Open Book British Sgt 31st Line Inf, 1809 - A & A Miniatures Review

[Guy]

N 90-01
British Sergeant of the 31st Line Infantry Regiment 1809
90mm resin - 12 parts

I recently received from Moscow A & A's new 90mm resin release cast in gray resin and consisting of 12 resin parts.

[ continued in next posting ]

​

 

[Guy]

Arriving from Moscow in a heavy sturdy cardboard box with the kit suspended in styro-foam chips the kit was well packed for the long trip to Oklahoma. The parts to the kit were sealed inside clear zip-lok bags and 3 additional color photographs were included for color painting reference.
The above bottom photograph show all the parts removed for inspection.

Optional Head 1






Optional Head 2

Above you see several views of each optional heads included in this kit.

Above you see the four sides of the one piece torso with the right and left arm and hands cast separately.

[ continued in next posting ]

​

​

 

[Guy]

Above is the front and back of the right armand hand holding his cap.

Above is the separately cast left arm and hand holding the canteen.

Above you see the separate cast Pelise still attached to the casting block.

Above you see the separate cast back pack which is used as an accessory in the scene and set on the ground.

[ continued in next posting ]

​

 

[Guy]

Above you see the front and back of his cane as well as the back pack straps.

Above is the separate cast canteen cord as well as the resin base base for the figure.

Above are scanned copies of the photographs supplied with the kit.

Conclusion:
An excellent kit with clean casting. Casting blocks need to be removed carefully. Highly recommended.

Purchased from
Ant-Miniatures / A & A Miniatures
web-site
click here

R501
​

 

[gordy]

Nice fig Guy, well detailed sculpting, any idea who the sculptor is ?

Thanks for sharing

 

[Vik]

The sculptor of this figure Sergey Lupanov.

 

[Tecumsea]

Does anyone in the UK carry this range?

Keith

 

[Guy]

Keith, I ordered my kit right from Ant in Moscow and it arrived in 2 weeks. Being right in Moscow, it shortens the longer mail time I was used to.

 

[Vik]

Hi Guy .
I would like to note, that the mail this time has worked very quickly - when we sent to you a figure 75-01 she(it) went 20-22 days.

 

[gordy]

The sculptor of this figure Sergey Lupanov.

Thanks Vik

 

[Don]

Think this is a lovely figure, lots of character, he would be fun to paint.
Any suppliers in the UK for this figure.

Don

 

[PhilinYuma]

It is a pity that this attractive and well modelled fellow has so littl in common with a sergeant of the 31st (or Huntingtonshire) Regiment of 1809. The stovepipe shako, which should be about 9" tall is, when compared with the hand, much too short. The plume, cockade and peak are too large and the brass regimental badge bears little resemblance to the real thing. I do not think that a contemporary badge for this regiment is extant, but the sculptor could have tried to simulate the standard badge and add the regimental number at 90mm. The jacket bears eight lace stripes instead of the standard ten and the white triangle at the back should not have the buttons incorporated, they should be outside, on the seam. The shoulder tuft is the size of a flank company wing, and i have no idea where the idea for painting it partly red came from. I realize that many modellers here are primarily interested in attractive rather than strictly accurate figures, but by buying figures that are so inaccurate that it would take hours of work to fix them, we are silently endorsing such inaccuracy..

 

[gordy]

It is a pity that this attractive and well modelled fellow has so littl in common with a sergeant of the 31st (or Huntingtonshire) Regiment of 1809. The stovepipe shako, which should be about 9" tall is, when compared with the hand, much too short. The plume, cockade and peak are too large and the brass regimental badge bears little resemblance to the real thing. I do not think that a contemporary badge for this regiment is extant, but the sculptor could have tried to simulate the standard badge and add the regimental number at 90mm. The jacket bears eight lace stripes instead of the standard ten and the white triangle at the back should not have the buttons incorporated, they should be outside, on the seam. The shoulder tuft is the size of a flank company wing, and i have no idea where the idea for painting it partly red came from.

Thank you for your candor Phil to list the faults in this piece. It would be ideal to provide sources e.g. books, images, etc to further our historical accuracy and edification.

I realize that many modellers here are primarily interested in attractive rather than strictly accurate figures, but by buying figures that are so inaccurate that it would take hours of work to fix them, we are silently endorsing such inaccuracy..

Here? Here as in only planetFigure? How is that so?

Outwardly it may appear so, Planetfigure encourages the historical aspect, but also require source. Sourcing requires effort, yet it is only fair to avoid here-say.

It is easy to say something is wrong but a whole new level of expertise to provide source and proof.

Sources provide two very important facets:

• Legitimizes the claimed inaccuracies, and thusly the historian.
• Provides the consumer a means to correct the faults; That is an invaluable service.

The historical aficionados, provide a valuable asset here at PF e.g. Harry and Markus they source excellent material for corrections with scans, documentation and images. Their efforts are to be commended.

