Good sculpts OR good paint-jobs...?
Where do you lot stand on this one... Two units on the tabletop. Say, for the sake of argument, ACW infantry. One unit are Perry figures; unquestionably nice sculpts. They're very basically painted in block colours only, not well finished (flash & mould-lines still present) stuck on some card and flocked. The other unit are Irregular; basic sculpts to say the least. BUT - they're very well-painted with full shading & highlighting, well-finished, and mounted on textured scenic bases. Which do you think look better on the tabletop? Which would you feel happier about fielding? Which would you subjectively feel were the 'better' figures? (Oh, and don't come rahnd 'ere insisting on both outstanding sculpts AND impressive paintwork, right? We dont want your sort muddying the waters, fauntleroy.) CHOOSE!

paint jobs.

Poor sculpts can be rescued to a degree by great painting. On the other hand great sculpts can be ruined by rubbish painting. To an extreme, slap a load of gloss enamel over a Perry with a size 3 brush and its going to look rubbish IMHO.

Paint jobs. I've used 15mm Donningtons for my Celtiberians and they are fairly basic sculpts but they paint up really well. Especially if you look at the ones on their display stands at shows. Andy

Painting, you only have to look at the standard AB drags irregular upto.

A paint job can sometimes hide the make of the figure, which will immediately remove any prejudice. However, knowing the make of the figure can never hide a poor paint job.

Oi, I like Irregular Miniatures, some are a bit hit and miss, but dare I say it, so are some of the Perry brothers work. Am I the only one in the world that doesn't actually like the ACW plastic infantry? Too many compromises made in the design of them.

:shock: Burn the heretic! :) I also don't mind Irregular that much either. Some of their larger scale ranges are actually fairly decent, especially for the price. Anyway, as to the original question - a good paintjob can hide a multitude of sins.

Right then, let's see what that stirred up... Oh. Okay.... everybody thinks the same as I do on this. I've seen figures described as 'nice miniatures' and had to bite my tongue to stop myself saying; 'No, they're nice SCULPTS. They'd be nice miniatures if you put a bit of work in.' Sorry if I offended any Irregular fans by using them as an example, BTW... got some meself, & I'm very happy with it.

Decent painting definitely can turn a sow's ear into a silk purse & a poor paint job can do the opposite. Another vote for Irregular BTW - I've got a few of their figures & they scrub up pretty well. And their animals vary from good to excellent IMHO.

Paint job. Irregular's not that bad, but I'd rather have Perries! And no range is perfect, the value for Perries is the same as all plastics, you can do a beefy army of rank and file then flesh it out with better sculpts in the front rank and as heros. I do the same with Old Glory, putting Foundry and others in the front and as command stands since they're more expensive.

Paint jobs every time. The Perry plastic ACW are rubbish, to be blunt. The only good figures from the two boxes, infantry and cavalry, in my humble opinion, are the horses. I am now buying the cavalry boxes and throwing the riders away, except for the useful arms, and just using the mounts. By the way, the arms in the infantry set have come in useful for replacing metal arms on the foundry ACW. The Napoleonics look a bit better, but they are Napoleonics so not my cup of tea. Jon Suth will recall Gary Chalk's original Rennaissance armies, which were mainly Minifigs, they were so well painted that we didn't recognise the manufacturer at first. Likewise Hinchliffe figs which were ok come alive with a good paint job, but like many of you, I have seen some excellently sculpted figures look like the worst dross ever because of poor painting. Timmos post on the plastic ancients is a good example. The paintwork there is superb, absolutely transformed those figures into something beautiful. Timmo makes another good point, Perry sculpts are hard to paint, I like the twins style, most of the time, but painting them can be a real arseache. Dixon figures are a good case in point, they are weird looking, esp. his ACW, and yet they paint up a treat and really look special. Redoubt ACW are also little gems, nice and crisp and paint up real good. Calpe Prussians, not the most sculpted of figures when seen unpainted, but in the hands of a good painter a real joy. As Jon knows I am not the biggest Old Glory fan in the world, but his job on the mutiny figures has made me love 'em. Although I did love their old ACW range. In the end, if you like 'em and are happy with your work, does it matter what anybody else thinks?

Paint job unless of course sculpts are absolute pants, which is desperately rare these days I have some irreg Pony wars Injuns and I like them

As someone who can't paint beyond basic block painting I would rather have good sculpts badly painted than bad sculpts badly painted. However, as I am only really interested in old figures I think my definition of a good sculpt would be very different from most others' here. Clive