[nielsvv]

Hi,

I collected almost only tanks, but I have also some diecast cars from minichamp (1:43), and some planes & action figures. I just collect the models which I love to see.
I have also some metal models from minichamp (tanks), but if I compare a model in metal (minichamp) to a plastic model (dragon armor), then looks the metal model as a toy. All the plastic ones looks much more better then metal (my view)! But I still stay buying metal models because I love them for the weight, the smell, the cold feeling etc.

Whats your reason you love metal models?

[Ara1]

Welcome to the Hangar nielsw!

I love metal models due to the weight and durability of diecast, and also because it's different from plastic models, which seem to hang onto dust more than metal models.

[lanslide]

Originally Posted by Ara1

Welcome to the Hangar nielsw!

I love metal models due to the weight and durability of diecast, and also because it's different from plastic models, which seem to hang onto dust more than metal models.

I'm with you, Ara! If the plane don't last, it must not be diecast!

[Cruver Collecter]

Welcome to the forum nielsvv. I like both plastic and metal models, but just something about a diecast model I like just a bit more.

[Paladin18]

Hello again Niels!

Nice to see a like-minded collector who collects predominantly armour. Not that I have anything against aircraft, in fact I plan to launch my aircraft collection very soon in the near future (no pun intended).

You spoke my mind. I had often wondered that question as well. I'm sure you'd have browsed through some of the earlier threads in the Ground Vehicles Model section, where you' see this little interesting debate on heft versus looks. I collect armour made out of plastic (Tamiya Masterworks, Dragon, Easy Model & 21st Century), metal (Franklin Mint, Forces of Valor, Minichamps, Admiral and some 21st Century), resin (Del Prado) and composite materials (King & Country).

Notwithstanding the merits and downsides of each of these materials, I don't make a distinction based on what it is made of. For me, the point of reference is "the look" of the model. Models that come with a nice touch of weathering, sharp details and realistic paint job is what appeals to me personally. I will pass on a model, whatever it is made of, if it looks like it's made for a 5-year old. Since I have decided to put money into this rather financially haemorraging hobby, I may as well spend it on something that appeals to my liking.

I agree that plastic models attract dust more easily and are harder to maintain. But displaying them in a fully enclosed glass showcase in an airconditioned environment would largely mitigate the problem.

Paladin18

[wmosner]

I like the heft of metal but once they get put in my display case it is the plastic ones that get the most complements as far as detail is concerned.

[Captain Eddie]

The heft of metal is nice, but that in no way stops me from buying plastic (aircraft in my case, I don't generally buy tanks etc).

Welcome to the asylum, nielsw!

[PappyB]

I think I'm just one of those old school collectors that equates the word "diecast" with metal. Also, I predominantly collect aircraft and I don't think we've yet to see the detail vs metal disparity when it comes to detail. (Except of course for the larger scales -- 1:32 Phantom from BBI and the 1:18 stuff that I don't collect -- and the Tamiya Masterworks stuff, which is super-pricey).

Can't say it's for the "feeling" but I defintely prefer metal over plastic. I don't have any plastic models in my collection at the moment, and can't seem to bring myself to add any.

[Epapazian]

While I have shifted enthusiastically from plastic to diecast in recent years, I still regard plastic as the most realistic where detail is concerned. On the other hand, plastic models are very delicate and it's difficult to fix mistakes on a plastic bird---especially when a lot of sanding is required------oops, there go the panel lines. Of course, such blunders can be rectified with careful inscribing, but this can be a tedious process.

Not that there aren't lots of issues with diecast. This medium features numerous detail gaffs, incorrect colors, poorly applied markings, missing parts, etc. and, while diecast models are more durable, it's really hard to make certain types of corrections---adding missing antennas, pitot tubes, machine guns, etc.---which often require drilling to install. Drilling holes in plastic is a cinch, but not so with diecast.

So I suppose the appeal of diecast is largely in the feel, or heft, of the models and the sense that they are really substantial items one can handle, examine closely, etc. Also, for those of us who are busy, diecast models come ready made. Sure, guys like me adapt and often repaint their models, but that's not the same as starting totally from scratch as with a kit.

[planenutsfrog]

As far as I'm concerned, I think it's because I have always associated metal to expensive quality miniatures and plastic to cheap poor quality ones.

Also important is the authenticity bonus from the replica being made of the same material as the real thing.

Finally, the relation to an object isn't limited to the view : Plastic model may look right, but imho they don't feel nor sound (trains) as right as their metal conterparts...