removed

Thanks Johan, I enjoyed hearing about the pitfalls of this kit as I have it on my "Order List" It facinates me to see all the detail on this figure and I am sure you will do a great job with him.

Johan,

tsal wel weer goan e mannuku. moetu noa weer oaveral gelaik ien ebbu. :lol:

Johan, as always you are right. The knowledge of history of the Romans is always remarkeble. And not only the Romans.
I think you are on the right track with it. I'll hope to see more of this guy very soon.

Marc

Is this the Maimeri Polycolor paint?

How do these compare to Andrea and Vallejo? Your undercoat looks very solid and flat.

Keith

Hey Guy,

Thanks, and I hope not to disappoint you with the final result.

Johan

Ge kent me hé, Marc. 'k ben nen echte wijsneus!

You're to kind, thanks. See you next tuesday.

Johan

Hi Keith,

Yes, you're right, these are the Italian Maimeri-Polycolor acrylic paints.
They come in tubes and pots. I myself, I bought the 20 ml tubes.

To compare them with the other brands you mentioned is a bit hard. Indeed they sure have a death flat finish. Solidity is an another question. I find acrylic paint never very solid. IMHO that's one of the major backdrops of this kind of medium.

Now, What I like most on this paints is that you don't have to shake them before use because it's tube paint. They have a long shelf life and keep their consistency, even if you didn't use a certain colour for a long time. Under the same circumstances the pigments of the Vallejos and Andreas would sink to the bottom of the containers.

Polycolors mix well with distilled water in any consistency you wish. Besides that, the naming of the colours which are offered, and the colours itself, follow more or less the ranges of the available oil paint. I find this very easy.

Some colours in the range are very opaque (i.e. my beloved raw umber), others need more successive layers (i.e. the flesh tint), but for that matter I think there's no difference here with the Vallejo or Andrea colours.

Finally, I think they are great to work with. Hope this helps you in some way.

Best regards

Johan

Gary,

Thanks for your reply and bringing up your doubts on the size of the sword.

Examination of archaeological findings showed that the blades of the "Gladius Hispaniensis", as the Roman swords were called, had an average lenght between 64 and 69 cm and a width between 4 and 5,5 cm (Roman Legionary 58 BC-AD 69, Ross Cowan, Osprey-Warrior).

If I'm correct 90 mm figures are in reality 1/20 scale. So to be correct, recalculated, the size of the gladius should have been between 3,2 and 3,4 cm in length and between 0,2 and 0,27 cm in width.
However, the scabbard of the gladius of Andrea’s centurion is 2,8 cm long and 0,3 cm wide. So you're right, it is out of scale, meaning at least 0,4 cm too short. But the width is actually not far from the right size.

Now, IMHO, to me the sword doesn’t look out of scale compared to the rest of the figure. To adjust the length of the scabbard would have been only a minor work, regarding the rest of the problems I had/have to deal with. But adding 0,4 cm to it, I think it would have been a very odd sight, looking way too long. I don’t know how the gladius of Pegaso’s Arminius kit looks and what the dimensions are, however. Maybe the relations between length and width are different creating another optical view. So I like to see some photos from your centurion to get an idea about the different look.

One remark though about items looking out of scale. One of Pegaso’s 54 mm Roman Aquilifer (ref 54-114) is notorious for its out of scale sword, meaning it doens’t seem to fit the figure because too massive. I think the problems concerning correct size in relation to optical view has been dealt with here on the Planet before, and as I remeber it the conclusion was that scale correctness doesn’t automatically creates a balanced view on the whole figure.

But please, I appreciate your opinion and you made a very valuable point here.
I’m waiting for the opinions of the other Planeteers.

Best regards.

Johan