Varnish and Basing Materials

[Kurhanik]

So...I plan to toss on a layer of varnish on my miniatures to give them a little extra protection.  Gonna do just a matte varnish on the plastic ones and a gloss followed by matte on the metals.

 

The question I have is on the bases - I am doing a mix of snow, dirt, and roads as my bases, and I am wondering if the varnish might discolor or react strangely with the snow.  I am using the GW Valhallan Blizzard texture paint for the snow, and while the entire army is not based yet, I do have a handful done already.  Just checking in to see if I need to get creative with varnishing the already based guys, and if in the future I should throw on the varnish before adding the snow.

[Major_Gilbear]

Generally, I would advocate varnishing and then adding basing detail like snow.

 

Although in most cases a dusting of matte spray varnish should be fine, I think that it would (1) likely change how the snow looks as you're altering its reflective value, and (2) possibly yellow over time (talking maybe 10+ years here!) if the snow is made of a porous or absorbent material.

 

Then again, it takes me so long to prep and paint models, that I tend to be ultra-cautious.

[Kurhanik]

Hmm, yeah, I suspected as much, but wanted to be sure.  Looks like I'll have to find a way to cover the bases of the ones I already based when I spray them.  Either that or use some paint on varnish on those minis.

[Bloody Legionnaire]

If you are planning on protecting your miniatures the whole miniatures needs a layer (or two) of gloss before a layer of matte or flat. Matte and Flat by itself does not offer the same level of protection as the gloss adds. 

[Major_Gilbear]

Hmm, yeah, I suspected as much, but wanted to be sure.  Looks like I'll have to find a way to cover the bases of the ones I already based when I spray them.  Either that or use some paint on varnish on those minis.

 

If you need to cover the main part of the base, you can try using a small piece or two of cling film - it's surprisingly good for these sorts of masks. :)

 

Beyond that... Don't worry too much if the feet don't get varnished on the models you've already based, as it's highly unlikely that those areas will be subject to much handling or scuffs (if at all).

[Kurhanik]

If you are planning on protecting your miniatures the whole miniatures needs a layer (or two) of gloss before a layer of matte or flat. Matte and Flat by itself does not offer the same level of protection as the gloss adds. 

 

Ah, I could have sworn I hard heard that for the most part, plastic is just fine with a coat or two of Matte, and that it was metal minis you really needed to layer on the gloss with.  Still, better to learn now, than months after the fact.

 

 

Hmm, yeah, I suspected as much, but wanted to be sure.  Looks like I'll have to find a way to cover the bases of the ones I already based when I spray them.  Either that or use some paint on varnish on those minis.

 

If you need to cover the main part of the base, you can try using a small piece or two of cling film - it's surprisingly good for these sorts of masks.

 

Beyond that... Don't worry too much if the feet don't get varnished on the models you've already based, as it's highly unlikely that those areas will be subject to much handling or scuffs (if at all).

 

 

Fair enough there, and didn't even think of using that - should be a relatively quick and easy way of fixing that up.

[Arkhanist]

 

If you are planning on protecting your miniatures the whole miniatures needs a layer (or two) of gloss before a layer of matte or flat. Matte and Flat by itself does not offer the same level of protection as the gloss adds. 

 

Ah, I could have sworn I hard heard that for the most part, plastic is just fine with a coat or two of Matte, and that it was metal minis you really needed to layer on the gloss with.  Still, better to learn now, than months after the fact.

 

 

If you're using the same type of varnish (such as a polyurethane), there's no difference in strength/toughness between the gloss and matt version. They are literally the same stuff, except matt has a small percentage of matting agent, such as talc, so it doesn't reflect light sharply.

 

The reason people think otherwise was back in the day, solvent/oil varnishes were much stronger and they generally came only in gloss. They were also usually subject to UV yellowing. So you'd brush on a gloss oil based varnish for strength, then a water-based acrylic varnish to get the final finish you wanted, along with UV protection. This has lead to the persistent urban myth that gloss is always harder than matt when it was the type of varnish that made the difference, not the finish. These days, modern water based polyurethane varnishes are nearly as strong as oil ones, easier to use and less toxic to spray. Oil based varnishes still have their place for absorbant materials and large scale application (think exterior wood, furniture etc) but simply aren't needed for 40k modelling any more.

 

What also does improve strength is having two thin coats instead of one. The last coat will determine the finish, but two thin coats of matt will provide the same level of protection as a thin layer of gloss followed by matt. One thick layer also provides good protection, but you run the risk of side-effects such as an unpleasant orange-peel effect (due to the way it dries). Thin layers reduce that risk. High humidity and/or very high or low temperatures can also cause issues with spraying matt varnishes (the dreaded frosting) so also be aware of that and spray indoors such as a garage if necessary.

 

I have 20+ year old metal dwarfs with two thin coats of matt acrylic varnish (no stronger polyurethane back then!) and their (crappy) paint job is as it was when they were finished. Unvarnished ones have faired far less well in terms of chips.

 

There shouldn't be any issue with yellowing on your bases with an acrylic or polyurethane varnish as they're pretty much all UV resistant, though it's not a bad idea to check if yours is. A matt varnish over snow effect can impact on its 'glitteriness' though, so definitely do a test spray/coat on a spare base with some snow effect on it to see if you can live with any impact. Varnish will help protect the base and stop bits getting knocked off, so it is worth doing if it doesn't affect it too much.

 

If you hate it, then just cover the ones you've already based before spraying, such as with cling film or painters tape, and varnish the rest before basing.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

Yep, I'm also of the school of "gloss + matte" is nonsense, because the only difference between the two chemically is the matting agent. Another reason people think it's more protective is because they forget that "gloss + matte" is 2 layers of protection, while "just matte" is only one layer. They also forget that gloss tends to come thicker, and they tend to put more on. If you put an equal amount of gloss + matte on your model as you do plain matte, they will be equally protected. Gloss + matte method also forces you to put way more varnish on in general, not just because gloss is thicker, but because you spray way more matte on trying to remove the gloss. Cut out the middleman: just put on more matte coats.

[Major_Gilbear]

You guys have sort of answered yourselves as to why you gloss-then-matte, rather than matte-then-matte.

 

Whilst you are correct on the quality and strength of the binder in typical PU matte varnish, you're missing a couple of points as to why the usual recommendation is what it is.

 

In the first instance, the matting agent introduces a faint milkiness to the finish, and when this is kept thin it provides a near-transparent matte finish that scatters light - at a microscopic level, the surface is rough, and this scatters the light much like frosted glass does to provide a low-reflective finish. Although when you layer it up the varnish "fills in" the layer below, you still have the matting agent embedded in the layer below (NB: this is often superfine talc), and the rough surface can also trap microscopic bubbles across the rough surface which also further clouds the finish. A clear coat followed by a matte coat therefore gives you a much clearer and brighter finish, and reduces any instances of milkiness or "yellow" appearance over your painted efforts.

 

The second thing is that the rough surface is easier to rub off/scuff/wear than the gloss finish, and it also takes and holds grease and/or dust more readily. Therefore, for the most durable finish on models that are to be handled, you will want to use several thin layers of varnish for best protection, and the gloss varnish is the best choice for the build-up layers for the reasons noted above.

 

Thirdly, some of the best matte sealers are lacquer-based, and are not PU. Whilst these give a great finish, they do not provide the tough protection that PU gloss varnish does. Hence why the usual recommendation is to use a gloss PU varnish first, then re-finish with a matte seal afterwards.

 

Of course, all of this is a bit of a mouthful to explain, and so it usually gets shortened to "use gloss first, then finish with matte for best overall toughness and results".

 

Finally, it's also worth noting that many of the products we use for sealing miniatures are more usually formulated for finishing wood, rather than for painted miniatures, and that the expected prep is therefore rather different - for example, you don't use fine sandpaper to rub down coats of varnish between the first few layers of varnish on your model. These small differences do have a modest impact on what the final appearance and finish is, and whilst they can be subtle, over good work and under bright light they can be detectable (and is one major reason that competition painters rarely seal their work at all).

[Arkhanist]

With the greatest respect, there's a few factual errors there.

 

"Finally, it's also worth noting that many of the products we use for sealing miniatures are more usually formulated for finishing wood, rather than for painted miniatures, and that the expected prep is therefore rather different - for example, you don't use fine sandpaper to rub down coats of varnish between the first few layers of varnish on your model."

