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.

 Godeth wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to put this review together Talys.

This is exactly what I logged on too look for today. As my painting is getting a lot better from when I started, I've been on the fence about what brush to buy next (having only ever used GW brushes), so this has been very helpful.

I think I’ll go for the ever popular S7’s and a few of the new GW brushes.

Consider these ~

http://www.rosemaryandco.com/watercolour-brushes/pure-kolinsky-sable/pure-kolinsky-pointed

I'm quite biased it would seem, I love R&C brushes!
But Id say a fair review of them is 95% as nice to use as a series 7 Winsor and Newton, but half the price (lower maybe)

 Minimachine wrote:
Funny that you should mention the old Citadel paint range Talys.

I painted with the super old range back in the 90s then the slightly less old range in the 2000s after returning to the hobby after a long absence (still own some of them in fact) and now just recently with the latest range.

The super old paints I liked the best. Not only were the pots themselves easier to use but the paints flowed much better, which was lucky since none of us had heard of additives back then. Now.. well I don't like the consistency of the new GW paints unless they are thinned with something and the new pot lids basically have a mind of their own.

I mention this because when you consider these changes to the Citadel brush range it starts to smell vaguely of cost-cutting on the part of GW.
I hear there are more companies making miniatures and wargames these days so perhaps increased competition has driven their profits down or material costs have risen, or relationships with some of their previous suppliers have soured. Its hard to know for sure and probably not much use in speculating either.

Still it is good to hear the Artificer brush is awesome. It does make sense that your best brush should be there for the most difficult jobs after all, perhaps they felt Kolinsky Sable wasn't required for most other tasks for the majority of customers.

Yeah!! I don't know, maybe it's nostalgia or something, but I miss the 80's/90's (super-old as you put it) paints too. I do like the P3 paint pots, and I'm quite certain they are cheaper to produce than the new GW line. I seem to recall that I loved a Platinum metallic paint from back then. When I think back and look at my miniatures from that period, I did not thin my paints at all and often painted out of the pot, yet didn't worry about brushstrokes and all that. I think somewhere in there, GW (and other miniature companies, to be fair) decided that miniature paints should generally be thicker, and thinned once decanted, rather than used out of the pot. I do concede that there are instances where thicker paints have advantages, and it's very hard to thicken a paint.

You know what's funny: GW often catches flak for the layer paints being too thin (as a "cost savings" measure, since there's less pigment), when this actually brings them closer to being able to be painted out of the pot. Also, I have just about all the additives we often talk about, but really, I think water works best and is the simplest most of the time.

I often wonder what the old paints would have been like with a wet palette

Going back to the brushes -- I too have thought that some of the changes were a cost-savings measure. But I don't know; having more SKUs increases costs (because you have to manufacturer and stock 15 brushes now...). I think it's really more "different" than "worse". In the specialty brushes (dry brushes, shade brushes, artificer brush) I think GW is doing quite well. Although there are some aspects of the old line I miss, I think it's a better lineup. I think in the basecoating department, the larger brushes and flat brushes are more appropriate to today's GW giant robot/vehicle model universe (because who ever basecoat a land raider with a basecoat brush...).

The layer brushes are a bit disappointing, but I may be overly harsh, as they are servicable, and the old layer brushes weren't exactly the best brushes in the world. But you can always wish for better right? About the whole kolinsky sable thing, I don't think they make a big difference on the basecoat part, even less so for those of us that airbrush dominant colors, but I'm going to try some of your sable flats and see how it goes


@Anfauglir -- Minimachine and I mean they really, really, REALLY old Citadel paints, not the ones that are the Coat d'Arms ones (the last generation). Back then, washes were called "Inks" by GW I think And they took forever to dry. HAPPY TIMES!!

Oh part of it is nostalgia for sure. Everything was always better when you were young, because even if it wasn't you were so malleable you bent yourself around it and made it work.

Also the standards you're willing to accept get higher over the years. I'd probably be horrified by some of the paint jobs I churned out back then, but my friends & I weren't comparing ourselves to professionals with decades of experience. The Internet has really changed everything in that regard, we're all competing on a global level even in our hobbies now and being the "best in your neighboorhood" doesn't mean what it used to.

As for the paints, I dug up a bunch of my "old" 2000s Citadel paints but most have dried out completely so I purchased 8 of the new range to try them out but haven't been massively impressed. My order for another 30 or so including all the Bases & Inks should be arriving any day but I'm starting to wonder if buying them wasn't a minor mistake.
I'll use them one way or another but have since decided it might've been better to bite the bullet and grab the entire Vallejo Game Air range, which I'll probably do anyway. Pre-thinned in eyedroppers rather than pots really strikes me as the way to go.
Eventually I may check out the P3 range for some of their more interesting colours and for the nostalgia trip. Which reminds me, why did GW change the really cool names all their paints used to have? Snot green, Blood red, Ultramarine blue, Boltgun metal, Rotting flesh.. they were iconic!

I wonder what the future of miniatures wargaming & painting will look like. Even back when I started out it wasn't a cheap hobby but now in the age of dirt cheap computers & videogames that can be downloaded for free -often legally- it is starting to look like something only the richer kids will be drawn to. Perhaps 3D Printing will make the minis themselves more affordable but paints & brushes still won't be cheap, at least not at GW prices.

