IDEA FOR NEW UNIFORM REFERENCE THREAD

[mick3272]

Hi all,
I am only assuming it will be under the umbrella of Historical Ref & Media. The mods are looking at the best way to do this IF it is thought that it is worth doing by the members.

 

[billyturnip]

IF it is thought that it is worth doing by the members.

Seven contributors to this thread so it makes you wonder.

 

[mick3272]

Seven contributors to this thread so it makes you wonder.

Quite, 169 views and as you say 7 contributors. I was going to give it a week before making comment but as you say it makes you wonder.

Mick

 

[Huw63]

Hello Mick

I think it a great idea - I really love researching Napoleonic things and the thought of such a thread has me all excited. I'd willingly join in on this one!!

Cheers

Huw

 

[Colin_Fraser]

OK - I wasn't going to comment but given the limited response I will provide a no perspective for discussion.

Too much clutter. Too restrictive not allowing prints, paintings etc. I have found that I can do my own research using google images etc. and when I can't find something, the members here always come through on a request basis. Potential copyright issues of posting pix out of books. Reminds me of MM's old Uniforminfo special. I bought it and never found one uniform of interest and never read it again. I don't really object but I doubt I would ever look at it.

 

[mick3272]

OK - I wasn't going to comment but given the limited response I will provide a no perspective for discussion.

Too much clutter. Too restrictive not allowing prints, paintings etc. I have found that I can do my own research using google images etc. and when I can't find something, the members here always come through on a request basis. Potential copyright issues of posting pix out of books. Reminds me of MM's old Uniforminfo special. I bought it and never found one uniform of interest and never read it again. I don't really object but I doubt I would ever look at it.

1, The intention is NO Clutter Just Heading ie Regt, Image and brief description if required.
2, No prints as they may not be accurate. Roger aka Billyturnip already cover's this angle with his thread Artists / Illustrators .
3, Its not obligatory members can do their own research. This thread would be no different to any other research site you use.
4, If members post original Images and images available on the net copyright issues should be ok.
5,I didn't see MM Uniform info so I cannot comment. Other than you can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.
6, As to doubting if you would use it I refer you to point 3, above.

Thanks for your comments all points appreciated
Mick.

 

[theBaron]

I could see adding one, to the Historical References forum. Other forums for the hobby to which I belong have separate forums specifically for references, and we can post info on uniforms, flags, unit histories, in short, all of the trivia (I mean that positively) that we all accumulate and would like to share with others in the hobby.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Luis R.]

I like it.

 

[Dan Morton]

Some posting above have said they don't see the potential for large numbers of contributors. I would suggest to you that maybe that's not such a bad thing. In the early stages this would enable the moderators to review the contributions more carefully and to eliminate repeat loading of the same materials (which will certainly happen). I would also suggest to you that as the ball starts rolling and more and more material is loaded, possibly more contributors would be attracted.

I would happily contribute to such a reference. According to the properties menu on my computer, I have 7.90 Gb in 20,766 files separated into 1,299 folders of mostly World War 1 material. There are at least a few useful images and text related to the conflicts from 1870 to about 1951. The images include uniforms, field equipment and weapons. I've been collecting this stuff for 12 years and continue to add to it. Some comes from web sites, some from magazines, books, etc., some from friends who know I have an interest in collecting images of this period.

For copyright control and other reasons, I would have to be edit extensively and carefully cull images and text before sending it to Planetfigure. Unless the artist or their estate gave prior approval, personally I would not load illustrations and paintings out of concern for artist copyright control. Photos from magazines still being published and reference books - again speaking only for myself, I would be very careful what I sent to Planetfigure.

All the best,
Dan

 

[Mark S]

What's wrong with the current forum which serves that same exact purpose now..............

"Historical References, Literature & Media Review"
"Discuss current and out of print books and magazines. Research and the study of uniforms past and present are also suited here."

Is there something wrong with the uniform reference forum that currently exists?
Why start another one?.......I don't get it.

 

[mick3272]

Hi Dan.
You have some very good points, It may be that we start of with just one category to see how it runs with postings going through some sort of clearing station, I dont know these are only ideas at the moment. I would like to see every one get involved as we all have different areas of knowledge, and once the ball starts rolling I believe those posting will stick to the thread aims.
If you were willing to share then you would only do so if you were satisfied that what you were posting would be correct.
Thanks Mick

 

[mick3272]

What's wrong with the current forum which serves that same exact purpose now..............

"Historical References, Literature & Media Review"
"Discuss current and out of print books and magazines. Research and the study of uniforms past and present are also suited here.

Mark S
There is nothing wrong with the currant forum. This would stand alongside but only contain images that are 100% accurate I refer you to images 1. & 2 above.
Fig 1 is 100% correct and would be held in this thread.
Fig 2 is NOT 100% correct but provides a great deal of useful secondary Information. Therefor it would not be held in the new thread it could however be posted in the currant thread or Billyturnips thread Artists / Illlustrators.
[quote=""Historical References, Literature & Media Review"

Is there something wrong with the uniform reference forum that currently exists?
[/quote]

As the uniform ref forum stands the information is all over the place and in IMO a bugger to find.
Hope this helps
Mick

 

[billyturnip]

I can see both sides of this discussion, perhaps the way to go is conduct a bit of an experiment. Start a thread in the "Historical References etc." section with a title like "Photographs of original uniforms, weapons and equipment".
After a period of time we'll be able to gauge whether or not it's worth requesting it's own sub section within Historical refs.

 

[Dan Morton]

Excellent suggestion Roger! Straightforward and a simple way to test this idea.

All the best,
Dan

 

[mick3272]

I can see both sides of this discussion, perhaps the way to go is conduct a bit of an experiment. Start a thread in the "Historical References etc." section with a title like "Photographs of original uniforms, weapons and equipment".
After a period of time we'll be able to gauge whether or not it's worth requesting it's own sub section within Historical refs.

Hi Roger.
I have written via PM to the moderators putting this suggestion forward I am awaiting a reply.
Mick

 

[Claude Portsmouth]

To be honest guys just sign into" Pinterest" and you can fill your boots with more uniform info than you can download in a lifetime.

No need for another section.

Claude

 

[Colin_Fraser]

Hi Mick - you worry me a bit with the 100% accurate comment. Just because a uniform coatee lands in a book or museum does not make it automatically accurate. There are misattributions, counterfeits, field modifications, in year changes in dress regs, regimental differences, after period modifications and a host of other reasons why a certain artifact may not be correct or the last word. In addition, the colour of original uniform pieces can be way off due to dye fade.

Personally I would put a lot of weight on the illustrations of SOME contemporary artists who were there (e.g. Faber du Faur, Albrecht Adam etc.). Based on your criteria, the hussar portrait I am currently working on would be deemed ineligible but it seems to be accurate right down to the lace weave.



I guess I am being a bit of a devil's advocate but the idea would seem to be rivet counter fodder if the included items are labeled right and anything that differs is deemed wrong through exclusion. Not saying don't do it....just saying think through the criteria fully first.

 

[billyturnip]

Of course you're right Colin but if the info is there the individual can use it or disregard as he sees fit.

 

[mick3272]

I take your point Colin, But if an item of uniform, weapon or item of kit appears in a Regimental Museum or Military Museum purporting to be original then thats a safe bet in my eyes, Yes there are changes in dress regs add the changes if the image available along with regimental anomalies.
I will take your word for the accuracy of the portrait shown. But for every Correct one there will be ten that are wrong.
As roger states use it or disregard it. Its free and posted to help
Mick

 

[Mark S]

I appreciate the idea, but as Colin has already suggested, this place is a minefield when it comes to accuracy.
Whomever adopts the role of deciding which image is accurate and which is not will be inviting a hole lot of abuse and aggro the like of which we often see here on the few occasions inaccuracies are pointed out on new releases.

When you begin to introduce rulings like..."Therefor it would not be held in the new thread it could however be posted in the currant thread or Billyturnips thread Artists / Illlustrators." I think you may be in for some argument.

But having said that I'd like to see such a thing thrive without any trouble and all the best in establishing a uniform reference.