Define \'Tabletop Quality\'

[MrDelish]

As I was perusing thru the various pictures submitted onto this site, many were rated as being below 5-\'tabletop quality\' according to the small line of text on the top screen. I would think tabletop quality is when someone puts enough effort into a fig so it looks like its supposed to.

So, what defines a miniature as tabletop quality? That a guy can spray paint some necrons and use them on table? Or that he can paint them well and elicits \'oohs\' and \'ahhs\' from everyone at a gaming store?

Contrary to what you may be thinking, this is not about MY figs themselves, just to make dat clear.

 

[No Such Agency]

I think of tabletop quality as \"painted reasonably neatly, with some attempt to shade/highlight, so it looks fairly presentable\". Just painted neatly with flat colours, like I did when I was just starting, would be a 4, sloppy would be 3, painted with a Q-tip would be 2, bare metal showing gives a 1, only because there isn\'t anything lower. Of course, this is just my personal scale, but it can explain why most minis here get 5 or more, people don\'t post their crappy minis but the scale has to accomodate that possibility.

Your example of spray-painted Necrons would therefore be a 3 or 4. A whole army painted even to a uniform 5.5-6 would elicit ooh\'s and aah\'s at most gaming stores, especially if the heroes and command group were maybe 6.5-7.

 

[Traulen]

Hi,
This is my rating system:
1 & 2 : never used
3 : patches of paint all over or not painted in the lines
4 : painted in the lines but with ugly colors
5 : painted in the lines with decent colors
6 : drybrush and washes or bad blending / layering
7 : layering / blending or very good drybrush (smooth)
8 : idem as 7 but \'till 7 I mostly look at the technique and 8 is for minis that catch my eyes with nice bases, freehand painting...
9 : Golden demon winners category for me
10 : idem as 9 but with details I can\'t imagine how one can put on a mini. (maybe some scientists have managed to enlarge the mini, paint it full of details and shrink it...)
Traulen

 

[sam-man]

Tabletop quality = 3foot paintjob....

a 3foot paintjob is somehitng lat looks good form 3 feet away, but looks terrible/average up close...

 

[vincegamer]

I put this on my profile when I signed up.

My voting scale: 1=bitz, unpainted 2=ugly fig, painted badly 3=cool fig, painted badly or ugly fig well painted 4=cool fig, painted within lines 5=paint within the lines, eyes have whites and darks, good color combination 6=good colors, cool fig, and some shading throughout 7=Very nicely shaded 8=Bordering on a work of art 9=work of art 10=stare in ecstatic stupor.

As you can see, my scale is a wee bit more generous than NoSuchAgency and closely in line with Traulen (maybe slightly harsher?)
However, based on what things will actually get on this site, 5 is a blended piece with no technical errors and a dynamic pose.

I tried to put up some old stuff as examples of lower scores. Strangely someone else put up what appears to be a marshmallow with a face drawn on it and still gets about the same score as my fully painted paladin.

Oh yeah, and subtract a point for calling something \"another mini\".
If you had time to paint it you had time to name it or at least look it up in the catalog.

 

[Traulen]

Funny,
I, too, alway tend to substract a point for no-name.
I also generaly substract a point for mini sold on e-bay. I really don\'t like that option that produces a gigantic news pop-up...
But enough OOT....

 

[wightzombie]

had a excellent mix this morning

a good bevy of models from todays upload

1 - i dont give 2\'s, i really dont give 1\'s.....
3 - http://www.coolminiornot.com/?id=11382
4 - http://www.coolminiornot.com/?id=11373
5 - http://www.coolminiornot.com/?id=11358
6 - http://www.coolminiornot.com/?id=11384
7 - http://www.coolminiornot.com/?id=11383
8 - http://www.coolminiornot.com/?id=11396
9 - http://www.coolminiornot.com/?id=11399
10 - a heavily converted tricked out 9

 

[Mengu]

1-2: Never used
3: Very bad, globs of paint, metal showing, etc.
4: Flat look, no highlights, not exactly painted within the lines, bad color choice.
5: Painted within the lines. Doesn\'t need highlights, but paint should be even. Thick paint can knock it down to a 4.
6: Some shades and highlights. All the detail picked out. Decent to good face. Askew eyes or odd looking face can knock it down to 5.
7: Smooth and clean brushwork. Decent blending. Good color choice.
8: Very good blending. Some good and clean free hand trims, or detail. Large areas of clean detail will bump it up to 9.
10: Flawless work. Outstanding mini. Good color choice. If I don\'t like something about the mini or color choice (eventhough the execution is impressive), it goes down to 9.