 Talys wrote:


You know what's funny: GW often catches flak for the layer paints being too thin (as a "cost savings" measure, since there's less pigment), when this actually brings them closer to being able to be painted out of the pot. Also, I have just about all the additives we often talk about, but really, I think water works best and is the simplest most of the time.

I often wonder what the old paints would have been like with a wet palette

Going back to the brushes -- I too have thought that some of the changes were a cost-savings measure. But I don't know; having more SKUs increases costs (because you have to manufacturer and stock 15 brushes now...). I think it's really more "different" than "worse". In the specialty brushes (dry brushes, shade brushes, artificer brush) I think GW is doing quite well. Although there are some aspects of the old line I miss, I think it's a better lineup. I think in the basecoating department, the larger brushes and flat brushes are more appropriate to today's GW giant robot/vehicle model universe (because who ever basecoat a land raider with a basecoat brush...).

The layer brushes are a bit disappointing, but I may be overly harsh, as they are servicable, and the old layer brushes weren't exactly the best brushes in the world. But you can always wish for better right? About the whole kolinsky sable thing, I don't think they make a big difference on the basecoat part, even less so for those of us that airbrush dominant colors, but I'm going to try some of your sable flats and see how it goes

I think the new brushes are a response to the thicker paint ~ If you go to a fine art store, and shop the brushes, ones for acrylics, tend to be synthetic bristles.

The Kolinsky Sable that we all love so much, is for water colour mostly. I.e watery thin paints.

If you had artists heavy body acrylics (like butter) then you stand zero chance of making use of a kolinksy sable as the brush is just too soft to work the thick paint. Even soft body artists paints are a lot thicker than we're used to with hobby paints for models.

By offering synthetic brushes they support the straight out of the pot painting.
If one does not thin the paints, I couldnt recommend a kolinsky brush to them without also saying to get some flow aid and medium. otherwise theyd just be fighting the brush forever. - also a synthetic will last longer than a kolinsky sable with thick paints.


Edit ~ I cant imagine that the layer paints are watered down to save pennies.
Theyre not actually much thinner than the base paints as far as I can see. The difference is in the base medium of the paints ~ one is opaque one is semi transparent (no points for figuring out which way round it is) ~ you can DIY this effect using mediums and artist paints, Liquitex offer Ultra Matt (opaque) and regular matte (transaprent) mediums .

Talys, how would you compare these to the Army Painter brushes, if you have some?

@Da Stormlord -- Yeah, I have almost all of the Army Painter Brushes. The AP brushes are a bit of a mixed bag.

Basically, they have a set of "hobby" brushes that are crappy synthetic brushes and a "Wargamer" series of brushes that are sable (but not kolinsky) that are pretty decent.

The Wargamer brushes (Character, Regiment, etc.) are quite usable, in my opinion. They hold a decent point, have a reasonable handle, and hold quite a bit of paint. They are some non-kolinsky sable, and if you're used to top-notch brushes, these will disappoint; if you're used to cheapie brushes, these will be very exciting. IMO, they are roughly equivalent (maybe a little better than) the old Citadel brushes. They're also not cheap, IIRC, but it's a while since I bought them.

Now, the hobby brushes are about as cheap and crappy a synthetic as I've seen them come. About the only thing I'd use them for is to basecoat metallic paint. The angled drybrush is a terrible drybrush, in my opinion -- it doesn't even come close to the oxhair Citadel brushes.

There are some tiny paintbrushes -- an insane detail, and a psycho brush -- that I think are cruddy brushes. They aren't even a fraction of the usefulness of the Artificer brush (but they do cost a lot less) -- and I would argue they are far less useful than a much bigger kolinsky sable brush for crazy detail painting. The problem is, they don't hold much paint, so by the time your brush moves from the palette to the model, it's dried up. So to compensate, you have to over-load the brush, which total defeats the purpose of a small brush.

If you were to pick the best of both worlds, I would use the AP Wargamer Round brushes (the natural hair ones) instead of the layer and glaze brushes from Citadel. Oh yes, one other thing: I use the Army Painter Regiment brush as my go-to wash/glaze brush that is one size down from the Citadel one, which is quite large

---

One thing I forgot to give some attention to earlier is the Citadel Medium basecoat brush. This brush is a filbert, and is pretty cool. When it has paint on it, it actually forms a sort-of point, as you can see in the picture below. It has pretty good control, and leaves paint brushstroke free.

I have no idea how it will wear with time. Usually, with brushes like these (I love them), the tips curl after just light use, and they are still usable, but nowhere near as nice. Here is a photo:



Just a beginner's tip -- what you see on that second picture is the maximum amount of paint you want on a brush, no more. If you put more paint than that on a brush, when the brush hits a surface, it will leave more paint in some areas and less in others, which is not ideal on miniatures. Also, if you keep it to about that much paint, you won't get any in the ferrule, meaning that the brush will clean better and last a LOT longer.

Ok. Thanks for your reply, I've been using a hybrid of AP and citadel brushes so far, I might get full citadel brushes apart from layer.