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.

Vallejo always aimed for quality painters/display models and historical wargames with the more recent Game Colours aimed at boardgames/fantasy wargames
their good reputation mainly comes from the re-creation of historical colours rather than the quality of the paint itself (as most always claim that Citadel it the highest quality possible anyway if they come from the wargaming side while those that come from the scale model side the only important thing is that the colours are historical accurate)

while Army Painter always aimed at "get it done fast" wargaming part
be it dipping, washes, inks as their main line up and those are good (and I have used their coloured inks in a way some people use Contrast now)

I haven't bought any of their newer warpaints so if they changed them, it is bad as the old ones were good (comparable to the Game Colours) while for the Speed Paints, I just have the Brown, White and Green and those work for me


Overall comparing AP and Vallejo is tricky, as they are usually not used for the same thing (you won't paint WW2 scale models with AP, while not doing D&D models with Model Colours) outside being a cheap alternative to GW

and both need adjustment to your painting techniques
like the criticism for Vallejo black surface primer, were I had no problem with it after adapting to it (usually people go with air first on the airbrush but this causes the prime to dry up in the nozzle)

but I am also one who does not buy sets but the specific colour for my needs and use like 5 different brands and have different ones depending on my needs and the model I paint (like I won't paint a tank with the same colour I paint terrain and use different ones for speed than for display)

so I hardly understand the hate for a specific brand anyway

 kodos wrote:
Vallejo always aimed for quality painters/display models and historical wargames with the more recent Game Colours aimed at boardgames/fantasy wargames
their good reputation mainly comes from the re-creation of historical colours rather than the quality of the paint itself (as most always claim that Citadel it the highest quality possible anyway if they come from the wargaming side while those that come from the scale model side the only important thing is that the colours are historical accurate)

I find Vallejo actually sucks for historical accuracy, so I'm not sure where you got that idea. They sell historical paints, yes, but accuracy, not so much. Often on scale modelling forums, people will post comparisons of common colours used on historical vehicles/infantry, and Vallejo is so often miles away from either the source materials or every other company's interpretation.

I also wouldn't say Citadel is the highest possible quality. I'd say Citadel trades blows with the other top brands, depending on what colour you're wanting it might be better or worse. Vallejo Model Colour draws me in for having a great range of desaturated colours with great coverage, the Game Colour range I find pretty comparable to most of Citadel's range. Vallejo's Metal Colour is probably the best brush on TMM without the headache of being an alcohol, enamel, or lacquer offering from some of the other companies.

In Squidmar's comparison video, Vallejo ended on top of the pile (but maybe there was some bias there) followed by Reaper, AK and then Citadel (with the caveat that they scored Golden higher, but knocked it out earlier due to the versus system they used to grade them).

In my experience AK beats all other dropper bottle paints just on being the only one not separating like crazy and requiring a vortex mixer to function. Before we even get into it having the best coverage.

 Azazelx wrote:

 legionaires wrote:

With Goobs being a chemist, I have high hopes for a good reformulate. As for it being influencers, who else would folks want? Juan has tied his anchor to Vallejo, we don't know if there are contracts in place. I would have liked to have seen Stahly but I don't make the business decisions.
Hopefully review bottles will be sent out to the most critical voices.

Goober isn't on staff, and I doubt he'd be involved in any way with creating or modifying their formulation. Or even knowing exactly what it is, because proprietary information.

I had enjoyed Goober's stuff and his reaction to Contrast when it first came out was fair: "this is pretty good, but it's really overpriced, here's how to make your own much cheaper"

Now I hate the idea of calling people "paid shills" and such, 90% of the time it's complete nonsense, they just like different things, but his video when AP Speedpaint came out really made me question some things.

"Speedpaints Review: I'm Never Buying Contrast Paint Again. Army Painter Speedpaint is Good!" - which is weird, because I thought he wasn't buying Contrast in the first place, as he was mixing his own. And yes, it's a quid cheaper but it's still expensive. But there's literally no mention of his previous video on mixing your own stuff. Certainly not a link. Definitely no comparison and talk about the comparative costs - which was the entirety of his video on Contrast. Instead it just gets compared in price to Contrast. Which again: weird, because he'd told us not to buy Contrast, as we could make it ourselves for really cheap.

My only explanation is that more was at play than that just being a completely independent video. Why would you not mention your previous, very popular video on the topic if not?

Citadel being the top and everything else being just a cheap alternative that trades quality for price, comes from those were painters learned painting with GW in the past
there are communities were even saying that Vallejo or AK is equal in quality to Citadel gets you a shitstorm or ban

for the historical parts, but at least here and in the painting communities I am around Vallejo has their reputation for a good product because of their WW2 sets (there are a lot of discussions on which "Dunkelgelb" is actually the true one and the only source are outdated industry colour codes, but this is a very different rabbit hole)


my go to for Washes is Army Painter, and for everything else, it depends

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
... historical accuracy...

