All of you who have been waiting so patiently for the Fox WWII figures seem to be in need of some reassurance so I’m going to bend my promise to Jim Fox not to show any more pictures of the figures until the release is done. These are not pictures of a figure, only an accessory.

I also want to illustrate one of the great difficulties I’ve had with this range, to wit, tiny mechanical objects.

At the best of times I have never liked making microsculptures of machines. I think this is because the techniques I’ve developed don’t work on machines very well. Or rather it’s easier to spot the shortfall between what I make and the ideal. In simple terms they always come out looking a bit ‘rubbery’. And yes I know they look good compared to what else is available but I’m with Dogberry, "comparisons are odorous". My frustrations with mechanicals led me to once spray-paint "I will not agree to make any more robots" in foot high letters on my workshop wall as a constant reminder after one particularly nasty job for Hasbro.

On top of that the bloody thing took longer to make than a whole figure for this line would have from scratch.

The same is true of the other ammo carriers and the radio and weapons and the….you get the idea.

This would obviously be bad enough if I had time on my hands but I don’t, and what little I can make for sculpting is steadily eroding. When Carin (my wife) went back to work two years ago I was still able to work about 30 hours a week but this began to erode almost at once (I leave the reasons to the imagination of all husbands out there) until it’s now more like 10.

But both children will be going to school this fall and there really isn’t much left to do on the sculpting.

Then I just have to get the fiddly little buggers to cast.

For you Brits, the coin in the picture is a U.S. one cent piece, about the size of a ha’penny, if you still have ha’pennies over there, or 19mm in diameter.

This entry was posted by Tom Meier on Wednesday, July 8. 2009 at 05:43. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own blog.

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

    No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

  1. Stu says:
    #1 2009-07-08 17:57 (Reply)

    The ammo box detailing itself is very impressive, but how on earth do you sculpt letters of that size, let alone get them laid out sensibly?!

    I assume you're sculpting each letter individually and then leaving it to fully set. What kind of tool are you sculpting the text with? A sewing needle?

    Imho the problem with mechanical items, is viewers expect perfect symmetry, so it's not really sculpting so much as reproduction I guess - but then what would I know!

  2. TMeier says:
    #1.1 2009-07-08 18:57 (Reply)

    No, I did the box in nine sessions:

    A ‘rough’ setting out the size and designed to be coated with a fraction of a millimeter of putty

    The lowest box surface, without any of the hinges, embossed lines or writing, or the lid.

    The embossed lines.

    The lid except for the outer lip and the handle.

    The writing on one side.

    The writing on the other side.

    The writing on the end and the edge of the lid.

    The handles and hinges in rough.

    The finish layer on the handles and hinges.

    Each session took 1 to 2 hours for a total of about 12 hours, far too long.

    Tiny writing is really not that difficult, just time consuming. I didn’t really take as much time as I might have. It could have been made much more legible and exact to size if I’d spent a few more hours on it. The two sides aren’t the same but you can’t see them both at the same time, except in a picture so I decided it was close enough.

    Making things very small is just practice and equipment. I had several people send me a web story about some guy who made rough little figures in the eyes of needles and on pin heads. That’s not as hard as laymen imagine. It would be difficult to make a perfect little statue that size but not something you only recognize it because it's painted and of a familiar character. The difficult part, the part that requires skill and study is the technique to render a thing just as you imagine it and to imagine it in a sophisticated and artful way.

    I made the lettering with my normal size hook tool and blunted exacto-blade spatula. The same tools I use for 95% of my micro-sculpting, there’s a picture of them here: http://thunderboltmountain.com/serendipity/uploads/Tools.JPG

  3. Jim Clouse says:
    #1.1.1 2009-08-12 11:00 (Reply)

    Tom, Are you going to be at Gen Con this year? If so, will you be exhibiting? Teaching classes?

    Thx,

    Jim

  4. Tom says:
    #1.1.1.1 2009-08-12 11:56 (Reply)

    I'll be there on Saturday just to visit with people in the dealer hall. I'll probably be around the Darksword booth mostly.

