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.

Considering the time it takes to paint up your minis I'm paranoid about protecting your miniatures.

I've used the super duper thick wood floor varnish before and I understand this is the best option if you want an impenetrable coat of varnish BUT i've notices it really dulls the colour and makes it look mucky.

So I've resorted to using the normal varnishes (the spray varnish/purity seal) and the paint on gloss varnish from Vallejo - however these don't protect as well.

Can I do 3 coats of these to try and mimic the floor varnish and add extra layers of protection from hand oils and dust/chipping?

Thoughts?

There's not really a reason to do three different coats. You could just do three gloss. But I'd worry about the amount of detail and texture you'd be filling after two, to be honest.

You won't lose any detail with thre coats of varnish; I regularly put more than that on models all the time.

The other thing to remember is that varnish doesn't really "protect" models like people think. They will still chip if dinged or dropped.

Whats the point of the varnish if they don't protect from chipping?

How do you prevent chipping or at least minimise it?

 DorianGray wrote:
Considering the time it takes to paint up your minis I'm paranoid about protecting your miniatures.

I've used the super duper thick wood floor varnish before and I understand this is the best option if you want an impenetrable coat of varnish BUT i've notices it really dulls the colour and makes it look mucky.

So I've resorted to using the normal varnishes (the spray varnish/purity seal) and the paint on gloss varnish from Vallejo - however these don't protect as well.

Can I do 3 coats of these to try and mimic the floor varnish and add extra layers of protection from hand oils and dust/chipping?

Thoughts?

The wood floor varnish isn't for protection (though it does act to protect your minis). That varnish is used to provide quick detail to the miniature, by settling into crevices and darkening them and changing the overall look of the model. If you use it, it needs to be as part of a plan to do so. You will want to paint with brighter colors and bolder highlights than normal before applying that varnish, and you need to make sure the tint of the varnish complements rather than conflicts with your miniatures. If you want bright Ultramarines with white highlights, then don't apply a brown wood varnish!

Gloss varnish forms a harder protective coating than matt varnish, but it also (duh) gives a miniature a glossy finish. In general, for protection and looks, apply gloss varnish first (one coat, or more than one) and then a final matt varnish to knock down the gloss. This will not be an absolute shield from damage, of course (it's just thin coats of clear paint, basically) but it will protect the miniature more than NOT varnishing it.

I don't know of any good reason to use matt, then gloss, then matt again. The matt is a weaker coat than gloss, and loses it's matt finish when you cover it with gloss. If you want three coats, do gloss, gloss, matt.

Finished models need to be handled, packed and transported with reasonable care. No amount of varnish will protect against abuse.

The floor polish (Minwax) stained varnish is often used t give instant shading. Called "magic dip" by historicals palyers.

The other well know floor polish is Kleer, which is used by aeromodellers to give clear cockpit canopies a really stunning look. It is self levelling and not thick when dried.

One layer of gloss or floor polish followed by a layer of matt varnish should be enough to give normal protection.

Absolutely OK.

in fact, it is absolutely necessary for applying decals and then removing the texture and line around the detail.

You have to apply a matte primer to the model to keep the decal from softening the paint underneath it (to allow easier positioning of the decal without pulling the paint off underneath it).

Then you apply a gloss primer to "hide" the decal. The gloss primer "rolls off" the decal, leaving the gloss primer the same thickness as the decal over the surface of the model, and forming an invisible seam at the intersection of the decal and model (so you cannot see the edges of the decal).

And then you hit it with matte again to make everything look "natural" again.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OH! . . .

As has been pointed out, gloss is a tougher cover than it matte.

So, you CAN when applying decals, do a gloss, gloss, matte (apply gloss, apply decals, apply gloss to seal decals, apply matte to reduce the gloss).

In fact, this makes it even easier to position decals, as the decals are easier to move around on a gloss surface than on a matte.

AND. . . If you wish to protect the model better, and the decals, then do a gloss, decal, gloss, gloss, matte.

Also, when doing an airbrushed pattern on a model (that required a stencil), if you apply several coats of gloss after removing the stencil, and then lightly sanding the gloss coats to remove the edge on the stenciled pattern, and then a matte coat over it, you can get airbrushed patterns that do not look like they have a lip around them, which can sometimes be a problem with airbrushed stenciled patterns.

MB

3 coats of varnish is fine. I'll often airbrush the colours on my model, varnish, do details, varnish either gloss or matte and apply oil/enamel washes (the varnish protects from the stronger solvents) then locally gloss varnish areas where decals are going, apply decals and varnish gloss to blend the decals before varnishing a matte to take away the shine.