That's a bit of an oxymoron, especially when it comes to exact colors.

 Ghaz wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
... historical accuracy...

That's a bit of an oxymoron, especially when it comes to exact colors.

A lot of colours used on military vehicles in the past 100 years are documented, not all, but many of them, and even when there's not a case of them being documented there's often examples, reference photos that can be used for matching value (if not colour itself). Manufacturers then try and interpret that information into a colour that they sell to customers, and Vallejo (in my experience at least) consistently lies further away from reference materials and other manufacturers. So many times I've checked swatch charts and seen Vallejo being the odd one out compared to Humbrol, Testors, Tamiya, Gunze and so on. And when Vallejo is a good match, it's often not the colour they intended for that purpose

Of course there's some colours where there isn't a good idea of what the colour was originally, so in those cases I accept that everything is just a guess (for example, the guess of what early war IJN A6M aircraft looked like has changed over the years), but that's certainly not always the case.

From World War II on back "historical accuracy" is indeed an oxymoron when it comes to exact colors. When I played Flames of War back in the early 2000's there was a published author on the subject of World War II colors by the name of Mike Starmer who frequented the Battlefront forums and gave a lot of information. Between wartime shortages for the paints which dictated substitutions at the local level and well-meaning 'preservationists' who just used whatever color they thought looked "right" there really is no one right 'Dunkelgelb' or a lot of other colors.

> "Speedpaints Review: I'm Never Buying Contrast Paint Again. Army Painter Speedpaint is Good!" - which is weird, because I thought he wasn't buying Contrast in the first place, as he was mixing his own.

Yeah, that! Glad someone else noticed. Goober got as far as suggesting what to use to make your own contrast. I use Les' wash, which pretty much uses the same stuff. My signature has an actual recipe that someone on LeadAdventurers uses in place of contrast. I used ink and craft paint (similar to matte medium and ink) on top of white primer with good effect.

https://forum.reapermini.com/index.php?/topic/99656-so-instead-of-contrast-and-speedpaints-i-tried-a-drop-of-ink-and-craft-paint-and-this-is-what-happened/#comment-2078950

I rechecked my Vallejo paints, and they're Vallejo Model Air, Vallejo Game Air, and Vallejo Surface Primer. Bought 'em on sale. Colored air brush primers are sold in larger containers, so are less expensive per ounce than hobby paints, and, of course, they prime as well. Hobby paints I use less for basecoats than to detail a miniature, often using a kid's craft paint pot of a similar shade as a wet-palette and forcing me to use a color gradient.

 Ghaz wrote:
From World War II on back "historical accuracy" is indeed an oxymoron when it comes to exact colors. When I played Flames of War back in the early 2000's there was a published author on the subject of World War II colors by the name of Mike Starmer who frequented the Battlefront forums and gave a lot of information. Between wartime shortages for the paints which dictated substitutions at the local level and well-meaning 'preservationists' who just used whatever color they thought looked "right" there really is no one right 'Dunkelgelb' or a lot of other colors.

There's some colours from WW2 that either aren't well documented or as you mention they weren't consistently applied... but there is also a lot of information on many colours that were reasonably well defined, and even the colours that aren't well defined there may still be a lot of information to guide, and where there was variation it might be possible to track down factory differences vs field application, different time periods, etc etc.

There's also artistic interpretations of colours, and I think a lot of the time that comes into it, but in my experience Vallejo colours really aren't favoured in the scale model community for historical accuracy, which was what kodos mentioned. We could go off on a long discussion on it and we could start posting colour swatches but this is hardly the place or time Kodos was clearly making a statement that I disagreed with, if you want to argue that there's no such thing as historical accuracy in colours, okay, sure, that topic is a thesis in and of itself.

I guess that's the difference between a casual painter and a professional, because SpeedPaints has been find for me.

As far as I'm concerned, I think Juan over stated the problems with SpeedPaints especially if he was under contract with Vallejo. The whole thing comes off as a conflict of interest to me.

I've been using Army Painter exclusively since I stopped using craft paints from Walmart, and Army Painter has been amazing. I used the speed paints for one or two things, and they're fine, but I can understand the reactivation issue being too big for some. I will keep using them for minor things that I can't be bothered with, but they won't go on many main minis.

All the fuss about the quality of paints just reminds me that paints matter a lot less than people make it out to be. Even craft paints were fine, and my girlfriend's favorite paint job of mine was done using craft paints.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
In my experience AK beats all other dropper bottle paints just on being the only one not separating like crazy and requiring a vortex mixer to function. Before we even get into it having the best coverage.

