Home Racing World

Technically, of course, no. But to your subjective, aesthetic eye, are some models too shiny for their own good? What about chrome? The vacuum-metalized parts we're all familiar with look nearly identical to the real thing, but on a small model it can look a bit overpowering. (In my worthless opinion.) Slot racers probably don't care as much about this kind of thing as do static model builders, but I just wondered what y'all's thoughts are.

Oh yes, sometimes they can be too shiny. I have seen some cars with enough clear on them that they look like they are under coffee table glass :) Little excessive for me.

In fact, on most of my Sportsman/Sockers I paint the chrome with Testors or Duplicolor silver. Looks better to me. Likely because thats what I used on my 1:1 hammer back in the day :D

As with most things...personal preference.

Yes, absolutely. This is one of my pet peeves, models that look like they have a scale 1/4" of gloss coat on them. I don't usually mess w/knocking down the gloss on slot cars because that usually happens naturally with play. Any diecasts I use for scenery though get dullcote, and I'll also knock down the chrome by giving it a flat black wash.

No doubt it does.

I think there are several things at play and the possibilities are many. One is obvious. Your selection of clear top coat, from matte to high gloss, and points between; is where one decides the "tone of clarity" (for lack of a better expression).

The viscosity and manner with which material is delivered can make a huge difference in the finished appearance. Meaning you mix your own and adjust the liquid to air ratio, and or the pressure. (airbrush)

The base color and tone can affect the outcome, most especially the quality of the liquid film your clearing over . Metallics can really eat up a lot of clear, where as a bright single stage monochrome can be easily tipped over the edge. Flat or matte colors under clear can instill the appearance of depth

The quantity applied in a said manner can really change what you started with. Are we simply protecting what would be the natural finish of a project, or are we trying to polish the apple.

More later.

In the decades I have struggled and slowly learned about model paints, I have had a number of adventures with this issue. I finally settled on a few hard and fast rules.
-too much gloss looks artificial on anything.
-too little (various levels of dullcoat) looks like it came from a junkyard, which is useful sometimes.
-satin finish is good for fabric, like convertible tops, upholstry, etc.
-the best all-around finish for nearly everything is Future, hand rubbed to slightly dull it.
-NEVER put any kind of clearcoat on gold or silver, use car wax (got that one from Harry).

The actual thickness of the clearcoat certainly has scale, and it's pretty easy to know when there's too much. I was asking more about the "appearance of glossiness", however that's defined, and whether a small model should have a bit less of it than a full-size car to look right. If so, why does our eye/brain perceive it that way? We could easily begin splitting meaningless hairs, but I just didn't think it's been discussed here.

This is a good post.

I remember reading in a Special Issue Revell or Tamiya magazine that covered model painting in the '70s. They gave a good explanation that Gloss kind of does have scale also Gerald Wingrove on his model cars often comments in his books. If I ever find the magazine buried in my stuff I will scan the article.

I agree gloss / satin, the latter has a certain quality look.

I also think the polishing/gloss has gone a bit over the top. Regarding older cars, they didn't shine much if at all. One of the FB sites I follow is insane with the polishing and yes, the paint looks yards deep but thats just not my cup of tea in the least but I can appreciate the effort. I like the matte finish personally.

^^^^ I love the weathering along with the matte finish ^^^^

Does gloss have scale? Absolutely!! If you talk to any of the airplane model builders from the IPMS, they will likely present you with a soliloquy on how your model is equivalent to being 30 feet away from the real thing and the air adds blueing as well... but those guys are crazy.

Val

It does - in my eyes it looks too toylike. That's the main reason I wash my figures I'm doing and only go with matte paints.

I was hoping DogsBody would chime in. I've seen a few of his matte paint jobs and they are FANTASTIC!

Yes & no IMO, if your doing up a representation of a vintage racer say pre 1980, I think a matt or dull coat is appropriate. But, if it is later, sponsors required more flamboyant and back at ya results for the wow factor. Myself, couldn't care one way or another, its shiny, and for protection of decals and finish.

:lol: You guys go from one extreme to another. 1st it's too glossy and now its a matte finish. While the matte finish looks great it is not correct either. That's just a matter of taste. Even the older beat up cars had some shine beneath all those dents and dirt.
Dave