Friday, 24 October 2014

Foundry's forthcoming Kev Adams Beastmen...and some orcs

These have not yet been cast! I wanted to put this disclaimer in right at the start so (hopefully) nobody gets confused and calls Foundry to order a bunch because these have not yet been cast!

I called in on Wargames Foundry yesterday and took the opportunity to see the line of chaos beastmen that Kev Adams is starting to sculpt for Bryan. These will probably be released under the Warmonger Miniatures banner once the time is right, but I'm afraid I don't have information as to when this might be. Bryan is still pondering how to approach the release, and he may go the Kickstarter route; he hasn't decided yet. I don't think the name of the figures themselves is set in stone either: although they are clearly "beast men" they may yet end up with a different title.

Kev has sculpted a bunch of heads, and is now starting with some bodies. As you might expect from Kev the quality of the work is stunning, with bags of character and a "proper chaos" feel. Currently the heads are mainly of the "goat man" type (which he has executed brilliantly I'm sure you'll agree) but he assures me he will also be sculpting mutated beastmen, so there's a right mix to come - exciting stuff!

The idea is that these figures will come with separate heads that you can interchange across bodies. The following is an example of a work in progress with a random head attached but not fixed:

Here's what appears to be a female beastman (beastwoman?), but with an orc head attached:

Here are some more heads. There is a mutated one (centre top) and a sinister elephant head on the left. Also check out the head bottom right - very reminiscent of old Citadel Broo and scale-wise (it's a little smaller than the others) I think it would sit very well with the separate headed Broo box set that Citadel produced:

A close-up with that Broo-like head bottom of picture:

Some more close-ups:

Kev has also been working on some shield designs based on some concepts that Bryan came up with:

The different colours are actually different colours of modelling putty that Kev is working with. He's using standard greenstuff for the bulk of his figures but the coloured putty above is Sylmasta A+B Epoxy Putty. I had the pleasure of watching Kev work, sculpting some horns on a beastman's head, which was fascinating.

I'm not certain but I think some of the shields above are intended for the new orcs that Kev is producing for Warmonger Miniatures. Some of these orcs have been shown previously on other blogs but I'm sure you wouldn't mind seeing some more. Again, some of these are separate-head figures, which is why some of them look like their heads are perched on their necks - that's just Bryan and Kev messing around trying different heads on different bodies!

 There's LOADS more orcs than what you can see above. Kev has been working on lots of orc heads:

Excited? I am!

Wednesday, 1 October 2014

Bryan Ansell collection: Warlock of Firetop Mountain miniatures

Just a quickie from me today. Yesterday, James of the Realm of Chaos 80s blog posted the Metal Mayhem articles from the now defunct Warlock magazine. Within these articles could be seen the figures from the 1980s Warlock of Firetop Mountain range by Citadel. James posed the question as to whether the figures illustrated were the original plastics or metal counterparts.

Well, not only can I confirm they are plastic, but they now reside in Bryan Ansell's collection:

Nicely painted, I'm sure you will agree.

Thursday, 28 August 2014

Painty stuff: Adeptus Mechanicus (Bob Olley/Rogue Trader)

I've been collecting Citadel Miniatures for many years, but until recently I've been one of those stereotypical collectors who tends to stick new acquisitions in drawers to gather dust. It wasn't always so; until the late 80s I was a keen gamer, and over the past couple of years I've taken up that pursuit once more. One thing though that I've never really spent much time on is painting, which is a shame given the number of figures I now have. So I'm trying to do something about it. I've painted a handful of figures (most of which I haven't actually completed), but I'm now going to try in earnest to improve my painting.

There's a good chance that you share my love of the painted figures that appeared in the 'Eavy Metal pages of White Dwarf in the 1980s and early 1990s. Vivid colours and an imaginative approach to colour combination was the name of the game back then, and this is the approach that I'm trying to emulate. Here's one of the first steps on which I hope will be my road to that destination:

There were a couple of techniques I wanted to experiment with when painting this Rogue Trader era Bob Olley sculpted Adeptus Mechanicus: thinning paint, and glazing with inks.