I recently had the suitcase of doom bought for me as a gift, and I have to say, these AK paints are fething brilliant. Almost too good so I'm treating them like something to break out for special things than using them as workhorses like I probably should... though that suitcase is so nice, I just want to put them back inside it when I finish using each colour..

deano2099 wrote:

I had enjoyed Goober's stuff and his reaction to Contrast when it first came out was fair: "this is pretty good, but it's really overpriced, here's how to make your own much cheaper"

Now I hate the idea of calling people "paid shills" and such, 90% of the time it's complete nonsense, they just like different things, but his video when AP Speedpaint came out really made me question some things.

"Speedpaints Review: I'm Never Buying Contrast Paint Again. Army Painter Speedpaint is Good!" - which is weird, because I thought he wasn't buying Contrast in the first place, as he was mixing his own. And yes, it's a quid cheaper but it's still expensive. But there's literally no mention of his previous video on mixing your own stuff. Certainly not a link. Definitely no comparison and talk about the comparative costs - which was the entirety of his video on Contrast. Instead it just gets compared in price to Contrast. Which again: weird, because he'd told us not to buy Contrast, as we could make it ourselves for really cheap.

My only explanation is that more was at play than that just being a completely independent video. Why would you not mention your previous, very popular video on the topic if not?

That's certainly an interesting thing that you point out there. I watched both videos in their time but basically forgot abouit the first one by the time I watched the second, so I didn't draw the obvious dichotomy between the two. I mean, at this point in time I don't recall anything about either of them, so I guess it fits...

 kodos wrote:
Citadel being the top and everything else being just a cheap alternative that trades quality for price, comes from those were painters learned painting with GW in the past
there are communities were even saying that Vallejo or AK is equal in quality to Citadel gets you a shitstorm or ban

That seems a bit deranged. Can you name/link some of these places? I'd like to check them out.

for the historical parts, but at least here and in the painting communities I am around Vallejo has their reputation for a good product because of their WW2 sets (there are a lot of discussions on which "Dunkelgelb" is actually the true one and the only source are outdated industry colour codes, but this is a very different rabbit hole)
my go to for Washes is Army Painter, and for everything else, it depends

AP's Strong/Soft/Dark tones are my mainstays for those three colours, and I use their other colours a lot, but I do use citadel or any others depending on the exact colour or tone I want outside of my standard black and browns. Paintwise, I use a ton of colours, including the original AP ones (a small, shrinking stash of them that I still have left....)

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

There's some colours from WW2 that either aren't well documented or as you mention they weren't consistently applied... but there is also a lot of information on many colours that were reasonably well defined, and even the colours that aren't well defined there may still be a lot of information to guide, and where there was variation it might be possible to track down factory differences vs field application, different time periods, etc etc.

There's also artistic interpretations of colours, and I think a lot of the time that comes into it, but in my experience Vallejo colours really aren't favoured in the scale model community for historical accuracy, which was what kodos mentioned. We could go off on a long discussion on it and we could start posting colour swatches but this is hardly the place or time Kodos was clearly making a statement that I disagreed with, if you want to argue that there's no such thing as historical accuracy in colours, okay, sure, that topic is a thesis in and of itself.

Without getting into the minutia of the argument, I will just point out that exact paint swatches will vary from batch to batch even in modern peacetime, as opposed to mid-1940's under total war. We also know that paint on vehicles fades bleaches and weathers differently, as does cloth - and that even original uniforms from the era vary in tones depending on manufacture. exposure to light, and many other factors, so even single reference photos in what passed for colour back then are ...not definitive. - "What colour is Feldgrau, exactly?" is something I looked into several years ago, and the result was "I'm painting toy soldiers that just need to look at feel close enough to right because it's not a question with a simple answer."

So while I'm not claiming anything on the part of how exactly accurate vallejo's swatches are - because honestly, I'm not a Historian with an extensive knowledge of exact colours from the 1940's - For me, Vallejo fills in a bunch of "close enoughs" for 15mm and 28mm models, even if the exact name on the bottle isn't the same as the one in the official Vallejo painting guides.

 legionaires wrote:
I guess that's the difference between a casual painter and a professional, because SpeedPaints has been find for me.
As far as I'm concerned, I think Juan over stated the problems with SpeedPaints especially if he was under contract with Vallejo. The whole thing comes off as a conflict of interest to me.

I know several people who have used them and had nothing but issues with them reactivating. If a product has a replicatable issue for, say, even 30% of users, then it's a problem with the product. Also, Stahly's not under contract with anyone and he was the first to bring this up here, but you keep on throwing shade if you want to.

