Editing GZG figs...

Having just got a mass of GHQ WWII Micronaut 1/2400 scale battleships,
Cls, and DDs, I have numerous extra turrets..I think my NSL force gets ADDED
DETAIL!!!!

BTW, why is it that the GHQ stuff is so incredibly, perfectly detailed and the
other genre houses have such a difficult time with it?

> BTW, why is it that the GHQ stuff is so incredibly, perfectly detailed

I'm sure that they're not going to be forthcoming with an answer... ;-)

> On Thu, 25 Jun 1998, Ground Zero Games wrote:

> This may or may not be right, but I've heard stories/rumours of GHQ

Well, it's done for plastics anyway -- I can't see why it couldn't be
done for lead if you're willing to cover the cost.

Personally, I find CinC castings to be of similar quality -- and price
:-(

> Yes, I'd agree, they are the best stuff around (though over here

Given the technical and angular nature of their subjects, I'd vote for
the pantograph -- plus very stringent quality control.

> BTW, why is it that the GHQ stuff is so incredibly, perfectly detailed

This may or may not be right, but I've heard stories/rumours of GHQ
using
some serious industrial pantographing kit to reduce over-size original
sculptures to microscale; if true, this could explain their phenomenal detail.
Yes, I'd agree, they are the best stuff around (though over here they are very
expensive compared to other microarmour ranges); it could simply be that
they've got the best sculptor(s) in the business, though if that was the case
they must be paying him a LOT to stop him being headhunted by other
companies....:)

Mike spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> BTW, why is it that the GHQ stuff is so incredibly, perfectly detailed

If you've ever seen GHQ microarmour, you'll know it smokes the competition.
The detail level they achieve on their WW2 panzers is amazing. It so far out
classes the products of Scotia and some of the other competitors you'd think
they weren't in the same business.

I assume they spend a lot on sculpting which probably has a lot to do with it.
Detail probably translates to harder to cast and harder to sculpt or slower
and more costly at least. That's why GHQ stuff ain't cheap.

OTOH, My OU SG2 figures are excellent quality so I can't fault the
manufacturer - they certainly have good detail and are nicely cast.
Excellent work I'd say, having seen a fair number of figs in my time.

Tom.

Over here, GHQ stuff is pretty much the same price as everything else. And
it's certainly cheaper than the cheesy GW stuff. CinC is even cheaper, and it
even comes in a reuseable plastic box!

The only "problem" with GHQ and CinC stuff is that the barrels, etc tend to
bend if you're not careful, and sometimes even if you are. However, they are
correctly proportioned...

CinC infantry is so thin that it can bend on the application of a paintbrush.
Cutting flash off can be a nightmare.

That said, my DSII armies are a mixture of GZG, CinC, GHQ, Ral Partha and
(excuse me), GW. Paint goes a long way to unify vastly different styles.

> Having just got a mass of GHQ WWII Micronaut 1/2400 scale battleships,

I don't know if it's true, but I've been told that
GHQ and CinC both use CNC (computer-numerical-controlled)
machines to make their molds. I would believe it, given the precision and fine
detail on their minis (especially CinC).

- Sam

> On Thu, 25 Jun 1998, Paul Lesack wrote:

> The only "problem" with GHQ and CinC stuff is that the barrels, etc

Yup. 1/300 scale 37mm gun barrel is not something I look forward to,
realistic or not.

> CinC infantry is so thin that it can bend on the application of a

I prefer H&R infantry - sturdier, better poses and roughly 3-4 times
cheaper...

> Ground Zero Games wrote:

> This may or may not be right, but I've heard stories/rumours of GHQ

I have the GW magazine article that shows the GW staff reducing three times
overscale model down to the correct size for moulding in plastic.

Fascinating article, it shows how they do the modeling, reducing fit checking
and lots else.

> Mike Wikan wrote: