The One Ring
http://test.one-ring.co.uk/

Finecast - not so bad after all?
http://test.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=27847		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Burroughs [ Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Finecast - not so bad after all?
Everyone seems to be complaining about finecast, however my experience has been excellent. I honestly prefer finecast to metal.

I have had

Finecast galadriel
2 finecast witch kings - messed up first one
2 finecast saurons - messed up first one
Finecast thranduil
Finecast troll cheiftan
Finecast high elves

And only the second Sauron was miscast, it had a small miscast in the middle of tit's face. Customer services was super helpful and a replacement is already on the way. All the other models were flawless!

Does anyone else prefer finecast?
Author:  Coenus Scaldingus [ Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Finecast - not so bad after all?
I honestly think there are plenty of topics on this subject already, several of which are pretty recent. More fitting for general discussion too, as this contains neither valuable news nor rumours.

And no, I think honey would make for a better material - just as useless to make models from, but at least you can eat it. Granted, you can eat both, but honey tastes better.
Author:  JamesR [ Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Finecast - not so bad after all?
And if you heat said honey till it crystallized then it would be less messy as well lol
Author:  Bilbo [ Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Finecast - not so bad after all?
Just a minute, you find a failure rate of 5 models in eight acceptable?
(assuming the head from a 3rd Sauron model is fine!) Also the time involved in exchanging models is massively frustrating and wasteful! Imagine if it was a car, or franlky any other product that I can think of?
Author:  VandalCabbage [ Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Finecast - not so bad after all?
The thing is finecast defects get reported often but few bother to mention it when they turn out alright. From what I hear, significant improvements have been made compared to a few years ago. Anyway, GW usually handles defects with their excellent costumer service; it could be much, much worse.

Anytime this subject comes up, people with bad finecast experiences make their opinion known, which is fine, but those who don't mind it rarely speak out so sometimes a misleading picture is drawn.
Author:  Burroughs [ Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Finecast - not so bad after all?
Bilbo wrote:
Just a minute, you find a failure rate of 5 models in eight acceptable?
(assuming the head from a 3rd Sauron model is fine!) Also the time involved in exchanging models is massively frustrating and wasteful! Imagine if it was a car, or franlky any other product that I can think of?


For the witch I ing and sauron I meant to say I messed them up no problems with casting. :)
Author:  Dead Marsh Spectre [ Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Finecast - not so bad after all?
We do have quite a few finecast threads already but this one has a positive feel about it so far so i'll leave it here. This is one of those threads where if you haven't got anything good to say.... don't say it!! Use one of the other threads dedicated to discussing finecast and its defects.

Finecast defect thread viewtopic.php?f=30&t=22426

If this thread descends into chaos it will be locked.

I have had some good experiences with finecast lately - i painted Gil-Galad and Elrond , both finecast and both flawless sculpts. I wouldn't say I prefer the material over metal but can't complain about the quality of those particular sculpts.
Author:  Thorin [ Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Finecast - not so bad after all?
I, for one, have had most pleasing experiences with FC. It is easier to paint (or, at least, was, when I was a wimpy beginner, as for now I also really like the "feeling" of a metal miniature).
I've had only those with sharp details, the biggest miscast I have experienced was my brother's still unassembled Sauron's crown. It wasn't even a miscast, you could just not find out what was supposed o be glued to his head without further investigation ;)
Author:  JamesR [ Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Finecast - not so bad after all?
I do like the ease of painting Fine-cast although sometimes you get that one that just wants to sponge it all up.