 

I don't know about you, but my varnishes are mostly made by traditional 'fine art' suppliers, not out of the DIY section. You can still sand them but the reason is that oil point does often not take acrylic varnish well (it beads), so you sand it to 'key' the surface so it will adhere properly to an oil painting or oil-painted airfix model; it's to roughen the surface, not smooth it!

 

"some of the best matte sealers are lacquer-based, and are not PU. Whilst these give a great finish, they do not provide the tough protection that PU gloss varnish does."

 

Lacquer is some of the toughest varnish around, and tougher than acrylic and even polyurethane. They do have drawbacks, not least toxicity, primarily in the solvents. US formulation Testors dullcote was banned in the EU for example, due to the toluene. If you wanted the strongest coat, you'd do two coats of lacquer, not a weaker plastic gloss followed by lacquer.

 

"In the first instance, the matting agent introduces a faint milkiness to the finish, and when this is kept thin it provides a near-transparent matte finish that scatters light - at a microscopic level, the surface is rough, and this scatters the light much like frosted glass does to provide a low-reflective finish"

 

Not really. The matting agent is spread throughout the varnish if it dries properly; the light scattering occurs throughout the layer - otherwise you'd not see the colour underneath! The objective is not to provide a frosted or translucent surface - properly applied matt varnish is as clear as gloss unless you're using a microscope. The idea is that light comes in, and instead of reflecting light point sources directly like a reflective material, the light is scattered in different directions. The reason you can get a bad milky finish with matt varnish is when the varnish and matting agent separate and dry in separate layers, and light reflects too much off the boundary between them.

 

If your final goal is a matt finish, two matt layers will provide a greater matt effect than gloss followed by matt, as light scattering occurs through both layers, instead of just one. This is also why is seems to take a lot of matt varnish to mute a gloss finish - it's because it does!

 

"A clear coat followed by a matte coat therefore gives you a much clearer and brighter finish, and reduces any instances of milkiness or "yellow" appearance over your painted efforts."

 

Yellowing won't be coming from an acrylic or polyurethane varnish, unless you find the rare one without a UV stabiliser. It's far more likely to be coming from the oil based or lacquer varnish. Gloss coats appear brighter because they reflect light better, that's kinda the point of them.

 

You are correct that matt varnish has a slightly rougher surface at the microscopic level. However, so does your paint. Matt acrylics most of us are using have the exact same matting agents that varnish does. Just as paint does, varnish will fill in those microscopic gaps and in fact have a stronger bond to the layers below because of it (more surface area!). If you're having micro bubbles form at your layers, I suggest you're using the wrong varnish, it's not because of matt rather than gloss.

 

"Of course, all of this is a bit of a mouthful to explain, and so it usually gets shortened to "use gloss first, then finish with matte for best overall toughness and results".

 

Which was my point. Gloss then matt is an urban myth, and more misleading than helpful. Keeping it simple, just do the final finish you want to get, and do two thin layers.

 

Solvent/oil based varnishes have their advantages, just as they do with washes, but they also have drawbacks which is why most people do acrylic from start to finish these days.

 

"These small differences do have a modest impact on what the final appearance and finish is, and whilst they can be subtle, over good work and under bright light they can be detectable (and is one major reason that competition painters rarely seal their work at all)."

 

Yes, varnish does have an overall effect. My understanding is that competition painters like to show the difference between the materials on the model (such as cloth vs NMM) via the paint, to show skill - and chucking a one-size-fits-all varnish over the top rather destroys that subtlety in finish. And they're not gaming pieces, so they don't need protection from getting banged about in cases and on tables.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

In the first instance, the matting agent introduces a faint milkiness to the finish, and when this is kept thin it provides a near-transparent matte finish that scatters light - at a microscopic level, the surface is rough, and this scatters the light much like frosted glass does to provide a low-reflective finish. Although when you layer it up the varnish "fills in" the layer below, you still have the matting agent embedded in the layer below (NB: this is often superfine talc), and the rough surface can also trap microscopic bubbles across the rough surface which also further clouds the finish. A clear coat followed by a matte coat therefore gives you a much clearer and brighter finish, and reduces any instances of milkiness or "yellow" appearance over your painted efforts.

 

Now this is actually interesting and it makes me have a somewhat tangential thought. Ignoring the visual effects, wouldn't this mean a pure matte application is also structurally weaker on a microscopic level, due to being "porous", whereas the gloss layer of a gloss + matte application would be "solid" varnish?

