Forthcoming Release from SK Miniatures

[pinsel]

dear carl
i do enjoy this conversation.and i understand your points of course.surely this gentleman is an relaible source as you state.
i have no problems when you go with his oppinion.simply because i have no sholarship only 20 years in art trading with armour furniture and arms.and i do agree an sculptor can not be an expert in any aspect,even more if he is at home in so many different subjects from ww2 down to medieval periode.
and i agree this must not be an place where one shall be insist in his oppinion.i will search for the issue of osprey you mention and have an look.
as i said only because i have not seen one this must not mean it can not be.
i am happy that you are not angry,i understand this place here as place where one might discuss such matters.
i have become reluctant in last time posting some concerns but here i could not resisit.
i have not thought to date to contact osprey.because in my 20 years one did come to the point that there is an certain breaking line beetween the art tarde anmd the sholarship which wants to see anything in their mueseum.so one is often confronted with an certain stance against the trade.
i once heard one say
art traders are like vultures they only see the value not the historical value
so both sides have their oppinions abaout each other.they do it with certifactes we do it with the right nose and the right feel what will sell on the market.such things tend to collide.
one gets an fine nose after years handling antiques.more becausae when one hold ist one gets an sense for the craftmanship and the technics involved making the stuff.
cheers

 

[carl reid]

Dear Marcus,

I am not angry at all, mildly irritated possibly!

It appears that this entire conversation has grown from you assuming that this helmet does not excist, because you haven't seen one!!!
But you have have openly said just because you have not seen one, then this doesn't mean it does not excist.

You are also assuming that because details in another Osprey, some years ago was wrong, and as a result Velinden produced a piece that was incorrect. That this piece must be incorrect too.

In all your posts you haven't validated your points with images or evidence, you have simply made random comments. As a result the entire thread is highjacked, diverting the attention from the piece and in turn the manufacturer!

This is the last I will say on the matter!

Cheers
Carl

 

[pinsel]

hello
no then you get me wrong.i just wanted to be not to harsh.i stay with my statements in no way this helmet will be to use in an logic way.it can not be opened without ramming down you cockerell on the head nor has it any locking or anchoring device to held open which any visored helmet has.
and last when this special booklets are wrong in their artwork in regards to the verlinden kit why not here again.
sorry i hold my points.even if you are irritated or more.
and yes i have never seen one in an auction catalogue or an fair not in an museum like the wallace collection -royal armoury or at the louvre or the french army museum nor in germanic nationalmuseum nuremberg
nor have i ever seen on in an auctionhouse or anywhere at all.and i have visited some over the time.
its only the point one learns in life never say never.but from logic points alone and all knowledge i gathered i say
highly impropable and in this combination shown not to use.so why make an visor when you can it not open because of the heraldic crest.
sorry i did start this discussion.i thought it might do some good.but again i have learned that its unwanted and its in last effect only pissing of the artist.should i have highjacked this thread then sorry.but i do not think that some critics in historic detail will hold off any people keen on it at all.
i understand that its more pleasing to get ohhhhhhhhh and ahhhhhhhhhhhhh,but its the risk when one shows something that one might have some comments not to welcome.
but i tend to follow in life allways the hard way.
some like it and surely the overhelming crowd not
but well i am to old to alter it.i thought only lets have an try even if my sixt sense said
let it be....
cheers

 

[carl reid]

At this point I have to apologise to Steve Kirtley, because I said I would not add to this lengthening thread. But I have to reply to the last post, I'm sorry!

Firstly Marcus are you saying the helmet is wrong or not?

Secondly you appear to be accusing me of being a fragile artist! If you knew me Marcus you would know that could not be further from the truth. I am in fact the polar opposite!
I have worked freelance sculpting for many years, many of those for corporate industry and galleries. These people see maoney not art, and they make choices based upon that theory. I have any artist grandure beaten out of me many years ago as a result.
But you are not claiming the piece doen't work aesthetically. Which is an opinion, and is fine... You are claiming historiacl inaccuracies, which can or can not be proved....!

Thirdly what is wrong with me asking you to produce evidence of your claim, rather than hear say and what in effect is just throw away comments?

That is all i am saying.
This really will be my final post on this matter.