Yes, I appreciate that you painty types who are reading this probably think I'm stating the obvious when it comes to thinning paints, but it's not something that I've formerly been fond of. This has been particularly true whenever I've used colours such as yellow and orange, and I've been of the belief that these pigments are already thin, so why thin more? Consequently I've ended up with rather thick and not too pleasing paint jobs. So on this occasion I was determined to give this thinning lark a go. The figure was undercoated white and the first thin coat of hobgoblin orange/red core (old Citadel paints) was applied. As I suspected it looked very thin, but I let it dry for a couple of minutes and perservered. About 4 or 5 thin coats in my mind was blown! I was so pleased with the result! Thinning subsequent highlight and shadow colour combinations made layering so much easier. My eyes have been opened!

I'm also a big convert to thinning with inks. I used Winsor & Newton or old Citadel inks on this figure, and glazed pretty much every part. The glazes really give depth to the colours and at the same time lift them and make them really vivid. Another conversion for me!

I have to be honest and say that once I'd painted the orange clothing - which I'm really happy with - I got a bit bored with the remainder of the figure, and painting the other parts was a bit of a chore. Ah well, I made it to the end at least.

So now I'm hooked, and I'm looking forward to sharing more painty stuff with you in future, and I genuinely would appreciate your feedback in how to improve my technique. One of my goals is that once I'm up-and-running and gaining in confidence, I'll be turning to painting my collection of unreleased figures.

Thursday, 21 August 2014

A spotter's guide to recasts and recasters

The issue of recasting and recasts is an emotive one in the collecting and gaming community and has on occasion led to people being falsely accused of being recasters. I have been collecting Citadel Miniatures for three decades, and I have often observed people make false assumptions on what constitutes a recast, and as a consequence are far too quick to declare a given figure a recast, and it's owner a recaster.

Recasting is, however, a valid subject for discussion, and let's face it - recasters are out there. The issue may be of particular concern for those new to the hobby who may be worried about a purchase or potential purchase. I thought, therefore, that it may help if I provided some examples of genuine castings that could be mistaken as recasts due to certain "signs" they exhibit. Please note that much of the advice in this post refers to early-period Citadel Miniatures, from the 1980s and early 1990s.

How to detect a recast? 

Unfortunately, it can be argued that no-one except for an official from GW could state without a shred of reasonable doubt that a figure is recast or not, and to be perfectly honest, I highly doubt if one of them would know either. The problem is that, these days, if someone is prepared to pay a professional mould maker to prepare the mould and to have the figures cast professionally in the right quality of metal, it would almost be impossible to tell them from the originals. But you have to ask yourself why someone would bother to do that. How prevalent are counterfeits, for example on eBay? Is it cost effective to do this? Realistically, recasting would not be an economic proposition unless you did it at very low cost and quality or in noticeably high volumes as the cost of making quality moulds and using quality metal would mean unit costs were at least as high as the current retail price. The chances of encountering a recast figure are probably quite small.

So, spotting a recast is not as easy as you or I might wish – despite the warnings issued by a certain major games corporation! Some recasting might seem pretty obvious - the figures have very poor detail, the colour is wrong, there are multiple mould lines and they have large lumps of sprue attached from where they were cast. Of course, you might not be able to prove that such a figure is a recast, but hey – would you even bother buying it in the first place if it looked that bad?

If you would like to buy a figure that you suspect is recast or you have received a suspect figure – what should you do? Firstly, a simple rule to follow is that if you don't like the look of something that someone is selling on eBay or anywhere else (for whatever reason) then don't buy it. If you buy something that you are not happy with then use eBay's systems to contact the seller and hopefully resolve the issue.

But what if there is something about the figure that is making you suspicious? Some alleged signs of a recast figure are as follows:

- The figure has multiple mould lines
- A seller sells multiples of an apparently rare figure
- The colour of the metal is wrong
- The figure is cast in the “wrong” metal
- Level of sharpness and detail/less than crisp casting
- The tabs of the figure are “wrong”
- The figure is a little smaller than other, supposedly identical, ones I’ve seen
- The figure looks a little different to other, supposedly identical, ones I’ve seen
- The figure doesn’t “sound” or “feel” right

Let’s examine these in turn.