BTW, It is possible to cheer for a well done piece that is well sculpted and painted yet inaccurate.

 

[PhilinYuma]

You are right, Gordy, I should have given a reference, but the fact is that I was merely giving deviations from standard regulations of the time off the top of my head in the naive belief that they were common knowledge to anyone familiar with the period. The errors do not involve any subtle variations employed by a particular regiment; every infantryman's jacket, according to clothing regulations, had 10 stripes of lace, every stovepipe shako was about 9" tall, every shako badge, except for "special" regiments like the foot guards had a standard brass badge with minor variations such as how the regimental number was delineated and so forth.
A few years ago, it would have been hard to answer yr question without referring to obscure clothing regulations, but now, C.E. Franklin's excellent British Napoleonic Uniforms, 2008, gives us well cited, accurate descriptions and colored illustrations of all British regiments of both cavalry and infantry of the period at a very reasonable price. I got mine for forty quid, but the price should have dropped a bit by now. I just checked the 31st (pp.191, 194-5) and found that what I described was accurate (I was a little relieved, but not surprised!), including the absence of a red stripe on the shoulder tuft.
So why the errors? I do not believe that a sculptor who put so much loving detail into this figure would have made these errors out of laziness or carelessness. I suspect that this figure is based on an illustration by a contemporary European artist who gave an "impression' of this foreign regiment. European were particularly idiosyncratic about their portrayals of the kilted regiments! But if someone knows the sculptor, perhaps they could ask him for his source.
And as I think I said, this is a lovely figure, but folks need to know that it is a lovely inaccurate one.

 

[Vik]

Hello Phillip
Thank for your remarks. Certainly we it is not simple so we mould a figure, and we investigate historical sources. It allows us to do(make) some figures in very rare and whether to poorly known uniform. Doing(making) the given figure I was based on кольсультациях mine good familiar Pavel Alexin. It(he) already long enough works with Russian and foreign publishing houses as the artist and connoisseur of a history of the period 1800-1815 years. (Napoleonic war) .я I shall inform it(him) the list of your remarks and I shall receive from him(it) the answer to your remarks.

 

[Vik]

Now I have informed Pavel a number(line) of your remarks it(he) promised to make on them the developed(unwrapped) answer. We have discussed with it(him) these questions directly now we can answer the following. By preparation of the information on the given figure Pavel I was guided by figure of 1800 I can be mistaken with a spelling of a surname - Ehl Gihl. (Later I shall inform an exact surname). It is figure from a nature representing the British militarian. The data of figure Pavel supplemented by clause from the British magazine, where figure of the specified artist is investigated. On the basis of these materials Pavel also advised me about ëåïêå and colouring of the given figure. The truth the information, which it(he) used was issued earlier, 2008 and book, specified by you.

 

[raty]

hi good one !! i like your figuer !!.ok take care raty.

 

[Vik]

Thank Roland .

 

[gordy]

You are right, Gordy, I should have given a reference, but the fact is that I was merely giving deviations from standard regulations of the time off the top of my head in the naive belief that they were common knowledge to anyone familiar with the period.

Not a problem, Phil, that happens to me as well, but with web technology

A few years ago, it would have been hard to answer yr question without referring to obscure clothing regulations, but now, C.E. Franklin's excellent British Napoleonic Uniforms, 2008, gives us well cited, accurate descriptions and colored illustrations of all British regiments of both cavalry and infantry of the period at a very reasonable price. I got mine for forty quid, but the price should have dropped a bit by now. I just checked the 31st (pp.191, 194-5) and found that what I described was accurate (I was a little relieved, but not surprised!), including the absence of a red stripe on the shoulder tuft.

Now, information like this is what really helps and makes the historical enthusiasts participation really shine and benefit us as figurists, thanks!

So why the errors? I do not believe that a sculptor who put so much loving detail into this figure would have made these errors out of laziness or carelessness. I suspect that this figure is based on an illustration by a contemporary European artist who gave an "impression' of this foreign regiment. European were particularly idiosyncratic about their portrayals of the kilted regiments! But if someone knows the sculptor, perhaps they could ask him for his source.
And as I think I said, this is a lovely figure, but folks need to know that it is a lovely inaccurate one.

True indeed, within contemporary accounts there are contradictory renditions. We would like to think that even our studies in uniforms are within a few keyboard strokes and a google search away, but is not always the case. It is getting there though

Cheers and thanks for your input Phil keep up the good work!

 

[marius'mules]

The knapsack appears to be of the correct type for that era; the pattern 1811 knapsack.

Sources; 'Solders accoutrements of the British Army 1750-1900'- by Pierre Turner.

Quite often; I've noticed that many sculptors model the British knapsacks in the ridged frame style, which is incorrect for the Napoleonic era. The ridged frame style of knapsacks did not start appearing in the British army till the mid 1820's.