Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey all,

Back in the mid 1990s GW metal models were superior in detail to the plastic kits. However since I have got back into the hobby I have been really impressed with the plastic kits. I was looking over my old unpainted metal Imperial Guard and thinking they look far less detailed now than the comparable plastic kits, and consequently would be a lot harder to paint in the more realistic modern style.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Has anyone recently painted old metal models, and if so how did you find it?

Mordian2016 wrote:
Hey all,

Back in the mid 1990s GW metal models were superior in detail to the plastic kits. However since I have got back into the hobby I have been really impressed with the plastic kits. I was looking over my old unpainted metal Imperial Guard and thinking they look far less detailed now than the comparable plastic kits, and consequently would be a lot harder to paint in the more realistic modern style.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Has anyone recently painted old metal models, and if so how did you find it?

The best comparison I can give is my scouts. I have a metal squad and some plastic squads that I painted round about the same time. Honestly the only way I can tell the difference is by picking them up and feeling the weight. They are no easier or harder to paint IMO. They are however much easier to convert.

The newer plastic kits are great, and yes they have a lot more detail. But it's not something you need to be scared of painting wise. Just take your time and care and you will do just fine.

in terms of GW metals specifically, I mostly have some of the older Stormvermin types and a few warmachines. Honestly they weren't/aren't any harder or than the current version. Actually I think they might be a bit easier. I like them because their stance is different, as is the weight, so they look different enough to be interesting in the army.

All the metals I have from 'back in the day' that I painted are pretty awful more due to my skill than anything else. Some of them were kind of meh in terms of details compared to today's plastics but at the same time I notice their poses are a lot more individualized! So many of the metal and plastic models now all seem to have the same basic 3 or so 'heroic' poses, rather than more natural or interesting ones.

Honestly, I don’t feel that there is that big a difference. Modern plastics are chock full of detail. But then, some of the old metals are as well. It really comes down to the individual mini. The old metals, being mono-pose, get a lot more personality then the modern multi-parts.

I’ve got a large supply of old stuff kicking around my workbench, so will occasionally paint things from the depths of time. Recently I painted up an old RT Lieutenant, to see how my painting has progressed. I wanted to use a similar model to one of my older works, as there is a bit of a detail gap between say an RTB01 marine and a modern tactical. Overall the experience painting him was not that far off from the Mk. IV BaC guys working their way across my paint bench currently.

 Nevelon wrote:
Honestly, I don’t feel that there is that big a difference. Modern plastics are chock full of detail. But then, some of the old metals are as well. It really comes down to the individual mini. The old metals, being mono-pose, get a lot more personality then the modern multi-parts.

I’ve got a large supply of old stuff kicking around my workbench, so will occasionally paint things from the depths of time. Recently I painted up an old RT Lieutenant, to see how my painting has progressed. I wanted to use a similar model to one of my older works, as there is a bit of a detail gap between say an RTB01 marine and a modern tactical. Overall the experience painting him was not that far off from the Mk. IV BaC guys working their way across my paint bench currently.

Haha wow brother - I have same 2 old gents kicking around my painting room. I painted them probably 20+ years ago:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Haha wow brother - I have same 2 old gents kicking around my painting room. I painted them probably 20+ years ago:

Damn, nice freehand check there. I don’t think I’ve ever been that tidy in all my years of painting.

I’ve got the third guy from the SM officer’s blister sitting primed on the back of my workbench. He’s a patient one.



And to bring this back to the topic on hand, a pic of some old mono pose next to a new one. With the monopose, you get much more natural poses. You don’t need to worry about parts clipping, so can make more organic postures. With the multi-part, mono-pose (like the 30k guy pictured) you don’t need to worry about undercuts and the like, which were the bane of old metal models (and why they often have a very flat profile). But when actually working them over with a fuzzy stick, there isn’t a lot of difference. Here he is finished.

I think it might be interesting to get minis in both mediums that are very similar. SM scouts would be a good pick for that, as the new plastics are very close to the old metals. It’s a crummy old picture, but there is metal, plastic and finecast in this one:


They all painted up about the same. The big difference is the amount of prepwork and tools needed to get them ready.

I've also got that same guy (on the right) but I sawed his head off.

Regarding the scouts -- yes the sniper scouts are similar but the old bolter and/or CCW scouts were quite a bit different, and in my opinion, far superior, to the current scouts. They didn't have the hunch backs and the ridiculous chins/heads.

These are not mine, just a picture I found:

I’ve got bunch of those guys myself, but not the new plastics to compare them to. Some of the best minis GW has put out IMHO. At least some of the best aging old metals.

I do need to pick up a box of the new plastic ones to help round out some squad gear options though.

I've painted alot of old lead in the past few years. There are some figures that are cruder than current sculpts, but alot of it depends on what you mean by "more realistic modern style". I've seen alot of folks painting 20 year old sculpts to modern standards recently and the results are great.

However, if your definition of "Modern" includes alot more fine detail and filigree to paint then you will find older figures lacking, but there's alot of folks who prefer "cleaner" figures and paint them just fine with modern techniques. I'm one of those who finds that many modern minis (especially GW) are far too crammed with detail.

Of course another complication is changing style. Older minis often don't fit visually with modern figures. This can often be avoided by carefully choosing which old figs to use and some converting, but it is something to keep in mind.

Lastly, there are alot of old minis who'se sculpting is as fresh and crisp as anything done today. Go looking through the work of someone like Tom Meir and see what I mean. He's got figures from nearly 30 years ago that are as well sculpted (if a somewhat different style) as anything produced today.

Here's some classic Necromunda figures. These ladies are over 20 years old but were just painted by a friend of mine last year.
I'd say they look quite contemporary. More pics here if you're interested.
http://chicagoskirmish.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-exchange-with-mattias-part-2-escher.html

I actually prefer the older metal models, but it's more due to technique rather than amount of detail. The new plastics are very detailed when compared to older ones, but the older models were sculpted from greens; the newer ones use digital sculpting and it painfully shows at times (mainly, any time there's fur now it looks like bits of doritos rather than streaks of actual fur).

When the artists were forced to use greens it felt more realistic. Biggest contrast is probably Grotsnik vs the new Painboy; one looks almost cartoonish while Grotsnik is gritty and realistic. However both aesthetics have their perks, I just prefer the old method.

i think the new sculpts look more realistic. look at the new AoS khorne models. theres no way GW wouldve been able to make such menacing and imposing miniatures way back when