Minis scale and rating

Taban

New member
Hi guys !
I would like to draw your attention on the fact that big minis get the best marks on this site.
Look at the inquisitor scale models, the forge world busts and showcase minis or comics collector ones like those painted by Philippe :
they are 10 to 30 cm tall !!!
I don\'t mean that their painters aren\'t talented for they are among the best,
I just think that it\'s easier to get perfect blending and ultra realistic feeling with such giant minis than with tiny 25 mm ones ;)
Perhaps it would be more fair to make a top 10 and a top artist list for each scale.
(25-28mm, inquisitor size, collector and showcase
 

Mahon

New member
I have the same impression - the bigger the mini the better score it gets. There are some exceptions to this rule, but generally the best scores go to: =][= minis, busts, large scale minis, and often Rackham minis. - most of those mentioned are large scale minis.

I\'m kinda partial in this matter. If we are to judge if the mini is cool or not - then OK. Those bigger minis are simply more interesting, detailed anmd better painted.

But if we are to jugde our job, skills or imagination - then there should be some difference between those large minis and small scale ones.

One will never do such things with a 25 mm mini as with 12 cm one. And on the pic trhey may seem the same size...

At the beginning I used to give a point less to large scale minis, but some time later got lost in my scale.

There should be something done about it...
Or shouldn\'t it??
 

Aschul

Member
I made a rule that I wouldn\'t give a bust a very high rating, I mean, come on, it\'s not even a mini at all! With other models, unfortunately, it\'s quite hard to tell what scale they are from the photos...some of the best painters can make them 28mm figures look several inches tall, thanks to the wonders of digital photography ;)
 

keshley

New member
Add new category - will that be a solution?

Hmmm.. maybe we can ask Chern Ann to add another category ie. Size, Manufacturer, etc. and then make the Top 10 for each scale ie. 10 - 15mm, 25 - 30mm and 54mm - above?:idea:

what do you think?
 

ZaPhOd

Super Moderator
Size matters

I agree whole heartedly. Naturally, I have only 25 to 28mm figures, most of which are older GW or Ral Partha. I have some monsters but they are the same scale. I have one dragon but it is also that scale and I am limited by scanning images :(
I think it is a good idea to have a \"busts\" or at least \"inquisitor\" or \"model\" scale categories. I try to do detailed work on tiny *miniatures* but it can\'t compare to these gargantuan scaled *miniatures*.
 

Mahon

New member
I wholeheartedly agree!:D

This would make rating easier, but still while rating on the main page you would get a mix of all the minis (and \"maxis\"
;) )
 

Catachan

New member
Thats a very good point Taban, Forge World Models do get high ratings. :rolleyes: I agree that it should have a seperate category.
 

Bent Brush

New member
If you don\'t like it then either don\'t vote on it or vote your reaction.

This is a site that allows every one to post and rate to their taste.

So what if their big. Most GW 25 mm (28 heroic what ever) Character Models are big enough to be classified up there with this group.

Hell get a look at the top 50. No busts no Forgeworld no 30 centemeter models.

Besides Large models are harder to paint well. There is more area to cover and screw up.

If you don\'t like it vote low... but if you do then vote where you would like to see it.
 

keshley

New member
Big fig or not big fig that\'s a question

Bent Brush, it\'s true that it\'s harder to paint well on larger fig because it really shows how bad/good your blending is.

I think what these people are trying to say is it\'s easier to put a lot of cool details in larger figs. Try painting/drawing runes in very detail/fine quality in 25mm compare with the 54 mm. It will take more effort and longer time. And usually people vote higher on a high detailed fig, which unfortunately most of them are large figs.

Moreover, I don\'t really like people vote large fig lower than small fig. It will be annoying, especially when your bust is actually a golden demon quality paintjob, won\'t it be? Like you said, the effort to paint well on both scales are the same, but I think smaller fig should get more credit on detailing. That\'s why I think with separate category - ie. top 10 on large fig will make everybody happy :)

PS. Not trying to start a war here and not intending to pun anybody either ... Peace :innocent:
 

Aschul

Member
Originally posted by Bent BrushSo what if their big. Most GW 25 mm (28 heroic what ever) Character Models are big enough to be classified up there with this group.

Hell get a look at the top 50. No busts no Forgeworld no 30 centemeter models.

I think you\'re mistaken. Currently, the #10 model in the top 10 is a ForgeWorld bust.

I don\'t understand your comment about \"GW character models\" being big enough to be \"up there\". A GW 28 mm \"character model\" is no bigger than a regular GW model.
 

blackfly

New member
I think there are some good points in here, but also alot of misconceptions perhaps as well.

I dont think that as a rule, bigger figures get better scores. I havent made an extensive canvasing of all the Inquisitor/Forgeworld etc pieces, but dont recall seeing alot of them in my browsing that arent actually quite well done.

Sure, there is more space to go to town, but the important thing to note, imho, is that people /do/ go to town. And that may be what gets them good scores. I think there is a natural instinct, as one\'s talent progresses, to expand their repetoire. Couple that with the fact that Inquisitor, Forgeworld, & Rackham are all much more newly available than say a 25mm TSR Elf, or 28mm Space Marine; Not to mention the fact that sculpting and production standards have been on a steeply inclined rising curve for the last few years.

If you\'ve been painting for years, which most if not all of the high ranked artists, much less the rest of us, likely have, of course they are going to want to try out some of these new figures! And, since they have all these years of talent, they are going to do it up impressively.

I realize the tendancy to wonder and conjecture about the voting and ranking here, but I think most members can take into account /all/ the factors in judging a model- including scale, when judging quality work. A poorly executed scheme is not going ot benefit from a bigger figure. I dont care how good the sculpt is, skill and talent are evident in the approach, touch, and finish of a piece.

