Rackham vs GW
- Thread starter alexander
- Start date
From a pure technical stand point I do agree that Rackham is superior than GW.
This was more true when Rackham first came out. However GW has responded with better quality miniatures. Though their painting is still remains substandard.
Still, I tend to lean towards GW style what they offer is more traditional fantasy which is what I know and love.
BTW GW has never been the best miniatures manufacture, there has always been better sculpts GW has just always been better at marketing, which is what ultimately counts. And what I mean by marketing is packaging a product to the customer.
This was more true when Rackham first came out. However GW has responded with better quality miniatures. Though their painting is still remains substandard.
Still, I tend to lean towards GW style what they offer is more traditional fantasy which is what I know and love.
BTW GW has never been the best miniatures manufacture, there has always been better sculpts GW has just always been better at marketing, which is what ultimately counts. And what I mean by marketing is packaging a product to the customer.
I know that I\'ve had a few words against GW\'s painting, but one has to realise the target audience. Some of the pics they\'ve put out have indeed been sub-7, but I\'d have a hard time accusing them of \'substandard\' painting - not all their published minis are painted by the \'Eavy Metal team. The Rackham crew gets to paint each and every mini to the highest standard.
When it comes to GW\'s top-quality painting, let\'s not forget that some accused GW of photoshopping the preview pic of the giant. It turned out that it was painted by \'our\' >>Astonia<<.
A couple of years ago I would have agreed that Rackham beats GW hands down, as the older GW figs are just plain fugly. (please note that I play Warhammer and love the game!).
However, GW\'s new sculpts beat Rackham hands down for a combo of grace AND reality. (e.g. the new daemonettes, the Wood elves, etc.) Rackham poses are awfully strange (someone here once described the female Rackhams as \"looking like they\'re about to have a bowel movement\" lol), and the armor is usually pure fantasy, which just irritates the crap out of me. (by that I mean it wouldn\'t actually work in real life) But Rackham and GW both sculpt grossly oversized weapons.
Just my two cents worth!
However, GW\'s new sculpts beat Rackham hands down for a combo of grace AND reality. (e.g. the new daemonettes, the Wood elves, etc.) Rackham poses are awfully strange (someone here once described the female Rackhams as \"looking like they\'re about to have a bowel movement\" lol), and the armor is usually pure fantasy, which just irritates the crap out of me. (by that I mean it wouldn\'t actually work in real life) But Rackham and GW both sculpt grossly oversized weapons.
Just my two cents worth!
What modderrhu said. There are different \'Eavy Metal artists, and it depends what you mean by \"their\" painting. \'Eavy Metal or guys in the \"Masterclass\" section?
Here is a rather poor \'Eavy Metal mini, an CMON 6 perhaps:
But check out these by Astonia, Razza, Seb Perbet and Martin Footitt (if I remember correctly :duh: ), all \'Eavy Metal painters:
Awesome giant eh?
Look at the tattoo on his head, the S-shaped freehand covering all the shoulderpad, shield and tabard.... mastery.
That is scratchbuilt. Consistently poor painting? I don\'t think so.
Yet another masterpiece.
True, these may be some of GW\'s best painters, but you can\'t really dismiss the painting quality out of hand because of a few cruddy paintjobs. Often these guys work to an extremely tight schedule, having to paint a whole army in two weeks. Go to Warhamer World in Nottingham and you can look at the whole selection of \'Eavy Metal armies, and, believe me, they are not sub-standard.
Dark Seraphim
New member
OMG... that highelf blows me away! It looks as if he is shining! Awesome! <drool>
I agree totally with you Pengu Bill
I agree totally with you Pengu Bill
Absolutely, now that\'s clarity for ye! \'Eavy Metal is top class, but \'Masterclass\' is unfortunately a misnomer. \'Eavy Metal is their real showcase, whereas \'Masterclass\' is aimed at the gamer.
And gadzooks, but that high-elf is a very rare 10, in my book. Amazing stuff. :wow:
There is no doubt GW has the potential produce quality work, however the thread is who \"does\" produce the best quality. And my opnion is that Rackham currently does.
I personally belive GW chose to be the best they would it is just not cost effective so I don\'t expect them to be bumping up their painting quality any time soon.
@Pinguin The my comments where directed against the companies not the hobbiest. The stunning photos you displayed might have came out in White Dwarf, but they are not GW work, those wher all entries to GD compentition.
BTW great choise of picks the last two where aswome.
What our resident Avian Pescivore was showing with those pictures is the quality of the painting that members of the \'eavy metal team can produce. Awesome... plain and simple.
The High elf was scratch built by Martin for the GD. The painting is fantastic - I certainly wouldnt have wanted to choose between that and the 54mm Empire soldier that got the gold...
The High elf was scratch built by Martin for the GD. The painting is fantastic - I certainly wouldnt have wanted to choose between that and the 54mm Empire soldier that got the gold...
Thanks for the photos swordwind. As far as I can see, some of those Rackham minis are pretty damn well-painted,
simply in a different style to GW. And GW painters are capable of NMM:
Those are both by Razza, and check out Astonia\'s Gallery
If anything I think the GW \'Eavy Metal painting is better than Rackham\'s.
Here are a few more by Razza for the hell of it. man, he\'s cool :]
simply in a different style to GW. And GW painters are capable of NMM:
Those are both by Razza, and check out Astonia\'s Gallery
If anything I think the GW \'Eavy Metal painting is better than Rackham\'s.
Here are a few more by Razza for the hell of it. man, he\'s cool :]
green stuff
Active member
Nobody is saying that the \'Eavy Metal people can\'t paint, but there is one big difference between GW and Rackham paint standards IMHO : foot troopers.
Rackham foot troopers are painted almost to the same level as their characters, where as it\'s seldom the case for GW.
Rackham foot troopers are painted almost to the same level as their characters, where as it\'s seldom the case for GW.
there is some fantastic potential in the gw \'eavy metal team, unfortunately it never shows except in golden demon uk.
The painting quality of the new models gw puts out is generally very poor, and doesn\'t show any of the quality each of the painters posess.
Rackham models do show the level of their painters.
The painting quality of the new models gw puts out is generally very poor, and doesn\'t show any of the quality each of the painters posess.
Rackham models do show the level of their painters.
Orb
procrastinator
regardless of what\'s expected to be painted, and the size of studio armies etc, the Rackham average model is painted better than a GW average model, for the purposes of magazine/catalogue publication.
thats what the public sees and thats where opinions are formed.
The HM painters are superb, especially when you see what they do when NOT under pressure and painting for themselves. The stuff for WD etc is less impressive
thats what the public sees and thats where opinions are formed.
The HM painters are superb, especially when you see what they do when NOT under pressure and painting for themselves. The stuff for WD etc is less impressive
green stuff
Active member
@KingM : \"Rag\'narok\" is the equivalent of Warhammer Fantasy Battles, and they have full studio armies in there. They also used to do army deals with 50+ models; all were painted on the boxes.