The figure has multiple mould lines

…or even triple mould lines have been cited as the most likely evidence of a figure being a recast. Not so. Many collectors have received figures direct from GW (loose and in blister) displaying double or even triple mould lines. Double mould lines are not necessarily the sign of a recast. All genuine GW figures have the potential for double mould lines. This is why:

The old manufacturing process (green => master mould, master mould => master tins, master tins => production mould) means there is a chance of double mould lines if the master tins weren't cleaned up properly. When a figure is sculpted, a single 'master mould' is made from it. This master mould is cast several times (maybe up to 20, depending on the size of the figure). These 'master figures' are then used to make a 'production mould', from which new figures are cast and blister-packed. The master figures are generally kept so that new production moulds can be made when the old ones are worn out.

The step in the middle of this process is where the double mould lines can originate. If the master castings are not carefully cleaned of all casting lines before being used to make a production mould, the production figures are very likely to have double mould lines, as it is highly unlikely that even the best mould maker would position every one identically in the mould. Interestingly, this also means that castings of the same figure could easily have mould lines in slightly different positions.

Take a look at some of your castings sometime, especially older, pre-pewter stuff. You'll see that double mould lines are not uncommon, and certainly don't indicate forgeries.

Here are two examples of the "limited" LE101 Chaos Renegade in blister:

Note how the figure on the left has one prominent mould line, but the figure on the right has two. These figures were found in two different style blister packs, which suggests they may have been cast at different times - a possible reason for the differences in mould line number.

Multiple mould lines are not just restricted to general release figures. In fact, the presence of multiple mould lines is often taken as primary evidence for an unreleased figure being a recast. Take a look at the unreleased/unlisted chaos warrior below. (If you are wondering how it could be unreleased if it's in a blister then figures were occasionally distributed in labelled "preview packs" which subsequently did not see general release).

Double mould lines are in evidence here, with the top line being particularly prominent.

Here's that prominent mould line again, a possible example of slippage during moulding/casting.

A seller sells multiples of an apparently rare figure

Selling multiples of rarer figures is not a good guide either. Rarity is relative and while some figures seem rare because they don't turn up on eBay every week, that doesn't mean there are not hundreds around. For example, many members of the Collecting Citadel Miniatures group have bought bulk lots from ex-GW staff members that have included multiples of supposedly rare items.

This ruling doesn’t just apply to rare figures either. For example GW mail order used to have "bargain bucket sales." It was quite possible to end up with multiples of the same, relatively rare, figure.

It is possible to cite other seemingly suspicious buying and selling habits. For example, the observation that someone buys a relatively rare figure only to start selling it in multiples several weeks later might at first seem suspicious. Could it simply be that the seller was formally amassing figures for a particular project only to abandon it later for any number of reasons? The truth is it’s normally quite a time-consuming and involved process to build up a case for someone being a recaster based on their buying and selling habits – even by GW’s admission.

Take a look at the image below. I bought this lot from the son of an ex-GW staff member some months ago. Fifteen limited edition Rogue Trader Slocombe's Warbots still in blister; it came with a similar number that had already been taken out of their blisters. I will be ebaying many of these over time: I'll probably be fine with the blistered ones but once I start on the loose, wait for the accusations to fly!

The colour of the metal is wrong

The fact is that the genuine castings from GW are not universally the same in appearance. The same miniatures, new in blister, can range from a dull darkish pewter shade through to a very bright almost silver shade and just about everything in between. Early 1980's figures were particularly prone to colour variation, due to the varied composition of alloys used in casting (for example, the addition of bismuth tends to darken a figure). Take a look at the colour contrast between these two preslotta figures:

Some miniatures, again new in blister, can have brownish or yellowish tints and even slight pitting on the surface. And figures cast in USA can look different to the same figure cast in the UK. The two chaos thugs below were originally cast in 1987. Both have been removed from blister packs. The figure on the right is how you might expect the "correct" colour to be for a chaos thug of this vintage, and was obtained in one of the old red Realm of Chaos blister packs. The figure on the left looks very "wrong" and was obtained from a green blister pack produced in the USA. The USA figure was cast later, and it was not unusual for figures in the USA at that time to be of this colour.