  5. Terri says:
    #1.1.2 2010-04-05 05:56 (Reply)

    Tom wrote: "Tiny writing... It could have been made much more legible and exact to size if I’d spent a few more hours on it. ...I decided it was close enough...

    The difficult part, the part that requires skill and study is the technique to render a thing just as you imagine it and to imagine it in a sophisticated and artful way."

    Geometrical exactness and precise tool measure repetitions, is not ideal in art, it makes it stiff. Some small degree of variation, which always comes from the human hand at work, gives a pleasing sense of "animation", even on mechanical objects. As long as there is an authority of fundamental knowledge about the object sculpted.

    But it's really difficult to make conscious decisions about variation. Chosen irregular deviations from geometrical proportions. In organic forms, skin wrinkles, folds of clothing, etc. Finding a balance, between the anatomically correct, and the seemingly accidental deviations that break the stern geometry and make it come organically alive. I think about it all the time when studying Nature and try to find som logic to it, but it's evasive.

  6. Tom says:
    #1.1.2.1 2010-04-05 07:49 (Reply)

    In general I say 'amen' to that but in this specific instance I think most WWII gamers and modelers would really prefer a perfect miniature representation.

    Your points about clothing are particularly well observed. One thing I try to communicate about it which is so difficult to conceive is how in the work of a sculptor like Michelangelo or Bernini for example, the cloth is not as cloth would be in real life, it's not realistic, but yet it is as it could conceivably be.This is mainly a matter of depicting fine points of how clothing folds, the contours around bunches and points.The effect is subliminal for most people but very many recognize it easily.

    I had a long discussion about 3-D CAD art with some knowledgeable people, I was investigating whether I should take it up. I wanted to know why despite many fine features of 3-D I'd see nearly all the clothing looks to one degree or another like rubber. The conclusion was the artists just generally don't put enough loci in the cloth and when the program averages the surface that's what you get. The odd thing to me was how hard it was to get many obviously practiced artists to see the rubbery effect.

  7. Peter says:
    #2 2009-07-23 10:01 (Reply)

    You ain't for real. That's all I can say. First that 50 cal. and now this...
    What i don't get is how you get the holes (on the 50 cal) or the letters lined up so straight. Could you perhaps enlighten us a little on the process?

    Cheers,

    Peter

  8. Tom says:
    #2.1 2009-07-23 12:41 (Reply)

    I don’t really know what to tell. I just push them around till they look more or less straight. If there’s a talent to microsculpture it’s being able to see when things are and aren’t the same. It seems to be a knack allied to estimating short distances and finding the middle between two points. Years ago I used to enjoy the old Fletcher-Pratt naval rules, the ones with range estimation, until it got so no one who knew me would play.

  9. Peter says:
    #3 2009-07-24 04:11 (Reply)

    So no shortcutts then. Just skill, talent and patience.
    Did you ever consider doing a sculpting video? I would really like to se you work.

    Cheers,

    peter

  10. Tom says:
    #4 2009-07-25 08:21 (Reply)

    Many people have asked me to make a tutorial bit there really isn’t much difference between the way I do things and what I’ve seen of other tutorials on the web. The only thing I’d stress which I rarely see in these tutorials is the usefulness of working the epoxy in thin or thick layers, depending on what you are making.

    You are right that a video would convey the most information but I don’t even know how to begin to make one, and I have less than no time in any case.

  11. Jeff Cupernell says:
    #5 2009-07-30 18:00 (Reply)

    I have done prototype work myself and can not quite imagine doing those types of objects as sculpture. I am a model maker and have made these types of things for 21st Century toys and for for other companies. I always look at objects like these as model making and not sculpture. My hat is off to you. These look great to me. Especially considering their size. Yes I know you work small all the time but your work continues to amaze me. it seems to get better as time goes on.

  12. Chris says:
    #6 2009-08-15 00:31 (Reply)

    Tom Meier you are my hero..


Add Comment


Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA