The Alamo

[WalterF]

The Cowboy helped me learn shading better, it was also fun.

[WalterF]

I was looking at the piece and something was gnawin at me about it, It didn't look right, decided to try something that would ruin it or make it look better, used die to try it over the finish coat. It is blotchy and buffed out no coat over top again.

 

Did I mess up?

[WalterF]

Testing out my new readers, on a fun piston caricature. I am not old enough yet, though they made it much better.

[DwightT]

On 3/1/2026 at 11:06 PM, WalterF said:

Did I mess up?

Yes and no.

I don't think it's necessarily "messed up" or ruined.  In general I think that the blotchiness gives it a nice antiqued look.  One problem that I see is with the rectangular blotch in the upper-left quadrant right above his hat.  It's too regular and kind of detracts from the rest of it. 

However the dye job in general kind of hides some of the detail of the skull.  Without the dye my eye looks at the details in the jaw line, the teeth, around the eyes, the hatband, ...  But with the dye I have to work harder to see those details.  I mostly just see a tan area on top of the dyed background.

But I'm being hyper-critical because you asked.  It still looks pretty awesome and I wish my tooling looked half that good.

    /dwight

[jrdunn]

On 3/2/2026 at 12:06 AM, WalterF said:

Did I mess up?

That might be a "shrink question".    Jim

[AlZilla]

On 3/2/2026 at 1:06 AM, WalterF said:

Did I mess up?

You are way overthinking this my friend. You're seeing it with the  artist's eye. It's a pretty spectacular piece.

You may wish you do it differently, as the creator. To most people, it would be indistinguishable as far as "right" or "wrong".

I'll agree with DwightT, I prefer the undyed version. Depending ... 😃

[WalterF]

4 hours ago, DwightT said:

Yes and no.

I don't think it's necessarily "messed up" or ruined.  In general I think that the blotchiness gives it a nice antiqued look.  One problem that I see is with the rectangular blotch in the upper-left quadrant right above his hat.  It's too regular and kind of detracts from the rest of it. 

However the dye job in general kind of hides some of the detail of the skull.  Without the dye my eye looks at the details in the jaw line, the teeth, around the eyes, the hatband, ...  But with the dye I have to work harder to see those details.  I mostly just see a tan area on top of the dyed background.

But I'm being hyper-critical because you asked.  It still looks pretty awesome and I wish my tooling looked half that good.

    /dwight

Thank you for the detailed response, I messed up when my resist spray was almost empty and tried to squeeze this one out. The antique looked muddy to me in the background, chalk it up to learning. Your points are valid and appreciated.

2 hours ago, jrdunn said:

That might be a "shrink question".    Jim

His couch had better be commfortable, it's going to take a while.

17 minutes ago, AlZilla said:

You are way overthinking this my friend. You're seeing it with the  artist's eye. It's a pretty spectacular piece.

You may wish you do it differently, as the creator. To most people, it would be indistinguishable as far as "right" or "wrong".

I'll agree with DwightT, I prefer the undyed version. Depending ... 😃

I do overthink sometimes yet being critical of one work helps me push forard. The thoughts of others help help with different perspectives.

My Precious trading card this morning.

[AlZilla]

1 hour ago, WalterF said:

do overthink sometimes yet being critical of one work helps me push forward. The though

To be clear, I didn't mean you shouldn't be critiquing your work or asking for others opinions, just that we all tend to be hard on ourselves. You are correct, other perspectives are helpful.

[WalterF]

Anthony Hopkins is such a good actor, I can still hear "Clarice". A 2 1/4 x 3 inch trading card using the small pieces.

A 2.5 x 4 inch trading card from a Rex Goulet pattern.