is. For things that should be shiny, I prefer gloss. For most (non-wet) organic type things, matte. If there are sufficiently large enough areas of difference on a mini, I will use both in what I think are the appropriate places. Also, if I have scarring to metal (rust, damage, bullet holes, etc), sometimes I like to score the paint after I put the top coat on.

I voted semi-gloss because the "matte" that I use has a sheen to it. For WWII I use Dullcote and for my Little Britons I use gloss.

I use a semi-gloss coat and over-spray with Dullcote for maximum protection.

I use a gloss as a first coat, then a matte to kill the shine a bit.
As there was no option for both, you guys must be doing something wrong.

Matte over gloss for me. The gloss is supposedly a thicker coat.

I really don't see the point of any clear varnish – either matt or gloss. I paint my figures using acrylic matt finish paints. This gives a matt appearance to the finished figure. I have been painting figures for well over 30 years and I have never had to retouch any paintwork due to wear. The need for a "protective" coat is a myth.

Matt over gloss for me as well.

Matte mostly, but I have used satin for horses.

I use a satin (its called matte but isn't really) on Nappys and medievals. WWII I use gloss for protection then dullcoat over it. I've found dullcoat wears off easily.

I have been painting figures for well over 30 years and I have never had to retouch any paintwork due to wear. The need for a "protective" coat is a myth.

That's another matter … I varnish my figures these days (most gloss, some matt, as posted above) but mostly for the look, not for protection*.

I have thousands of figures which match your description, MajorB … and indeed they have survived well enough. The real 'protective coat' is the paint itself.

Phil
*I do use some watercolour these days, especially on horses. It will rub off quite easily until varnished. It is very much the exception I think (especially if the figures in question are properly primed/undercoated) …

Matt over gloss, the gloss to give it some protection and allow me to put some transfers on. The matt to protect the transfers and to give it that proper finish as most of what I paint is WWII and later.

It varies with period, as above I don't bother to varnish figures if they already look OK, but some I need to matt down (say if they have a shiny inkwash), others I prefer a more satin finish (the vast bulk of my Ancients figures and for bizarre historical reasons to do with the vagaries of Ronseal floor varnish, my late nineteenth century stuff) and for my toy soldier stuff, gloss all the way.

I rarely bother to varnish twentieth century stuff.

Decals are a pain, requiring the application of local dabs of varnish of various types. Sometimes it is easier to just paint the d*mn things on.

Base: Glosscote for durability.

Final coat:
Glosscote for chibis.
Dullcote for others.

mostly matte brushed on dip, but I do use gloss on windows face plates bright work and things that should be shiny. all done with a brush I stopped using spray paints 15 years ago. I even brush on my primer black with a white dry brushing.

Mostly I play historicals, and I like them to look rugged and dirty, so it's matte. I did use a gloss varnish back when I played SciFi games, and it has a couple of uses in my terrain (water, for example), but generally it's matte.

The need for a "protective" coat is a myth.

YouTube link

I use Krylon spray as the base sealant coat. It is a bit of acetone in it, so it dissolves the paint a bit and "cleans up" the borders between colors. Also brings out the shadows from a wash.

Satin. I tried matte, and hated the look. I am not a historic modeller (in the true sense), and I don't care if my work looks truly "realistic".

Used to be nothing but I am trying the dip for a few skirmishy game companies and after over 40 years of miniatures I still waver on what to use if I use or if I should anything at all…

Glossy has it's place.

I like gloss on my 25/28mm fantasy figures, but matte on the 15mm historicals. Go figure …

I always use armypainter "antishine" spray.
Benoit

I read somewhere (maybe here) that gloss doesn't provide any better protection than matte. I typically dip, then dullcoat, then go back and paint the shiny parts shiny (if 28mm).
Steve

I spray Dullcote over gloss spray. Works great.

I disagree with there not being a need for some kind of coating. I've got some older armies and some newer RPG figures that have seen a lot of handling. Paint was wearing off or there was just a sheen from the natural oils in your fingertips. A quick touch up, gloss, then Dullcote and the problem hasn't come back.

I do agree on Dullcote wearing off in some cases. I've seen it just on a few figures over the years, but rarely. One thing with Dullcote is you really have to shake it up well, then shake it some more just to be sure.

Matte spray varnish the figure, then gloss brush-on on detail I want shiny.

Out of interest, where does the spelling 'matte' come from ?

To me it means the background in a photograph or the type of board from which those were made. I can find it with this spelling in modern dictionaries but not in older ones.

Is it a US thing or another mis-spelling that has become accepted.