If they reactivate at all, then they're not a product I'm willing to use. If that's not a problem for you or others who like them, then more power to ya - enjoy by all means - but nobody gets to gaslight other people for whom reactivating paints is an issue.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I've been using Army Painter exclusively since I stopped using craft paints from Walmart, and Army Painter has been amazing. I used the speed paints for one or two things, and they're fine, but I can understand the reactivation issue being too big for some. I will keep using them for minor things that I can't be bothered with, but they won't go on many main minis.
All the fuss about the quality of paints just reminds me that paints matter a lot less than people make it out to be. Even craft paints were fine, and my girlfriend's favorite paint job of mine was done using craft paints.

Without wanting to be rude, it sounds like you've never used really good quality paints, so your opinion is limited by your ...limited experience of only using poor quality paints. I get it, though - I started with the Humbrol enamels that I inherited from my older brothers, and for a few years, when I needed new paint, I bought more Humbrol Enamels because the paints I used were Humbrol enamels and I was quite happy with the results I was getting - and some of them were pretty good - especially for the day.
Ninjon's sponsored-by-AP-video did indeed show that if you're willing to work with the properties of a paint, that you can still turn out quality work. I'd love to hear your opinions or experiences in a couple of years if you started using better quality paints like Vallejo/AK 3rd Gen/Citadel. Even P3, etc.

My recommendation would be to keep using what you're using as you appear to be quite happy with them, but when you want new colours or replacements, branch out to other brands and try them out. You'll probably be surprised at how well they can work for you, just like I was when I started branching out from Humbrol enamels. I'm not telling you that you're a bad or stupid person for enjoying your Army Painter paints or being proud of your work with Apple Barrel - I'm simply suggesting that branching out and using a variety of paints will do you better in the long run than being s Stan for any one company or paint manufacturer - because quality tools will make the hobby easier and more enjoyable for you than having to fight with your tools - as even Ninjon mentioned in that same sponsored video.

I'll never meet you IRL, I don't own shares in Vallejo or AK or GW, it won't affect me what you buy or use, so take it from a place ot simple advice from one hobbyist to another that trying new paints will only be a good thing.

Off the top of my head, I've got and actively use products from Army Painter, Citadel, P3, AK3rd Gen, Pro Acryl, 6+ sub-brands of Vallejo, GSW, Kromlech, Derivan, Liquitex, Windsor & Newton, Daler Rowney, Tamiya, Woodland Scenics and probably several others that escape me. Every company wants to be the one-stop-shop, but you'll get the best results from using the best tools for each job - or at least a quality tool for each job.

I've heard that Army Painter's Air range is good, but I'm too gun-shy to buy the sets after my experiences with the standard paints' massive set I bought and the Speedpaints debacle - we'll call it trust issues - and I can't get the individual paints for a reasonable price to even just try a couple.

 Azazelx wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
In my experience AK beats all other dropper bottle paints just on being the only one not separating like crazy and requiring a vortex mixer to function. Before we even get into it having the best coverage.

I recently had the suitcase of doom bought for me as a gift, and I have to say, these AK paints are fething brilliant. Almost too good so I'm treating them like something to break out for special things than using them as workhorses like I probably should... though that suitcase is so nice, I just want to put them back inside it when I finish using each colour..

They're not any more expensive than other brands, so go ahead and use them for everything

But yea they're "the good stuff" to me too. It helps that even the cap is superior and easily distinguishable in a mixed rack.

 legionaires wrote:
I guess that's the difference between a casual painter and a professional, because SpeedPaints has been find for me.

As far as I'm concerned, I think Juan over stated the problems with SpeedPaints especially if he was under contract with Vallejo. The whole thing comes off as a conflict of interest to me.

While that's possible, Juan has stated earlier in this thread IIRC that he has found the new Warpaint Air line from AP to be excellent.

I'm not a fan of Dana or Goob, but I do watch all of Ninjon's videos. All three of them generally try not to "bite the hand that feeds" by being critical. The worst I've seen from Jon or Scott (Miniac) is them railing against the GW Lore, but then bend over when GW comes calling with free product.

I know that in the JH video about the new Xpress paints, he does complain about a couple of the colors and then later the lack of other colors. So even if he was involved in developing, and paid, he still directly complained about the product.

Personally, I put more stock in someone like Squidmar and have moved to using many of the ranges he's spoke well of.

 Azazelx wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I've been using Army Painter exclusively since I stopped using craft paints from Walmart, and Army Painter has been amazing. I used the speed paints for one or two things, and they're fine, but I can understand the reactivation issue being too big for some. I will keep using them for minor things that I can't be bothered with, but they won't go on many main minis.
All the fuss about the quality of paints just reminds me that paints matter a lot less than people make it out to be. Even craft paints were fine, and my girlfriend's favorite paint job of mine was done using craft paints.