Not sure why you'd bother going matte -> gloss -> matte unless there was a step between the first matte and the gloss that required the miniature to be matte.

Da Butcha wrote:

 DorianGray wrote:
Considering the time it takes to paint up your minis I'm paranoid about protecting your miniatures.

I've used the super duper thick wood floor varnish before and I understand this is the best option if you want an impenetrable coat of varnish BUT i've notices it really dulls the colour and makes it look mucky.

So I've resorted to using the normal varnishes (the spray varnish/purity seal) and the paint on gloss varnish from Vallejo - however these don't protect as well.

Can I do 3 coats of these to try and mimic the floor varnish and add extra layers of protection from hand oils and dust/chipping?

Thoughts?

The wood floor varnish isn't for protection (though it does act to protect your minis). That varnish is used to provide quick detail to the miniature, by settling into crevices and darkening them and changing the overall look of the model. If you use it, it needs to be as part of a plan to do so. You will want to paint with brighter colors and bolder highlights than normal before applying that varnish, and you need to make sure the tint of the varnish complements rather than conflicts with your miniatures. If you want bright Ultramarines with white highlights, then don't apply a brown wood varnish!

I assumed the OP meant the clear resin variety of floor wax/varnish/polish/future/kleer rather than the brown wood stain stuff.

BeAfraid wrote:
You have to apply a matte primer to the model to keep the decal from softening the paint underneath it (to allow easier positioning of the decal without pulling the paint off underneath it).

I've always applied decals over a gloss rather than a matte. I was under the impression that applying a decal over a matte is more likely to cause silvering.

 DorianGray wrote:
Whats the point of the varnish if they don't protect from chipping?

How do you prevent chipping or at least minimise it?

Varnish still protects against abrasion, as well as providing a sacrificial layer that keeps accumulated gunk from getting onto the actual paint surface (it'd still be a pain to strip and reapply, but at least that's an option). Chipping is less about hardness and more about adhesion. Models that get dropped and dinged are liable to chip because they flex, the underlying material deforms, or the adhesion was poor from the get-go. In any case, the comparatively brittle 'shell' of paint/varnish is unable to deform to the same degree, so instead of squishing in and springing back, it cracks.

Best practice to avoid chipping is to start with a perfectly clean surface, apply a good primer (with plenty of time to properly cure before further handling), paint and varnish as usual, then avoid abusing the finished model. Varnish will help minimize damage from 'everyday handling' sorts of wear and tear - rubbing from fingers during movement, storage in foam trays, etc. - but short of encasing the thing in a thick shell of robust resin, luck is about the only way to avoid chips if something tumbles off the table and lands on a hard floor.

 oadie wrote:

 DorianGray wrote:
Whats the point of the varnish if they don't protect from chipping?

How do you prevent chipping or at least minimise it?

Varnish still protects against abrasion, as well as providing a sacrificial layer that keeps accumulated gunk from getting onto the actual paint surface (it'd still be a pain to strip and reapply, but at least that's an option). Chipping is less about hardness and more about adhesion. Models that get dropped and dinged are liable to chip because they flex, the underlying material deforms, or the adhesion was poor from the get-go. In any case, the comparatively brittle 'shell' of paint/varnish is unable to deform to the same degree, so instead of squishing in and springing back, it cracks.

Best practice to avoid chipping is to start with a perfectly clean surface, apply a good primer (with plenty of time to properly cure before further handling), paint and varnish as usual, then avoid abusing the finished model. Varnish will help minimize damage from 'everyday handling' sorts of wear and tear - rubbing from fingers during movement, storage in foam trays, etc. - but short of encasing the thing in a thick shell of robust resin, luck is about the only way to avoid chips if something tumbles off the table and lands on a hard floor.

Has anyone ever scientifically tested paint chipping on varnished vs unvarnished models?

Because intuitively, I'd think having a coat of resin would have to protect against chipping. In my mind I'm thinking of it in terms of energy, as the model falls it has some amount of kinetic energy that when it hits the ground gets transferred to the model. When a chip occurs, 2 things happen, the paint lifts from the surface and the paint tears/deforms. So a chip occurs when enough energy is transferred to create a new surface between the paint and model and also tear the paint itself.

Having coats of varnish isn't going to increase the surface energy between the paint and surface, but surely it'd have to increase both the amount of energy the paint layers can absorb and also increase the energy required to tear the paint itself.

I imagine where adding varnish wouldn't help (or possibly make it worse) is if the mechanism for chipping is the underlying surface flexing to the point the paint pops off. You see this on cars which have been in an accident, where the metal folds the paint lifts off the surface away from the site of the actual impact, but I wouldn't have imagined this was the primary "chipping" mechanism when dropping a model on the floor.