 

Now, I think in practical terms of durability this is irrelevant, as anything that will rub down to the level of those microscopic pores will also erode a solid layer of gloss varnish, but this would technically mean gloss is "stronger" than matte on a microscopic level, if the matting substance is presence on the surface of the varnish.

[Kurhanik]

So the general consensus is to basically test it out first, and worst comes to worst cover the bases on the ones I already based if I dislike the result, seems reasonable enough there.  I'll just make a mini project before basing my current batch of stormtroopers to make some small objective marker or the like.

 

For purpose of the varnishes, I have Testor's Dullcote, Testor's Glosscote, and a paint bottle of GW Ardcoat (this one more for the occasional decal than anything else).  Glancing at the bottle I seem to be having issues finding the ingredients, so I'm not sure exactly what "type" of varnish they are beyond the name itself.  I nabbed those two as it seems anytime I look up varnishing miniatures Testor's is usually what comes up.  If that turns out to be a poor choice I am all ears though.

[Subtle Discord]

This is an interesting debate, and I'm having a hard time finding a definitive answer one way or another. Many of the sources I'm finding are either mixing information and/or process and/or products and/or are making assumptions, so it's not a clearly direct comparison or it's confusing the issue with needless tangent factors. Some are saying gloss + matt is only superior because it's two thin coats, then assume it's being compared to just a single coat of matt. Some are comparing totally different types of product being layered up and compared side-by-side with totally different products and/or layering process and claiming superiority in one direction. Some are adding in factors like yellowing of certain products verse others and simply muddying the water by considering things that don't have to do with general toughness. Some are considering products that are reasonably comparable, but not giving proper credit to the surface that's created, and the very real fact that it's not completely dismissible just because they are from the same product family and use the same base materials.

 

Without finding something definitive that is backed up with real evidence that has been arrived at by using a more scientific approach (keep all factors the same, then alter only one factor, test the results, then rinse-and-repeat all options to come to a conclusion) it's hard to make absolute assertions. People tend to have a bias they are right based on what seems logical to them, even if that logic is not totally bore out with real evidence. Note that I totally understand why this is the case, since deep experimentation of a hobby product/process is not exactly critical science.

 

There is real merit to the idea that a matt varnish verse a gloss varnish made from the same base materials, with the only difference being the addition of a matting agent, should be just as strong; they are virtually identical with only one extra ingredient that is added in small quantities. But that assumes that the matting agent has no effect on the materials because of the small quantities which may or may not be true.

 

However, there is also merit to the idea that the surface they create and how the polymers can bond together on a molecular level as they dry can indeed have a measurable effect on how tough the layer is; even in small quantities the matting agent is adding particles to the polymers that then need to bond around said particles, verses bonding directly to each other. I could easily see how that could affect the tear strength and toughness of the material even if the additive is in small quantities. The surface created is also not to be so easily dismissed. Matt surfaces, even if most particles are immersed in the material, are rough on a molecular level and it’s logical to assert that they will wear and rub off easily especially on high points; a gloss surface is simply smoother/slicker and will resist this friction thanks to the smoothness of the surface. By what degree this actually has an effect is really hard to say.

 

I’m not saying I have a definitive answer, simply that it is an interesting clashing of ideas that both have merit. With today’s water-based polyurethane products, if I were to give an opinion based on a bit of research on both sides, I suspect that it’s somewhere in the middle. A coat of gloss followed by a coat of matt may indeed be more wear resistant compared to two coats of matt, but the difference might be so slight that to practically everyone who isn’t conducting lab grade experiments, it doesn’t really matter enough to be a great concern. I suspect the real factor is found in two thin coats with time to dry and cure between each coat, no matter what they are, opposed to one thick coat.

 

*Sarcasm* I guess I’m glad I prefer satin varnish and don’t have to get caught up in this debate.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

So the general consensus is to basically test it out first, and worst comes to worst cover the bases on the ones I already based if I dislike the result, seems reasonable enough there.  I'll just make a mini project before basing my current batch of stormtroopers to make some small objective marker or the like.