Without wanting to be rude, it sounds like you've never used really good quality paints, so your opinion is limited by your ...limited experience of only using poor quality paints. I get it, though - I started with the Humbrol enamels that I inherited from my older brothers, and for a few years, when I needed new paint, I bought more Humbrol Enamels because the paints I used were Humbrol enamels and I was quite happy with the results I was getting - and some of them were pretty good - especially for the day.
Ninjon's sponsored-by-AP-video did indeed show that if you're willing to work with the properties of a paint, that you can still turn out quality work. I'd love to hear your opinions or experiences in a couple of years if you started using better quality paints like Vallejo/AK 3rd Gen/Citadel. Even P3, etc.

My recommendation would be to keep using what you're using as you appear to be quite happy with them, but when you want new colours or replacements, branch out to other brands and try them out. You'll probably be surprised at how well they can work for you, just like I was when I started branching out from Humbrol enamels. I'm not telling you that you're a bad or stupid person for enjoying your Army Painter paints or being proud of your work with Apple Barrel - I'm simply suggesting that branching out and using a variety of paints will do you better in the long run than being s Stan for any one company or paint manufacturer - because quality tools will make the hobby easier and more enjoyable for you than having to fight with your tools - as even Ninjon mentioned in that same sponsored video.

I'll never meet you IRL, I don't own shares in Vallejo or AK or GW, it won't affect me what you buy or use, so take it from a place ot simple advice from one hobbyist to another that trying new paints will only be a good thing.

Off the top of my head, I've got and actively use products from Army Painter, Citadel, P3, AK3rd Gen, Pro Acryl, 6+ sub-brands of Vallejo, GSW, Kromlech, Derivan, Liquitex, Windsor & Newton, Daler Rowney, Tamiya, Woodland Scenics and probably several others that escape me. Every company wants to be the one-stop-shop, but you'll get the best results from using the best tools for each job - or at least a quality tool for each job.

I've heard that Army Painter's Air range is good, but I'm too gun-shy to buy the sets after my experiences with the standard paints' massive set I bought and the Speedpaints debacle - we'll call it trust issues - and I can't get the individual paints for a reasonable price to even just try a couple.

I think this was the least rude you could have been, so don't apologize for being rude. I understand that paints have strengths and weaknesses, I've watched a lot of high quality painting videos. I probably should have said that I don't intend on being particularly high quality. But, I might try some Games Workshop paints or Vallejo. Probably Vallejo, due to price. But my Army Painter stuff was all a gift, so I probably won't switch for a while. My main goal for painting is for stuff to look good enough, and be put on the table, with some minis getting extra work, like my Avatar and Nourkias for Infinity. Maybe I'll pick up some higher quality stuff for characters like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Midwinter Minis is my favorite painting guy, as his speedpaint videos are what helped me figure out how I want to paint.

I think I’m the target market for Speedpaints, as I treat painting the way I treated Little League: something I don’t want to do but have to look like I’m trying so I don’t get yelled at.

About half of the speedpaints in the box did what I wanted. One layer, done, looks decent. The other half look flat like any other paints, but cost more and reactivate if highlighted, so not as good.

Most of the paints I own are Vallejo, Army Painter, Reaper and Turbodork, depending on the color needed. For washes, I use almost exclusively Army Painter. The last Citadel paints I bought dried out before I could use them, so I can’t compare on quality.

> I probably should have said that I don't intend on being particularly high quality. But, I might try some Games Workshop paints or Vallejo. Probably Vallejo, due to price. But my Army Painter stuff was all a gift, so I probably won't switch for a while.

Good points there. FREE IS GOODEST But often, on painting forums, it's difficult to tell if advice is from the POV of a display-level painter, vs. a gamer one. I've pretty much bought all my paints on some sort of discount: Reaper's paint sets on KS, airbrush paints from a USA Airbrush Supply sale, or a single bottle I was shopping for from the FLGS or OLGS. And I pretty much use craft paints for terrain. I also find that different paint ranges from different companies, as well as non-hobby paints and inks, allows me to have a range of consistencies and even containers. Maybe I'll need a paint that sticks to the brush for a raised surface. Maybe I'll need a thin paint for the recesses. Maybe I'll use the kid's craft paint jar because it acts like a wet palette and forces me to use more than one shade.

 Azazelx wrote:

 legionaires wrote:
I guess that's the difference between a casual painter and a professional, because SpeedPaints has been fine for me.
As far as I'm concerned, I think Juan over stated the problems with SpeedPaints especially if he was under contract with Vallejo. The whole thing comes off as a conflict of interest to me.