Here's another example of discolouration. I dont know for sure if this figure was cast in the UK or USA but judging by the design of the blister pack I would guess it is UK cast:

It's not too obvious from the photograph but in reality the colour changes on this figure are quite marked. You can see how the ogre's left arm and weapon have the expected dull silver look, but the rest of the body has a brownish tint.

Further, if someone has gone to the trouble of doing a good job of stripping off old paint they have also, intentionally or not, cleaned up some of the oxidation which appears on the surface of an older casting, so quite an old mini can look almost new. Also, an “overly shiny” figure as seen in a photograph could simply be the result of bright light – obvious I know, but it’s surprising how off-putting a shiny figure can seem in a photograph. It could also, again, be the result of the casting process. Hare are two blistered examples of the SP101 Imperial Assassin:

Possibly not so easy to detect in this photo, but in reality the figure on the right is far shinier than the one on the left.

So colour variation is not a good guide to the authenticity of a figure.

The figure is cast in the “wrong” metal

One thing to bear in mind is that Games Workshop frequently have and do recast their own miniatures – these can be described as “official” recasts. This means for example that a figure that might have been originally released in lead alloy during the 1980’s could have later been recast in white metal by GW and sold via stores or mail order. There have even been accounts of preslotta figures being recast by GW in white metal. So you may well have a recast figure, but it would have been recast by GW. Purists might have a problem with this; whether you do or not is a personal issue.

The figure of Thrud above was "officially recast" by GW some years after its initial release, and sold in this "Citadel Legends" style of packaging. The "Fantasy Tribes" (a preslotta range) label hints that preslotta figures were also recast and sold in this way. Take a look at the two preslotta Broo below; the left figure was an original early 80s cast, while the figure on the right was cast in a different metal in the "Citadel Legends" range:

Also, parts that were previously commonly available in plastic might also have been recast by GW as metal parts. For example, before the new plastics came along there was a period where the plastic moulds for things like Imperial Guard arms had died. For a very short time the bodies were still available through mail order and they came with metal cast arms which were just the plastics recast in metal. Here are some offical metal castings of plastic arms:

The exception to the above of course would be to receive a figure from a current range of figures that has been cast in old lead alloy. GW haven’t used lead alloy to cast figures for many years, so if you receive a new figure cast in lead alloy then it will be an “unofficial” recast.

Level of sharpness and detail/less than crisp casting

Bear in mind that a badly cast figure could well be a miscast rather than a recast. What’s the difference? Well, quality control at the factory has varied over time and in different countries. In general, quality control was worse historically, and a few badly cast models would slip out (this is even mentioned in the early catalogues, compendia, journals). Poor quality control can lead to missing bits, badly cast bits and tarnished metal. It is not that unusual for a mint figure to have a casting flaw of a minor nature. Also remember that flashing and bits of metal left over from the casting process are perfectly normal and quite common.

Remember that Thrud miniature I mentioned earlier? Well here he is out of the bag:

Even at this distance it's pretty obvious that this is not the best of castings. But let's take a closer look:

That's a pretty rough mould line and level of flash running down the side of the figure. It gets worse if we take a top-down view:

How would you have felt if you had received this Thrud figure in the post?

Here's another example:

Both of the Citadel Star Trek Scotty figures above were pulled out of their original baggies. You can clearly see how the figure on the left is lacking detail, and has even lost much of his hair!

If you cast something you will lose some of the quality of the original green. Figures cast from that mould will have lost a bit of quality compared to the original green; if that figure is then used to make more moulds it will lose even more quality. This can be seen by placing it next to the original: detail such as facial features, chainmail, fur, wood grains etc are areas that might look “shallower” i.e. not as deep or clear cut as they maybe should.

Sometimes the metal surface quality of the miniature can set alarm bells ringing, particularly if there is "pitting" evident. Here's a couple of examples of blister pack figures that raise such an alarm:

An ogre with a badly pitted breastplate.

An Epic Eldar Titan with "dotting" of the surface.

The tabs of the figure are “wrong”

Tabs can vary across identical figures, with some bearing names and others being blank. Also, particularly for older figures, large pieces of metal can be left on the tabs or under the bases of preslotta figures simply as a result of the casting process.