I'm always a little concerned with the fragility of FC, namely with my heroes, but as I have said before my Hobbit FC purchases have all been spot on (pre-Hobbit I had MAJOR errors on 15 of my 19 FC models). I do like the ease with which you can convert it. That's the biggest plus in my book for it.
Author:  DomyHill [ Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Finecast - not so bad after all?
In my opinion plastic > finecast > metal. I really don't like painting metal, I never have. I don't know what it is but I just find metal models more difficult to paint. However, I actually prefer painting finecast to both metal and plastic. I have had a few minor problems with finecast, particularly with some of the first miniatures they made with finecast but nothing so bad it was worth replacing them. Overall I think Finecast has gotten a lot better with the Hobbit miniatures, waiting for my Elrond to come :D, and I really think the detail you get with Finecast miniatures is fantastic! The only reason I prefer plastic is because it's slightly less fragile and doesn't deform so easily. Hopefully when 3D printing improves GW will be able to knock out perfect miniatures every time for next to nothing.
Author:  JamesR [ Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Finecast - not so bad after all?
DomyHill wrote:
I I don't know what it is but I just find metal models more difficult to paint.


Do you wash and prime the metals before painting them? Its an absolute must, once you do they're quite easy to paint.
Author:  Barnsley Burglar [ Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Finecast - not so bad after all?
As most people have said, the older finecast wasn't great - I bought a Gandalf at the end of 2012 with a crater in his face :/

Grabbed a new Gandalf (the DoS one) at the weekend and it looks flawless. Can't wait to paint it!
Author:  rigg1313 [ Tue Feb 11, 2014 5:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Finecast - not so bad after all?
Simply put
Lotr era finecast 3/10 rating
The Hobbit era finecast 9/10 rating
Massive improvement! Still bloody expensive though haha
Author:  SuicidalMarsbar [ Tue Feb 11, 2014 8:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Finecast - not so bad after all?
I like everything about finecast bar the price and always have. The lightness and 'rubber' like element make it more resilient and easy to transport.
Author:  MeatBoy1994 [ Tue Feb 11, 2014 11:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Finecast - not so bad after all?
''In the middle of tit's face''

Tee hee.
Author:  Oldman Willow [ Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Finecast - not so bad after all?
The fine cast issue is a "dead horse" whipping it is useless. Miscast are a very small part of the problems with fine cast. I am glad you are happy with it.
Author:  Lord Hurin [ Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Finecast - not so bad after all?
Older "Fine"cast was pretty horrible. I was one of those affected by the Great Beast fiasco - twice!

The Hobbit line has been pretty good though so far. My Bolg was awesome and Fimbul seems flawless as well (though I haven't painted him yet...) As opposed to my Groblog, who I converted and am painting and only then found a few small flaws.

One thing I will say is that converting isn't nearly the chore it was on metal minis. I chopped Groblog's legs off and replaced them with metal Goblin legs so he's standing rather than clinging to a pillar. It was much easier hacking through Groblog than it was to butcher the poor Goblin leg donor! Same thing with a FC Blackshield I picked up; I convert all the spearmen to have hand weapons. The FC one was much, much easier to do. The metal one literally cost me blood, sweat and tears as I gouged my thumb quite deeply. The end result isn't as nice either, as the FC version looks like the spear was never even there. Painting them both side-by-side though, I do prefer painting metal still.
Author:  KathaariaRandall [ Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Finecast - not so bad after all?
I'd add here that one's opinion of Finecast depends also on their standards of cleaning up and assembling a model. There will be those who miss out on small air bubbles and such that the eagle eyed might recognise straight off. In my own experience Ive found that finecast has been easier for larger models whereas metal has been easier for smaller man sized miniatures. Of course at the end of the day plastic > everything else :)
Author:  Oldman Willow [ Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Finecast - not so bad after all?
Lord Hurin wrote:
Older "Fine"cast was pretty horrible. I was one of those affected by the Great Beast fiasco - twice!
.......the FC version looks like the spear was never even there. Painting them both side-by-side though, I do prefer painting metal still.


I am interested in Why?
I always paint over primmer. I don't understand why there is a difference at all.
Author:  Lord Hurin [ Tue Feb 11, 2014 4:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Finecast - not so bad after all?
Oldman Willow wrote:
I am interested in Why?
I always paint over primmer. I don't understand why there is a difference at all.


There's just something gritty about the surface of "Fine"Cast that I don't like painting on. Whereas metal and plastic are both nice and smooth, the FC has an odd texture to it.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/