Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Colonel Abernathy]

today while annually dusting my Joe collection, I was thinking I don't participate in discussing the hobby as much as I could, so starting now I will randomly bring up topics, no matter how trivial  :thumbsup:

Today's topic is painted skin vs bare plastic (specifically on heads):  which do you prefer?   I bring this up because most of what I've read in forums leans towards paint-hating.  I myself tend towards painted, especially with the random plastics Hasbro has used since 1997.  I find that it's difficult to make out the details of a Joe face on those figures with the pinkish, unpainted skin like many of the re-vintage Joes (most of this discussion refers to Caucasian Joes).   Something about how the light hits the plastic obscures the finer details.

Now, it does depend on the plastic used.  Some unpainted heads are fine.  These are the ones with the whiter, "harder"-looking plastic.  Perhaps a direct comparison will help.  If you have the 2000 Dialtone and the Tiger Force Dialtone, notice how the 2000 head is fine, and could almost pass for an original vintage head.  This is an example of the whiter, harder head (harder is just referring to the look; it's entirely possible that it is not actually harder).  Now the Tiger Force version has the pinkish, waxier-looking plastic.   On which figure is it easier to make out the details of the face?  IMO, it is the 2000 version.  The Tiger Force version just looks cheap and undetailed.  You can also compare TF Big Brawler's face with 2001 Low-Light; the same difference is there.

Regarding a painted face, as long as the applications are done right I think it is usually superior to an unpainted one.  The way paint reflects light makes it much easier to see the fine detail in the face (especially the newer comic-pack sculpts) - I don't know light-spectrum science, but it's almost as if bare plastic absorbs light and thus blurs the edges of shadows.  Or perhaps the shininess doesn't help things.  Take a look at the Crimson Guard Tomax/Xamot (the ones wearing the EE suits).  Notice how you can see the creases in his painted fingers from pretty much any angle.  The unpainted face, while better than the TF Dialtone, looks cheap and waxy in comparison.  I find that any of the repainted vintage figures, no matter how cool-looking or well-produced, will end up looking cheap with a pink-skinned, unpainted face.  In a way, the difference is like an unpainted model vs. a painted one...the paint will almost always look better, more complete and less cheap.

Any thoughts?

[Scramble]

In pictures, without a boubt I prefer plastic to painted faces. In general, case by case. New sculpt figures benefit more from plastic faces because the softer plastic tends to flake the paint where there are too many sharp edges. With vintage, normally I go with plastic faces as well. But there are cases, like convention Sarge, where a painted face would have worked better since his chest is painted and the skin colour looks different.

[Pete The Greek]

I hate painted skin on the new figures as the quality control in China is brutal.  I hate getting Joes, still in package, and seeing noticable paint wear to the face and hands.  So give me a figure without painted skin as they are less likely to screw up.

[akpayne]

Any of the new figures that do have painted skin look terrible.
The 2000-2001 figures that have the right colour plastic look amazing in comparison.

[Colonel Abernathy]

Heheh looks like I am in the minority on this  :thumbsup:

I do agree that paint flaking could be a big problem, but I have yet to experience it.  My point overall is that certain shades of Caucasian-skin plastic used by Hasbro just don't look professional at all and it really ruins the figure for me since they appear cheap and bootleg-ish.  The 1997 releases would likely have looked much better with painted faces, for example.  I kept my 1997 SHort Fuze for 8 years since the figure displayed well (it was obviously sub-standard on closer appearance though) - a painted face would've made it much better.  And I still can't stand the EE Crimson Twins' faces being unpainted.

So...on figures where the Caucasian skin tone is iffy, and supposing that the factory applies the paint correctly and that it doesn't flake...a painted face can be superior to an unpainted one.  It's more of a case-by-case thing, rather than a generalized statement...I.E. not all painted faces look good, nor do all unpainted faces, IMO.  So, for me, painted faces are not a complete evil.