The figure is a little smaller than other, supposedly identical, ones I’ve seen

Compare your figure with an identical figure (hopefully came out of packet). If yours is smaller, and also displays bad casting etc then it is possibly recast but not necessarily – judging the sizes of two identical figures can be quite subjective. Also, new moulds could be cast from figures multiple times leading to a reduction in figure size.

As per the Scotty figures mentioned earlier, the two Star Trek Betalgeusians above were pulled out of baggies, and there is a marked difference in size and general "chunkiness."

The figure looks a little different to other, supposedly identical, ones I’ve seen

The preslotta Citadel figures produced and distributed by the Canadian miniatures company RAFM used a different alloy mix and they can be much shinier. Usually RAFM figures are good castings, though. Note that RAFM/Citadel figures are genuine legally produced figures made from Citadel molds. Also, Ral Partha shared many figures with Citadel, with the resulting figures often being very similar but with minor differences.

The figure doesn’t “sound” or “feel” right

Some collectors believe that recasts have a certain “feel” and that they make a certain sound when dropped onto a hard surface that is different from a genuine figure. This is especially true of the older figures. This is highly subjective of course, and very difficult to quantify.

In conclusion: provenance – your best bet.

So, all in all it would appear that identifying a genuinely “unofficial” recast figure is pretty difficult. As has already been established, figures that display pretty major defects shouldn’t be purchased in the first place, or if they arrive as part of a large batch then you should be perfectly within your rights to ask for a refund.

Provenance is a good tool in the fight against recasts. Provenance is defined as “proof of authenticity or of past ownership.” Documented evidence of provenance for a figure can help to establish that it is not a forgery or a reproduction. Your most reliable test is the reputation of the trader and the provenance they can provide - but be prepared for some reluctance to disclose names as if someone has stuff from a former or present GW staff member that is not meant to be in the public domain, they are likely to want to protect their source from any comeback from GW.

At the end of the day, you are relying on the reputation of the seller. If in doubt it is not unreasonable to ask for the provenance of the figures - most good sellers will understand if you want to know and will happily provide you with any information they have. And if you are not happy with the provenance don't buy. And if you have already bought and have a reason to be concerned, for example because the quality is really bad, you could go back to the seller and ask for a refund.  Many sellers will refund if you have a serious concern as they value their reputation and do not, in any way, wish to be thought to be trading in recast items.

I welcome debate on this issue - what are your experiences?


Much of the information in this post was contributed by members of the  Collecting Citadel Miniatures (CCM) Yahoo group over the years. Many of the members are very experienced collectors of Citadel Miniatures, some of whom are current or ex-Games Workshop (GW) staff members. Their contributions are based on many years of collecting Citadel Miniatures.

Wednesday, 6 August 2014

Update on unreleased unseen Heroquest prototype figures (Bryan Ansell's collection)

Back in May I posted about some fascinating figures I found in Bryan Ansell's collection that appear to be unreleased and previously unseen Heroquest prototypes. Well I recently had the pleasure of discussing these figures with none other than Jes Goodwin, and he appears to have solved the mystery.

Firstly, Jes confirmed that of the seven mystery figures, he sculpted the following five:



He suspects that the remaining two were sculpted by the Perry twins:


Now, with regards to why these prototypes do not resemble the known prototypes, Jes' theory is as follows:

Jes seems to recall that the seven prototypes above were the very first prototypes created for Heroquest when the game was in development. He suspects that the two knight figures were dropped and didn't make it into the final game. The known Heroquest prototypes (seen here) were later created to be painted and used in the box art. So the known Heroquest prototypes are in fact a second incarnation of prototypes. The neat thing about this theory is that it explains why the known metal prototypes closely resemble the plastic production figures (for example, here), but most of these previously unseen prototypes do not!

Thanks Jes!

Friday, 1 August 2014

Have you ever seen a Sphincter Beast?

Well you have now:

Sculpted by Rick Priestley, who comments:

Ah - I think that's a Bouncing Vrubee (or some such) sculpted for Asgard back in the day - pre-dates RT by quite a few years - not sure if it was ever officially released though as it's not on the Stuff of Legends site.

This one is in Bryan Ansell's collection.

Go on, admit it - you NEED one of these...