I know several people who have used them and had nothing but issues with them reactivating. If a product has a replicatable issue for, say, even 30% of users, then it's a problem with the product. Also, Stahly's not under contract with anyone and he was the first to bring this up here, but you keep on throwing shade if you want to.

If they reactivate at all, then they're not a product I'm willing to use. If that's not a problem for you or others who like them, then more power to ya - enjoy by all means - but nobody gets to gaslight other people for whom reactivating paints is an issue.

To me, Stahly had a much more even hand in his criticism. And I never said folks couldn't have problems. But I totally get refusing to use a product. AK is a never use brand in my household.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

I think this was the least rude you could have been, so don't apologize for being rude. I understand that paints have strengths and weaknesses, I've watched a lot of high quality painting videos. I probably should have said that I don't intend on being particularly high quality. But, I might try some Games Workshop paints or Vallejo. Probably Vallejo, due to price. But my Army Painter stuff was all a gift, so I probably won't switch for a while. My main goal for painting is for stuff to look good enough, and be put on the table, with some minis getting extra work, like my Avatar and Nourkias for Infinity. Maybe I'll pick up some higher quality stuff for characters like that.

Also, Midwinter Minis is my favorite painting guy, as his speedpaint videos are what helped me figure out how I want to paint.

All good, mate. The thing about better quality paints isn't about you wanting to be a l33t painter, but more that they're just nicer to use, and so your work will likely improve as a result of less fricton between you and what you're trying to do. Like.. think about when you've gotten a new PC or console or phone and thought ...ahh.. this is nice compared to the old one. That kind of thing. Like I said, don't stress about switching brands, but just look to others when you buy new paints as supplemental or replacement colours. If you're just buying one or two paints, don't even stress on the dollar or two difference between brands - try a bunch. (though avoid Citadel's whites and Yellows and their metallics that don't have the white pot lids) I mean, just ask people on here or feel free to send me a PM or post a comment over on my blog for advice on a good (insert colourt name/type) for (insert the thing being painted).

I mostly don't mind Midwinter. I didn't like him trying to palm off almost exactly Les Bursley's wash recipe as his own without even a nod to Les, so I lost a lot of respect for him at that point and have watched him a lot less since then.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/261541.page
https://web.archive.org/web/20161222105406/http://awesomepaintjob.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html

Also the way he came across in the "I painted the last old Squat" video when he said his mate brought them to him to show him the models and so then he decided to open and paint it - "I hope bob doesn't get upset" - may have been a joke - I'm honestly still not sure if he just took his mate's old, rare valuable, unopened, model and painted it without asking only to leave it in WHW so he could make money via attractive YT content - or if it was just a joke, but came across douchey either way.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

All the fuss about the quality of paints just reminds me that paints matter a lot less than people make it out to be. Even craft paints were fine, and my girlfriend's favorite paint job of mine was done using craft paints.

While you can get adequate results from cheap craft paints, they are just that - adequate.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your quality of paint assessment being less fuss than folks make it out to be.
Since switching paint lines to primarily AK Interactive, I have upped my painting game immensely.
And there is nothing else involved. Just by switching paint lines, I’ve managed to create much higher quality paint jobs than I ever have.
So while painting your gaming miniatures with craft paint is fine, if you just want colour on them.
But if you want to take things to a level of actual artistry, then a high quality paint is not an option.
And no, Citadel is definitely not the best stuff out there and Army Painter is even worse. Which is likely why they have to pay influencers like Goober, Ninjon and Dana Howl to push their products. Because on their own, as a material used for making art, they are close to bottom of the barrel.

That’s just my opinion as a contest-level painter, and you don’t have to like it or agree with it.

A more pertinent point is that you don't need to be a contest level painter to benefit immensely from better paints. In this context, Even Citadel is still miles above AP's current Warpaints.

@Azazelx
There are some reddit subs and one German forum (don't know if this still exists, as I leave such communities rather soon and don't look back)

Yeah, I am decidedly not contest-level; if I can get a decent tabletop paint job done, I'm happy.

Speedpaints would make that actively harder due to the reactivation issues.

Contrast make it a bit faster. Vallejo, Cote d'Armes, Reaper, Two Thin Coats, Instar, and Turbo Dork all make it a little easier, in various ways.

I can and do use cheap craft paint too, or even acrylic wall paint, but generally only if I have a large piece of terrain to paint, and/or if I want a very thick, detail-hiding layer of paint so as to save a bit of time by not having to sand down 3D printed terrain.

AP posted another video. I haven't bothered to watch it, it just came up on my feed. No offence to Goober, but I don't really want to spend 10 minutes watching a "Meet Goober" video. If someone does watch it, maybe let us know if there's any meaningful information in it





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azazelx wrote:
A more pertinent point is that you don't need to be a contest level painter to benefit immensely from better paints. In this context, Even Citadel is still miles above AP's current Warpaints.

I'd argue that good quality paints are more important to the table top standard painter than the display model painter. For a display model, I'm probably going to work on it for 20, 50, maybe 100 hours depending on the model anyway. I'm going to be spending a lot of time getting the colour where I want it anyway, so the "quality" of the paint is going to have a lesser impact on me.

But for tabletop standard models, I'm only wanting to spend maybe 45 minutes on a model, so a paint that (for example) requires an extra coat or over the course of a model requires me to on spend a few extra minutes on the palette trying to get it to behave right. Those minutes extended across 50 or 100 models is absolutely massive, not to mention mind numbingly painful.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
From World War II on back "historical accuracy" is indeed an oxymoron when it comes to exact colors. When I played Flames of War back in the early 2000's there was a published author on the subject of World War II colors by the name of Mike Starmer who frequented the Battlefront forums and gave a lot of information. Between wartime shortages for the paints which dictated substitutions at the local level and well-meaning 'preservationists' who just used whatever color they thought looked "right" there really is no one right 'Dunkelgelb' or a lot of other colors.

There's some colours from WW2 that either aren't well documented or as you mention they weren't consistently applied... but there is also a lot of information on many colours that were reasonably well defined, and even the colours that aren't well defined there may still be a lot of information to guide, and where there was variation it might be possible to track down factory differences vs field application, different time periods, etc etc.

There's also artistic interpretations of colours, and I think a lot of the time that comes into it, but in my experience Vallejo colours really aren't favoured in the scale model community for historical accuracy, which was what kodos mentioned. We could go off on a long discussion on it and we could start posting colour swatches but this is hardly the place or time Kodos was clearly making a statement that I disagreed with, if you want to argue that there's no such thing as historical accuracy in colours, okay, sure, that topic is a thesis in and of itself.

I find this particular discussion unfair, modern colours are easily identifiable, pre-modern colours less so, but that doesnt necessarily mean a drop in accuracy, but a broadening of possibility alongside a widening of colour palette for a single colour.

Let us take four examples an early Imperial Roman soldier, a Napoleonic wars French soldier, a WW1 German soldier and an IDF soldier from the 6 Day War.

The IDF soldier's uniform can be researched thoroughly. Contemporary colour photography exists, so you can research units, you can research data on colour palettes on historical IDF uniforms from active sources and you might be able to talk to veterans who wore said uniforms. There is little excuse for error.

The WW1 German uniform is a little harder, there are no living eye witnesses, but it still used modern dying methods, examples of the uniforms as likely still exist in good condition, but it is astill a modern age uniform made with modern production processes and standards. You may be able to research the exact dye used and replicate it or even source some.

The Napoleonic French uniform is harder still, There are existing uniforms but they are rare, and it is unlikely you will be able to get permission to do any destructive tests on any credible sample to find the exact dye used chemically. However that matters somewhat less as this used a per-modern dying method and production process, uniforms were hand dyed and the dye hand mixed, variation will occur. The reduced certainty of the colour palette doesn't result in reduced authenticity due to a widening of the historical definition of a Napoleonic French soldiers uniform colour.

The Roman soldiers red tunic and cloak are almost impossible to source, we know they were red and that is about it. We may or may not find an ancient text revealing which dye was imported for which purpose. We can also be certain that despite Rome being a cohesive society there would be fluctuations in production processes, and also resupply. Ancient peoples would have to redye their garments as a dye would dilute out and become patchy. Furthermore soldiers away from Rome may have to source local dyes. To compound matters further, though we know for most of the history of Rome the army had a uniform red, that red may have shifted over time. Did the legionaries of Augustus Caesar have the same red as the legionaries of Marius or Scipio Africanus. We have no way of knowing, and frankly neither would they.
the only thing we can say with any certainty is that in ancient times there were only so many ways to dye a garment red. Red came from madder, but there are other sources. We can reconstruct madder dye and the ancient colour palette relatively easily, and present a swatch of a red colour that would be available to Romans. But at what intensity would this dye be used, and how far would it fade when a soldier was on campaign.
There is reason to suggest a 'Roman red' colour miniatures paint which is defendable as an authentic colour for Roman legionaries, and authenticity will be impossible to guarantee but also to disprove.

Excellent points, and on top of that in regard to more modern uniforms and paint there's fading/bleaching due to the sun and general wear and tear as well as slight differences in batches of both paint and material which are even more pronounced in certain circumstances (total war, for example). And with that comes additional inconsistency with mixed batches in the same units.