You noticed I skipped 9. Seems like my 9\'s are good 8\'s or 10\'s that just don\'t look quite right..

Conversion work, and creatitvity, or a well executed piece on a mini, or an outstanding base will increase the score by 1.

I also have a softer spot for Reaper Mini\'s so they may get half a grade higher from me when I\'m in doubt.

I can take points off for bad pictures too. With so many articles about taking pictures with digital cameras, I expect to see a clean, sharp, and light picture for most minis regardless of the paintjob.

 

[vincegamer]

where are your votes?

If these are the scales you use, then none of you must have voted on my minis

 

[avellaird_vex]

I\'m on par with Mengu with the voting scale, but I have a couple of plus and minuses;
\'Another Mini\' as title -.5
Full Title +.5
Base not painted -1
Base sets \'the mood\' +1
Creativity +1 (victoria\'s 11028 entry is an excellent example of this!)

 

[sam-man]

I never rate anything that is titled \"another mini\"

OMG thats so anoying, i typed in \"another\" in the search thingo, and got 12 pages!!!!!!

WHY CANT PEOPLE JUST PUT THE NAME OF THE MINI IN!!!!!?????!!!!!???!?!?!?!?!?!

 

[Jericho]

The worst part is that there\'s one French fella who puts \"un autre mini\" or something for the title. I don\'t know much French anymore, so I\'m not sure if that\'s exactly correct, but you know what I\'m saying.

Basically people should take the time to type something in. Shows they actually take it seriously. Oh, and capitalisation is important too. It\'s so damn lazy when people just type in all lowercase with no punctuation.

But enough ranting for one day...

 

[GoatsDen]

I don\'t understand why people don\'t use 1\'s or 2\'s. They are there to be used. If the lowest anyone will score is a 4 then 4 becomes the new 1 and you are still not being a \"nice guy\". Simple fact is, if I see a small extremely blurry picture of what looks like a bad paintjob anyway, it\'s getting a 1. I don\'t have any idea why someone would post such a thing but I have seen exactly that more then once.

I\'m not a complete ass or anything, most of my votes range in the 5-8 zone (hell I even use 10\'s!) but the simple fact is if you post complete utter crap you should expect a 1 or 2. A simpathy vote is useless.

To answer the original question, I personally ignore the \"tabletop quality\" consept as that as far too ambiguous of a statement. I treat 5 as a average mini. Good blocking and at least SOME kind of attempt at shading or highlighting (doesn\'t have to look great just at least an attempt). A cool base or unusal idea can add a point. The more detail after that or the cleaner looking the higher I go.

Is this too harsh?

 

[paint me]

My rating goes something along these lines:
1-4: Rarely do I give these out, but every now and then...it\'s usually when you say to yourself \"What was this guy thinking?\"
5: Solid paint job with ink wash, decent eyes, and an attempt at highlighting.
6: good color selection with nice dry brushing or average blending
7: nice blending and multiple layers of colors
8: exceptional painting, with fantastic level of detail and smoothness of paint. Normal base, with sand/grass. Could be a 9 with a better base.
9 and 10: minis that make you say wow!

There are many times when I wish we could use 1/2\'s. I see a lot of 6.5 and 7.5 minis...when that\'s the case I always round up. This is supposed to be for fun, after all.

I think that not naming your pic is lazy, but I certainly wouldn\'t let that affect my voting, nor would an E-bay auction listing. What does that have to do with the paint job? This is not the NiftyNamedMini site, or the ICouldNeverSellMyMini fan page. Deduct a point for no name? Jeez, that\'s harsh!

 

[vincegamer]

Am I harsh?

Perhaps subtracting a point for no name is harsh, but I view it as a sign of the concern for what you have done. I see not naming it as a sign of not caring for the mini or for the person judging it. I may like your paint job (and my scoring tends to run higher than most here) but I think not giving it a name is like not basing it. It\'s not complete. You don\'t care, it\'s \"just another mini\".

 

[paint me]

Absolutely ridiculous! We are not judging the amount of sentimentalism the painter has for his/her mini. So, if I come up with extra cool names, do I get a higher score for my paint job? To equivicate the name of the mini with whether or not the mini is based is really stretching it. Judge the mini\'s looks, not it\'s name, selling price, etc. Also, some minis come in blister packs of three. Does \"Fianna #1\" sound better than \"Another Fianna\" ? I really could care less about the name when rating minis. I do name my postings, but only for the purposes of the \"search\" option.
If the painter was not concerned about their mini\'s paint job, they wouldn\'t post it to begin with.

 

[Impernouncable]

If I may be so bold.
To not rate anything under a certain level, be it 4 or 5 or 7 is to reduce the utility of such a service as this to nothing more than a mutual appriciation society. I hate back patting. If a compliment is deserved give it, if a criticism is merited give it.

Putting an image of a miniature, a piece of art, or a written story up for public view anywhere is an implicit invitation to criticism. If a 1 would bruise a person\'s ego so much as to make them stop painting, perhaps they shouldn\'t post the picture in the first place.

That being said, I have no set criteria by which I judge anything. I base my assessment on how it looks in relation to what else I have looked at. A ten is obviously a ten and a one is obviously a one.

 

[No Such Agency]

paint me, I agree that a cool name is a pretty unimportant factor compared to the quality of the mini itself, but it\'s still important. I don\'t downvote for no name, but I\'m actually less likely to vote on the mini AT ALL. Even the name rght off the blister pack is at least descriptive, and draws my interest on the thumbnails page. \"Another mini\" is far more likely to not be viewed by me at all... (in ref to your example, \"Another Fianna\" is just peachy, if that\'s what it is.)

Hmm, a quick search say there are about 180 minis here called \"Another Mini\". The best one is rated 8.1! Who paints an 8 and then can\'t be bothered to spend two seconds to type in a name?

Hmm, I\'ve wandered off-topic here

 

[Sturmhalo]

I tend to think of tabletop quality as a number of things. Even if someone was to paint a model in flat colour, as long as it was neat and well detailed I\'d say it was tabletop. Though if a figure is not quite so neat but shows an attempt at shading and highlighting, it would also pass as tabletop. I\'ve seen a number of pictures in magazines, some by companies daring to offer their services to the wargamer that are frankly pitiful. Blobs of colour (usually on a poor quality model as well!) that make the figure look like some kind of psychedelic amoeba!

I also find it bloody irritating when people don\'t name their models. They\'re the same people who sell stuff on Ebay (not necessarily painted models) and describe the item up for auction as \'old mini\' (note lack of capitalisation). For Christ\'s sake try and \'sell\' your items.

These kind of people probably enjoy sitting in their underwear watching TV all day, eating crisps and shitting in a carrier bag because they can\'t be arsed to get up and use the lav!

 

[Burzmali]

I don\'t have set scale a such. I look at a mini and give it a vote I think reflects what it is. Is it cool or is it not. A well converted mini with a perfect paintjob is always cool
But just because it is\'nt perfectly shaded doesn\'t mean it deserves a low mark.

Table top quality for me is something that I can paint repeatedly, quickly whilst staying same and mot getting bored or overly tied up in details.

Coolness and conversion are definately as important as painting, for me at least. But that doesn\'t mean you should reward good scupts - the painter had nowt to do with that. It\'s a fine line. Play each mini by ear as it comes.
(Sorry I cannot find the example of I was thinking of, so I\'ll go with what I know for the next bit - )
I uploaded a mini a while back which I like - it came out well. And people around me reated well to my work so It uploaded it. It\'s not a great paint job, but is it still cool?
(http://www.coolminiornot.com/index.php?id=11450 if you\'re interested...)

Burzmali