But without actually testing it I'd just be guessing... that's just what I feel intuitively (which isn't always right!).

Skink - you also have to consider the elasticity of paints and varnishes. A layer of resin/varnish might increase the energy required for deformation (I would think by a negligible amount, unless seriously slathered on there), but result in more catastrophic failure once that threshold is exceeded, due to its rigidity. Think of it in terms of a pane of glass vs. a plexiglass/acrylic sheet: The glass is far more resistant to abrasion, but its comparatively low elasticity means it will shatter under impact, whereas the plexi will bend, spring back, and survive.

This is largely what I mean when I say "deformation" of a toppled model. It needn't be permanent, like a large ding or divot knocked into a metal miniature (picturing Terminator 2, now ) - a bit of temporary flexing would be far more common, at least with plastics. If you watch high-speed footage of common objects falling/hitting things, it's always surprising how much even seemingly rigid objects bend on impact, even if they spring back, afterward.

There is another way... which is what I use... ignore varnish entirely and paint the mini so that the last highlight colour is one straight from a pot and highlight where it is going to get whalloped and touch it up once in a year or so

 oadie wrote:
Skink - you also have to consider the elasticity of paints and varnishes.

Oh I'm definitely considering the elasticity. If the elastic modulus were infinite... the capacity to absorb energy would be zero since the energy absorbed is equal to the applied force multiplied by the deformation.

A layer of resin/varnish might increase the energy required for deformation (I would think by a negligible amount, unless seriously slathered on there), but result in more catastrophic failure once that threshold is exceeded, due to its rigidity. Think of it in terms of a pane of glass vs. a plexiglass/acrylic sheet: The glass is far more resistant to abrasion, but its comparatively low elasticity means it will shatter under impact, whereas the plexi will bend, spring back, and survive.

I did consider that (my 2nd last paragraph talks about exactly what you are talking about). If you force something to deflect a certain amount, it's capacity to not fail is dependant of its "strain to failure" rather than its "ultimate strength" or "toughness" (I put those words in quotations because I'm using their scientific definitions). That's why car paint will crack in an accident even when it wasn't at the site of the impact, the underlying metal folding causes the paint to strain beyond it's ultimate strain and fail. But even then, thickness can either help or hinder depending on the specific elasticity of the material we are talking about and the energy transfers occurring during the impact. Too many variables to say without testing.

However.... I do NOT think this is the dominant mechanism by which paint chips form on models when they are dropped. I think it's more likely that there is a large abrasion and energy absorption component, enough so that the surface energy of the paint itself and better energy absorption of a resin varnish will help even though surface energy between the paint and the plastic might not have changed.

I have a model right here that I don't care about, I can flex the sword back and forth and even when the paint fails (cracks) it doesn't lift from the surface, even when the underlying plastic fails I can't see anywhere that the paint has chipped (been lifted off the surface of the model) but rather it simply cracked and a chasm then opened where the underlying plastic also failed (note that this is a model that was painted several years ago, so the paint should be as brittle as brittle acrylic paint gets).

Honestly I don't think you can say unless someone's tested it. There are too many mechanisms to make any conclusive argument for theory. We have a whole building at my University dedicated to experimentation on the subject of how materials fail.... I wouldn't be so bold as to presume I know how something will work without having tested it myself or reading a peer reviewed journal article from someone who has

I'd certainly have my money on the varnished model surviving from paint chips when dropped more than the unvarnished one.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Honestly I don't think you can say unless someone's tested it.

Of course you can. Granted, it'll just be some random guy half way through his morning coffee and with only a rudimentary understanding of physics spitballing hypothesis based on anecdotal evidence. This is the internet, after all - when has that ever stopped someone?

 oadie wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Honestly I don't think you can say unless someone's tested it.

Of course you can. Granted, it'll just be some random guy half way through his morning coffee and with only a rudimentary understanding of physics spitballing hypothesis based on anecdotal evidence. This is the internet, after all - when has that ever stopped someone?

Well that's where I assumed the current theory of varnish not protecting models from chips when dropped came from Maybe someone one day dropped a model that was varnished and it chipped anyway so came up with some flawed physical explanation as to why varnish doesn't protect against chips

I played around a bit with some models I have that I don't care about, dropping them on a wooden flaw and noting the damage. The "chips" where paint is removed looks very much like abrasion damage (which varnish would help protect) rather than chips where a material has undergone brittle failure removing a chunk of material (which varnish probably wouldn't help). But then... while I am technically an engineer, I'm not a materials engineer, so I won't claim to be an expert on assessing damage