 Orlanth wrote:

Spoiler:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
From World War II on back "historical accuracy" is indeed an oxymoron when it comes to exact colors. When I played Flames of War back in the early 2000's there was a published author on the subject of World War II colors by the name of Mike Starmer who frequented the Battlefront forums and gave a lot of information. Between wartime shortages for the paints which dictated substitutions at the local level and well-meaning 'preservationists' who just used whatever color they thought looked "right" there really is no one right 'Dunkelgelb' or a lot of other colors.

There's some colours from WW2 that either aren't well documented or as you mention they weren't consistently applied... but there is also a lot of information on many colours that were reasonably well defined, and even the colours that aren't well defined there may still be a lot of information to guide, and where there was variation it might be possible to track down factory differences vs field application, different time periods, etc etc.

There's also artistic interpretations of colours, and I think a lot of the time that comes into it, but in my experience Vallejo colours really aren't favoured in the scale model community for historical accuracy, which was what kodos mentioned. We could go off on a long discussion on it and we could start posting colour swatches but this is hardly the place or time Kodos was clearly making a statement that I disagreed with, if you want to argue that there's no such thing as historical accuracy in colours, okay, sure, that topic is a thesis in and of itself.

I find this particular discussion unfair, modern colours are easily identifiable, pre-modern colours less so, but that doesnt necessarily mean a drop in accuracy, but a broadening of possibility alongside a widening of colour palette for a single colour.

Let us take four examples an early Imperial Roman soldier, a Napoleonic wars French soldier, a WW1 German soldier and an IDF soldier from the 6 Day War.

The IDF soldier's uniform can be researched thoroughly. Contemporary colour photography exists, so you can research units, you can research data on colour palettes on historical IDF uniforms from active sources and you might be able to talk to veterans who wore said uniforms. There is little excuse for error.

The WW1 German uniform is a little harder, there are no living eye witnesses, but it still used modern dying methods, examples of the uniforms as likely still exist in good condition, but it is astill a modern age uniform made with modern production processes and standards. You may be able to research the exact dye used and replicate it or even source some.

The Napoleonic French uniform is harder still, There are existing uniforms but they are rare, and it is unlikely you will be able to get permission to do any destructive tests on any credible sample to find the exact dye used chemically. However that matters somewhat less as this used a per-modern dying method and production process, uniforms were hand dyed and the dye hand mixed, variation will occur. The reduced certainty of the colour palette doesn't result in reduced authenticity due to a widening of the historical definition of a Napoleonic French soldiers uniform colour.

The Roman soldiers red tunic and cloak are almost impossible to source, we know they were red and that is about it. We may or may not find an ancient text revealing which dye was imported for which purpose. We can also be certain that despite Rome being a cohesive society there would be fluctuations in production processes, and also resupply. Ancient peoples would have to redye their garments as a dye would dilute out and become patchy. Furthermore soldiers away from Rome may have to source local dyes. To compound matters further, though we know for most of the history of Rome the army had a uniform red, that red may have shifted over time. Did the legionaries of Augustus Caesar have the same red as the legionaries of Marius or Scipio Africanus. We have no way of knowing, and frankly neither would they.
the only thing we can say with any certainty is that in ancient times there were only so many ways to dye a garment red. Red came from madder, but there are other sources. We can reconstruct madder dye and the ancient colour palette relatively easily, and present a swatch of a red colour that would be available to Romans. But at what intensity would this dye be used, and how far would it fade when a soldier was on campaign.
There is reason to suggest a 'Roman red' colour miniatures paint which is defendable as an authentic colour for Roman legionaries, and authenticity will be impossible to guarantee but also to disprove.

My comments were (I thought obviously ) referring to colours where we either know for sure or have a good idea what they looked like, not so much colours from 150+ years ago.

For each colour you can probably find a pages long discussion on a historic modelling forum about what it looked like (either for sure, or estimations), what variations might have existed, what options are available from different paint manufacturers to represent that colour and even what mixes you might use to recreate that colour yourself!

The comment was simply made (paraphrased) that Vallejo created their good reputation from recreation of historical colours and the scale modelling side where the only important thing is that colours are "historically accurate".

That was the comment made, and I am simply stating my opinion, based on frequenting scale modelling forums, that, no, I don't think Vallejo are well loved for recreating historic colours, and that's IMO not how they became popular or gained their good reputation. We're talking about a community that will buy 5 different variations of a colour and mix another 5 before deciding on which 1 option they use to paint their 1 model

You could of course have a discussion on every single colour in their range and what it supposed to represent and what we know about that colour and blah blah blah I don't care, I was making a broad statement in opposition to another broad statement in a thread about a completely unrelated product line from a completely different manufacturer. I don't think Vallejo rose to prominence in the historic scale modelling scene on the back of their reproduction of historically accurate colours, which was the theory posited.