I\'m not trying to be snotty or pick on anyone who feels otherwsie, not in the least. The one reaason I really LOVE CMON, is the fact that it is a calm, fun, friendly environment for people with a shared interest. I think our common love for miniatures and painting far out weighs any concerns about the legitimacy of the votes and ranking. Just take a wander to USENET, or even yahoo groups (which are better than USENET by far, but getting rough too) to see communities that have degenerated into spam, backbiting, flaming and noise.

I didnt mean to soapbox here, and perhaps I have a bit, but I finally let loose with a little of my thoughts i\'ve had on this subject for a long time. I dont think people worrying about voting is bad. The self determination allowed by CMONs format is one of its strengths. . .

On the other hand, I would urge people to consider, that by and large we\'re a pretty well informed group of people, obsessive to some degree or another about our hobby, and that most of us are pretty good judges of our peers. If you\'re worrying alot about your scores (and again, I\'m not picking on anyone individually here) maybe its time to give CMON a break for a few hours, and go play a game, or paint, and remember what got you here in the first place: having fun.

and a brief assesment of the calls for categories: personally I think a scale category for browsing would be neat, but uneccesary for the rankings. Thats just me, see my rationale above, but I think the Top X#\'s are pretty accurate, regardless of scale.

Thanks to everyone who participates in this site for making it what it is- which is something I love.

-blackfly
 

Bent Brush

New member
Originally posted by Aschul
Originally posted by Bent BrushSo what if their big. Most GW 25 mm (28 heroic what ever) Character Models are big enough to be classified up there with this group.

Hell get a look at the top 50. No busts no Forgeworld no 30 centemeter models.

I think you\'re mistaken. Currently, the #10 model in the top 10 is a ForgeWorld bust.

I don\'t understand your comment about \"GW character models\" being big enough to be \"up there\". A GW 28 mm \"character model\" is no bigger than a regular GW model.

No I believe you are mistaken. Click on the top Artists. Currently a Bretonian Standard bearer is in 10th place.

And shure take a look at the Orion Fig # 25 or the Eldar guy the head of wich is on an inquisitor size model and it looks really close to that size.

So yeah they sound 28 mm to me.
 

Taban

New member
Peace man peace !!!!

Sorry if this subject seems to be upsetting, I just wanted to give my opinion -perhaps I am right... or wrong...:duh:
By the way I\'ll soon post an inquisitor scale conversion, so I\'ll see if my own big minis are cooler than my \"small\" ones lol

Let\'s be friends let\'s paint minis !!!!
 

Coyote

New member
I say that there should be a scale catagory, just like there\'s a Sci-Fi and historical catagory.

However, anyone who complains about bigger minis getting better scores needs to think about why they\'re so worried.

Generally, you\'re worried about someone doing better then you without being better then you. This is wrong, wrong for this site, and the wrong reason to paint (to be better then someone else)

Larger minis are more challenging in many ways, and are not easy to do.

Those that are acting like puritans need to stop. This whole \"Large scale models are NOT miniatures\" crap is just that, crap.

Miniatures are miniatures. If they are smaller then the prototype (that is modeler speak for what the model is supposed to be) then they are a miniature.

Just because YOU paint 25mm, doesn\'t make it the only scale worth painting, or the only scale that takes skill.

So, to recap: Yeah sure, scale is just as much a category, like manufacturer and genre. Go ahead an make a category for that.

However, don\'t go thinking that you\'re so superior because you paint a certain scale.
 

Aschul

Member
Originally posted by Coyote
Miniatures are miniatures. If they are smaller then the prototype (that is modeler speak for what the model is supposed to be) then they are a miniature.

This is actually a really good point. I\'m glad someone came up with a reason why larger scale models could be considered \"miniatures.\"

I definitely do agree that larger scale models are harder to paint; just that they\'re harder in a different way.
We never had a working definition of \"mini\" or \"miniature\" anyway, so it seems a bit silly to argue what qualifies as one and what doesn\'t. I was simply under the impression that it referred to models that are about 25-30 mm scale.
 

ZaPhOd

Super Moderator
Miniatures

Yes, silly me too. I take back what I said. I am going to get working on my 1:35 scale Tamiya Panther tank miniature so that I can add it to the historical category!

I guess being a gamer from like 20 years ago, minis to me mean the little chunks of lead you knock over on the battle map when you roll a 20. I guess not. Oh well. Enough said from me :p
 

Rene le Bon

New member
There is truth in what you\'re saying. I think everyone developes their own criteria for judging minis on this sight, this cannot help but include some internal biases. For my part, I factor in size of the model when rating them. I\'m definitely a bit more stingy when it comes to the really big models. Even the Rackam models are quite large, and thus offer easier opportunities for detail.
On a related note, I\'ve just about scored my 1000th miniature on this sight and have a few observations: There seems to be a correlation between choice of miniatures and score (of course that is inevitable). Rackam models (all things being equal) seem to score about .5 to 1 pt higher. Female models as well. That said, a female Rackam model, \'unconverted\', seems to do about a point higher that a equally well painted model of anther type. Rackam stuff is quite nice(though admittadly not my cup of tea overall). If one notices, the scuplting style of these miniatures are designed, it seems to me, to almost be painted in a certain style. All the baroque details break up large surface areas and facilitate easier blending. The larger scale ot the models too add to the ease of detailing. They\'re still beautiful models, the unfortunate side effect is that, they all begin to look alike even with a top shelf paint job.

Thes are just my humble observations.

:)

Rene
 
Back To Top
Top