Historically Correctness?

[Martin Antonenko]

Concerning the current discussion at the "Figure News"-Forum I felt free to start this little poll...:

 

[bagelman1952]

I think it depends on the figure. If I was an avid collector and painter of figures from a specific country or period I think I would expect a high degree of accuracy although as an 'expert' with extensive knowledge of my area of preference I would expect there to be some minor innaccuracies which I would correct myself. However, some of the most striking figures, particularly busts, can carry off the 'hollywood' touch because of the visual impact. For some modelers this is why they are in the hobby. In my first incarnation in this hobby 40 odd years ago I prided myself on being very knowledgable about second world war German armour and regularly pointer out errors in otherwise superbly finished models. Now I tend to go for the asthetically pleasing look and am personally not too bothered about historical accuracy if the figure attracts my eye. I would not buy the figure referred to in 'Figure News' because it looks like it has been sliced in half by a James Bond laser not because the uniform has some errors. (although even with my limited knowledge I knew the hat and bag was wrong)

 

[captnenglish]

As a teacher of history, I am pretty particular, but certain things, especially minor flaws I don't mind depending on the subject, cost and material (resin verses metal).

 

[Steve]

I am adamant about accuracy. Aside from my passion for history, a historically accurate figure is one of the things that separate what we do from toys.
I will fix a minor error but anything glaring is a no go.

 

[Johan]

Nothing less than 100% historical accuracy will do.

 

[Edward]

Historical accuracy is important to me, though the last two figures I've posted on here have raised some issues! I do my best anyway, whilst sometimes choosing the aesthetically pleasing option if the accuracy issue seems a little hazy. When it comes to buying a commercial figure I would expect to be able to paint it without having to make alterations.. I like doing research about a figure I've bought but that's more general research about the period rather than counting buttons etc. - I think that's up to the sculptor.

 

[LVM]

I think that historical accuracy is important because we paint history ! There are so many figure on the market to have the luxus of being demanding. However, little errors can happen. Si I voted for the second option.

Laurent

 

[Gaudin]

I am a bit split - I appreciate artistic value and design, but if a historic subject is made that is well documented and researched - there is no excuse for gaffs. Having said that, the sculptor can be provided with crap references and it isnt fair to say that its selectively a job of a sculptor to do the research and producer must accept some responsibility.
Interestingly, the more I learn the more I become particular about accuracy - some sort of maturation I guess or turning into old fart process, take your pick.

As in the end of the day we love history and its a snap shot of a kind -a figurine or a bust should educate you and please esthetically at the same time.
Having said that I am not into zealot persuit of minutia and accept there should be some flexibility where there is no clear evidence.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Problem is that what is Historical Accurate today may very well be Historical Inaccurate next week and again Historical Accurate next month?

I go with what seems to be Historical Accurate within reasonable doubt. Also there is a difference in what is taught at the barracks and what is done in campaing.

Cheers
Janne Nilsson

 

[Helm]

I pretty much agree with Janne on this, but there is no real excuse in these days of the internet etc to produce a figure with glaring historical errors, if you do produce a figure with what appears to be an error enclose a a bit of information to back up why you've done it. And there is definitely a difference between parade and field dress and equipment squaddies will always "improve" or "lose" equipment to suit themselves

Steve

 

[Einion]

Historical accuracy is very important to me, and I think far more emphasis should be put on it in the hobby. As has been pointed out in past threads where the same issue has arisen it's not always easy to know for sure what is accurate, which can certainly be true, but glaring inaccuracies or anachronisms? Definitely a no-no IMB.

Einion

 

[old grumbler]

When I began in the hobby 'uniformology' and research played a major part of the figure hobby, in fact it was bloody good fun researching and on the way discovering so many other things, art, history, books, old established societies. Figures were a gateway to so many other things. The joys of finding an original Malibran in a dusty old bookshop etc etc. The magazine military modelling used to carry excellent articles with superb original illustrations. Bob Marrion, the Fosten brothers are a couple of excellent examples. When the editorship changed this aspect of the hobby was slowly phased out, a big mistake, military illustrated too until that lost it's edge. The french have always taken it seriously and produce many historical magazines devoted to history, uniforms and figures and long may they continue. maybe, sadly it is true the hobby has changed and historical accuracy is no longer that important to many and 'research' is limited to the box art and maybe an osprey book, well that is just a fact of life. I've noticed that there aren't that many serious historian/modellers around anymore. When sculpting a piece the sculptor is responsible for the finished item and therefore the research - all of it there is no excuse. A project should be thoroughly researched before mixing putty, the sculptor should know how things work, how material was cut etc etc etc, the thing is all this information is available, you simply have to do some work and digging, visit museums, see the actual garments, study period portraits, see how hair was styled, see how the clothing affected the physique and how people stood, and walked. Only when you've done all that can you then approach a piece with confidence that what you are producing is the fairest accurate representation possible.

 

[FigureLover]

I dont model any particular subject/era, I go from modern to ancient and anything in between as well as movie related stuff, so any figure that grabs my attention through its pose or general appeal usually wins me over. I cant profess to know all about any particular subject, but know a bit about a lot of different subjects so if a figure has the wrong amount of buttons it doesnt phaze me, I may fix it if it bugs me, but if an ancient is wearing modern military boots, then I wouldnt look twice at it.
When starting a figure, I will do my reasearch as to colours and a general history so to depict it in its enviroment. Its this reasearch that I love doing, but wont stress over small inaccuracies.
I would prefer several kits being realeased of a subject with minor inaccuracies than one single kit that is 100% accurate. I like the choice
Ben

 

[Meehan34]

I voted for the last one.

 

[housecarl]

I'm in the if I like it, I'll paint it category.
Having said that I do think accuracy is important,
Carl.

 

[O' Tabac]

I don't mind a figure with small historical errors, because this stimulates my passion for uniformology research, and then, I make small changes to a kit, belongs more to me.
Maurizio

 

[Bailey]

I value historical accuracy... but I also place equal value on a well done sculpt (nice detail, attention to anatomy, etc) and an interesting topic, pose, whatever. I can think of one company that does great research on their figures and produces some of the most accurate ones I've seen. Unfortunately I feel like maybe 1/3 to 1/2 of their figures just look off. Meanwhile there are a lot of companies that produce great looking figures but clearly did the bare minimum in historical research.

When it comes to my area of interest (ancients, Greeks, Romans), any major error is going to be a turn off. There are more than enough good kits out there so why paint one that's not? Of course small errors are excusable. I'm by no means an expert and, while I hope the sculptor has done some homework, I don't expect he or she has devoted their life to learning every little detail about a certain time period.

If it's a figure not in my area then all I really care about is if it looks neat and would be fun to paint.

 

[ChaosCossack]

Being a "horse and musket" enthusiast, uniformology is almost a hobby unto itself. As well as general historical research, this is as big a part of the hobby as actually putting paint on a figure. Not only should the uniform be correct, but the setting of the figure is just as important... you can't have a French Revolutionary infantryman in a Waterloo diorama. With the advent of the internet, research can actually be harder as not everything on the web can be taken as hard truth and contradictions abound. For me, a couple of trusted books and web sources keep me on track.

That being said, a well sculpted and posed figure that may be historically inaccurate can be just as gratifying to paint if the artistic licence is taken for what it is. It's a very short trip for an ancient barbarian figure to become a fantasy piece a la Conan... but if it looks good, that can be enough. As long as said fantasy piece isn't being passed off as the real McCoy.

Cheers

Colin

 

[theBaron]

Kommt drauf an, mei liaba Martin! It depends. I chose #3. I don't mind buying a figure with built-in inaccuracies, because I can plan the build and modify as necessary.

Of course, I build and paint in a little different style from everyone else, and the nature of my raw materials--old Stadden castings, Imrie-Risley, Rose, Prins August castings--means that I usually have some rework to do, before I prime the metal. A case in point, I'm working on a Stadden casting of a Prussian dragoon standard-bearer from the Seven Years War. He carries the usual Stadden flag, with a cravat attached. Appropriate for the Imperial German Army, perhaps, but not for Frederick's army. However, I'm leaving it on, because removing it would have taken too much work, and possibly damaged the flag, it wasn't worth the effort, for my purposes.

Good discussion topic, Martin, prost!
Brad

 

[Ernest]

If the figure looks good and very good looking sculpt I don't care about the rest, I enjoy to paint good sculpting figures, is Ok if this figure is not "historical correct" I could say is a fantasy figure anyway, but fun to paint..