If you want to reply to this Marcus please do it via Private message! Because SK Miniatures really should NOT be having to put up with this high jacking of there promotional thread!

Cheers

Carl

 

[Don]

Pinsel I have read your laboured thoughts on this bust, and wonder if you are basing your "Facts" on nothing. Any chance of a photo to prove one way or the other that such a helmet did not exist?
I think its a terrific figure and have to admire Carl for his work and thanks to Steve for his work in bringing this bust to the market.
Now its nearly on the market you have two choices, either buy it or dont. I am sure Steve and Carl would be delighted if you did purchase it.
Now comes the hard part, if you dont like this helmet, which I am sure would not be a fighting helmet but a ceremonial helmet only, then cut the emblem off. There, that wasnt so hard, I also believe if you think the visor is too big that could be trimmed. There you have it, a different figure but still well sculpted.
As for your right on this form to say what you think, as I am doing now, dont you have to base such thoughts on some hard evidence? Show me whats wrong and I will agree, just make a poor point, you will certainly not win me over to your side.
Nice figure Carl!

Don

 

[Tommy's War]

Ducking to avoid the crossfire , I would just like to add my opinion which is that its a great looking figure, beautifully sculpted and cast.

It going to be one that we're going to see a lot of at modelling shows as its going to look fantastic painted-up, and I am really looking forward to seeing it!

Great work Carl and Steve

 

[dArtagnan]

Excellent sculpt, Carl! As allways lovely work, mate!
Eddy

 

[pinsel]

i think mr reid you loose slighty the fitting to the carpet.
i was already on the position to reach you the hand and thank you for the discussion when you answered with your comment that you are mildly irriatded.for what?
so what is the main problem.you do you reveal you career details here.
did one doubt that you are one of the best sculpturs around?iam surely not.even if your german steel helmets have the wrong shape.pun out.
is it so unbearbly that you might followed an badly researched illustration from an booklet?do you think that any painter will give an nickle for my comments?
i would not even call my points CRITICS.i see them only as HINTS TO SOME DETAIL
you are an sculptur and i traded stuff you did sculpt over 20 years.
so where is the problem.
FACTS ARE-no crested helmet with visor which opens to the top is existent.crested helmets where used in the JOUST or KOLBENRENNEN.the helmets in the first are called frogmouths or pillboxes and have no visors the latter have barred visors and an globular skull visor does not open at all.
and then one knows the classic pothelmets like the PRANKE HELMET with no visor at all
other crested helmets are never used
if you want try out the theorie
glue an teddy bear on top of an motorcycle helmet then tilt the visor full upwards and you will get entagled to the bear...
be assured.the last thing i was after,was to piss you or harm any reputaions
but human myself i begin to get pissed myself.
so i think i will not comment any stuff from you ever again.but when an simple disussion ends in such an dramatic act i will spend in future my money not on any of them either.maybe my loss,but there are so mayn nice figures araound which i can spoil with my bad brushwork.
sorry i thought one could disucss such things here on an normal base.
at moment i do get the feeling i tried to sell the pope an pornmagazine from the attitudes rising here.
YOUR FIGURE IS NICE
even if i do not fully go for the helmet
that is all.but i thought one might here disuss such details without getting blamed beeing on an crusade against your TALENTS.
this is now my last comment in this thing
dear don
sorry i can not show you an photography of an item which does not exist.if you follow the logic reasons and maybe try the bear helmet thing it might do the trick.
cheers

 

[carl reid]

Thank you all for your positive comments. I'm sure Lee's Box-art will look fabulous as always!

It a pity Marcus has taken this choice, but that's life they say!

Here is an image of the artwork used. I can't offer any further information at this stage because Lee has the book.

Thanks again.

Carl

 

[polyphemus]

I don't wish to fan the flames if this debate any further but a couple of points about this occur to me; if, as a painter of this piece, you don't like or doubt the crest then remove it. It does seem possible to me that the visor would open up to the extent permitted by the crest and would in effect be fully open.
Now this might be a totally naive view but is it possible that the crest itself be some locking device to hold the visor open?

Geoff

 

[pinsel]

no crest where made of parchment or boiled leathers and where very lightweight.there is no way to secure an visor to this flimsy construction used mostly in tourneys.
but next flaw is the surcoat.its shown with chains afixed to the breast.on those dagger as sword where fixed to secure them against lost.
but those chains are only LOGIC on an coat of lates or PLATEN like they are called correctly.such where found in the gravees of VISBY.this is an cuirass of segmented plates this is then covered with leather or velvets.this coat has buckles at top at shoulders and ad side of the waist and will closed with buckles.its like the latter briangtines used in the 15-16 centuries.
here one sees an thin surcoat.and at breats are the chains.
using logics i ask myself how the knight shall pull over the surcoat and the chains shall protrude from it?if the sucrcoat is pulled over an coat of plates then the chains would be under it not above....and the thinn surcoat has no strenght to secure those chains at it.if one would rivet an loop to it it would very fast rip out.because many of those coats where made from silk.
so again its unlogic aspect.chains on an coat of plates are commonly found in germany shown on some grave epitaphs of the timeframe 1350 ties.but ALL where an coat of plates and none an heraldic surcoat.
the only thing would make an hole in the surcoat pull it over and the sling the chains from the underlying plate through the hole in the surcoat....well fully unlogic and simply incorrect
so i stay at my comments.i did not make them out of evil spirit i made them only to show that one must use logic in all aspects of uniforms or clothing.but when such an thing goes rampage then let it go decent in all aspects to the end.so this is then all i have to say.
such things would simply not work when in use
but hey who cares...only those which are in details about this stuff.
so no reason to get pissed again
cheers

 

[Kirtles]

Thanks guys for all the positive comments.

Thanks also to you Markus - you are entitled to your opinion.

Carl & I have both responded to detail where the information came from for the model. It has come from a respectable historian & also a respected illustrator.

I think the time has come to move on from this. You have made your points & I think it's now best to leave it to the modelling community to make their own minds up.

Carl or I will post revised pictures shortly.

Steve
www.skminiatures.co.uk

 

[AJLaFleche]

Not getting into the accuracy debate, and not a period I paint often, I'm wondering what the chain like thing is hanging from the figure's left breast.

To me, the cutaway on the left creates some added dynamism.

 

[meizi]

So great! I really love this piece.
Congratulations!

 

[Kirtles]

Thanks Al & Meizi!

Al - the chains are connected to his sword & his dagger. However (as this is a bust) they are not on the piece.

Cheers,

Steve
www.skminiatures.co.uk

 

[renarts]

Nicely done bust and interesting debate.
http://home.scarlet.be/~klauwaer/helm/
Link contains a survey of great helms, including a line drawing labeled from the Manessa Codex and depicts a pivoting bevored great helm with a heraldic crest very similar to the sculpt. In recreations of this type of helmet that I have come across, the bevor does not interfere with the crest when lifted.
If you look at the Luttrell Psalter, Geoffrey's wife is handing him his helmet which is a visored great helm with crest.
It must be noted that a hinged bevor is not a hinged visor and the two can be confused. There's something to argue about......

 

[pinsel]

hello
the hinged bevors you show are an special sporting feature.because jousting was done with sharp lance there was searched for an armour for the vulnerable throat area.and here you see its hanging over the throat neck.but its much to small and short to be tilted upward over the helmets brow.
its only and part fixed at the lower part of the helmets plate to save the neck from any harm.one sees its not ment as visor because its hanging under the eyeslit its an additional part to deflect an lance strike away from the neck.neverless an dirrect hit on it must have enougn to break the mans neck.because in sharp battle on etries to hit the adversary on the weakest point which is the head with the sharp lance.an direct hit must have often ended with an broken neck even if the lance did not penetrate the plate.
at this date many nobles died not in battle but in jousting.so one sees here the early beginning of the latter tilting armour which was then fitted with special made additional armour plates at helmet.at this date jousting was done in same armour as used on battlefield.
so the pics are totally diffenerent in their message as the look.
seams you spent lots of effort to get all the pics.so far you show twothird of all known pothelmets existent till today.might have taken you some hours to gather all pics together.good work
interesting is that the sculpted helmet look more like an cut open barbuta.mangling the clossed front with t shaped eyeslit.there are some drawing showing this barbuta with very small visors.again here records are very shacky.
in short one should think of medieval men like of that today.there is no big effort spent in weaonry which can not be used in an logic way.
cheers