 

For purpose of the varnishes, I have Testor's Dullcote, Testor's Glosscote, and a paint bottle of GW Ardcoat (this one more for the occasional decal than anything else).  Glancing at the bottle I seem to be having issues finding the ingredients, so I'm not sure exactly what "type" of varnish they are beyond the name itself.  I nabbed those two as it seems anytime I look up varnishing miniatures Testor's is usually what comes up.  If that turns out to be a poor choice I am all ears though.

 

'Ardcoat is acrylic and Testors is lacquer. Testors Dullcote is pretty much the #1 standard for matte spray varnishes.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Tyberos the Red Wake

[Subtle Discord]

As a side tangent, it could be noted that solvent based varnish will react more with metallic paints as it interacts with the aluminum flakes that are most commonly used to give the paint its metallic colour. I've seen this in a much more pronounced way when working on non-hobby models but the effect still occurs on the smaller scale. It tends to dull them just a bit more than a waterbased varnish which won't react with the aluminum the same way as the solvents of other products. Either way, adding a coat of varnish will alter the tones of the paint, if ever so slightly, no matter what is used. In most cases, the change is so slight that most people don't care or even notice since getting the protective coating is much more important.

[Arkhanist]

So the general consensus is to basically test it out first, and worst comes to worst cover the bases on the ones I already based if I dislike the result, seems reasonable enough there.  I'll just make a mini project before basing my current batch of stormtroopers to make some small objective marker or the like.

 

For purpose of the varnishes, I have Testor's Dullcote, Testor's Glosscote, and a paint bottle of GW Ardcoat (this one more for the occasional decal than anything else).  Glancing at the bottle I seem to be having issues finding the ingredients, so I'm not sure exactly what "type" of varnish they are beyond the name itself.  I nabbed those two as it seems anytime I look up varnishing miniatures Testor's is usually what comes up.  If that turns out to be a poor choice I am all ears though.

 

Testors dullcote and glosscote are alcohol based lacquers. Dullcote in particular has a very good reputation for its matt result, and lacquer should be very tough. I've not used them personally as they're fairly hard to get in the UK even in the EU formulation - and I use an airbrush these days anyway. The SDS (safety data sheets) are available here. For example, this is the one for spray dullcote.

 

Don't expose to open flame, don't drink it, don't get it in your eyes, don't breath it and don't get it on your skin seems to be the general thrust. I'd advise using gloves and a respirator (which is not a bad idea when spraying anything, frankly) and use outside or at least in a well-ventilated area.

[Kurhanik]

Holidays took me away from time to fully experiment, but I did three tester snow bases to see what (if any) would work best of the three I had.  The Dullcote/Matte is the definite winner there - it looks basically the same as it did unvarnished.  The Glosscote did add a definite shine to the snow, but not a whole lot, probably due to only using 3 puffs of the varnish in 2 thin coats.  What surprised me was the Ardcote, which made the snow practically glisten.  My guess is that it was the simple fact that it is a paint on and I overestimated how much I'd need, compared with the spray varnishes that could simply be 2-3 puffs and done.

 

Thanks for the heads up on the respirator bit.

 

Currently testing around how many coats I should throw on the models - I'm currently leaning towards 1 coat of gloss, since I have it anyways, and then 2 of matte, though I'm not sure what the optimal drying time is for them.  With the models using snow bases, it is going to be the gloss, then add the base, then the matte.  We'll see how that works out in the end.

 

To be safe I've been leaving them to dry for about a day, as I'd rather it take a little extra time instead of accidentally layering over still wet varnish.  I suppose if anybody knows the optimal waiting time for doing the coats, that would be appreciated.

[Arkhanist]

The official testors recommendation is 24 hours between coats I believe (similar for acrylic varnish), though it's usually safe enough within a couple of hours with spray varnish barring extreme weather. You can keep them in a box between coats to reduce floating dust adhering to the wet varnish, just hold your breath when opening so you don't get a lungful of outgassed solvent. (learned that one the hard way!)

 

I normally give my models a quick blast with air from the airbrush to clean off any loose dust/cat hair before I start varnishing, now I think about it. An aircan would also work, or you could go oldschool and just blow on them :)

 

Definitely make sure the paint is fully dry though before your first coat though, as the solvents can reactivate washes etc. This is more of an issue with enamels/oils with their long drying time (and brush ons due to the mechanical agitation), but it's probably best to let the finished model sit overnight before you start varnishing.