original miniatures or not?

Red Ember

Member
Hi guys
I have a bunch of miniatures that found to be a little odd
Some of them have got usual inscriptions (archer, ranger) on one side of plates under feet, but no on the other (like GW 19xx). It does not seem that inscriptions were wiped out, surface is smooth.
Some inscriptions are clumsy. Are these miniatures recasted, not authentic GW?
I added photos.
 

Attachments

  • 20181118_210705.jpg
    20181118_210705.jpg
    136.1 KB · Views: 1,169
  • 20181118_210749.jpg
    20181118_210749.jpg
    137.1 KB · Views: 1,169
Without some better, closer photos it's difficult to say for certain, but nothing you've described is particularly unusual. the tab discrepancies are all fairly normal, including the lack of anything written on the back.

Casting quality is *usually* the best arbiter of whether it's a recast or not, can't really tell that from the photos.
 
dieselmonkey":3b2zvjud said:
Without some better, closer photos it's difficult to say for certain, but nothing you've described is particularly unusual. the tab discrepancies are all fairly normal, including the lack of anything written on the back.

Casting quality is *usually* the best arbiter of whether it's a recast or not, can't really tell that from the photos.
Wouldn't poor quality be indicative of a worn out mold? IIRC, I've got one or two figures, acquired from a GW store in the 90s, with some minor imperfections - didn't notice due to the figures being on the bottom of the blister. Wouldn't size differences be a better indicator?
 

Zhu Bajie

Member
Two of those guys (row 2, C, D) are ME Rangers of Ithilen from the 1980s Lord of the Rings range. After Citadel lost the license, they might well have had the name scrubbed off the slotta tab, and been then 'recast' in house and then sold as part of the Fighters or Rangers ranges. Not sure if that happened as I can't find them catalogued, but it was common for a lot of the licensed ranges (ME, D&D, Eternal Champion etc.)
 
Condottiero Magno":fc9imvy4 said:
Wouldn't size differences be a better indicator?

Newer RTV mould compounds have far less shrinkage than the older ones, so it’s much harder to spot size differences these days. Casting quality can refer to a lot of things, lack of certain fine detail or mould rips could be down to worn moulds at the factory, but all over lower detail (rounded rather than sharp edges) or colour changes in the metal (due to cheap melting pots and reusing old metal) can both point to recasts.

Tbh though, it’s getting harder to tell these days due to the higher quality of recasts out there. Amateurs are easy to spot, but there are pros out there putting out rarer models that are near indistinguishable from originals. The main reason I’d suggest all the models in the first post are original is that they’re not really rare or interesting enough to warrant recasting.
 
Back
Top