LUCIUS LIVIUS, CENTURION LEGION XI VINDONISSA (69 AC) (Scale75)

[Johan Kees]

As I obviously opened this can of worms, my critisism hasn't anything to do with historical correctness. It's not at all a question of oversized shields, swords ar the things alike. This debate really doesn't need to be reopened as there is hardly a miniature on the market that is presumed a 100 % correct. In this case it's only a matter of the overall appearance of the miniature. I'm sorry, but why should I falsely praise a miniature that in my opinion looks far beneath the standard we all are accustomed nowadays? I could go into detail, but that might be just a bit to hateful.

Like has been suggested above, companies should take the time to reflect on the quality of the items they release on the market. And if they don't and get the heat, who is then to blame?

Jhan

 

[Colin_Fraser]

I have to say I am a little suprised at the reaction to this piece. I am often surprised to see a chorus of "greats" and "love its" to releases I can see major anatomical faults with. If someone points something negative out he is met with derision and abuse.

And yet this one seems to have attracted massively negative comment. But All I can see is the thick shield and a painting style that is too cartoony for me. Go figure.

Edit - posted this before reading David's and Dimitry's notes. Great minds.

 

[Martin64]

While I agree about the comments about the thickness of the shield - according to the pictures which might exaggerate the problem - I wonder why Centurions should not have carried a shield at all on the battlefield.
They were expected to lead by example as can be taken from many contemporary accounts - so they had to take a position within the front ranks when it came
to this:

In my eyes it would have been a good idea to take a shield with you when things got serious.
This figure and it`s facial features still is not my cup of tea either - and I wished that on all releases critical discussion and comments would be accepted so easily like on this one.
In my eyes another sculptor`s name or another producer and this thread would have already gone down in flames. But that is of course not a problem of Scale 75.
Cheers, Martin

 

[Babelfish]

I've seen much worse figures being praised. I'm not saying the critiscisms here are not justified, but someone seems to have really opened a floodgate of hate. How much work does it take to cut off and replace a rectangular sheild? I'm usually a stickler for historical accuracy and not being a student of all things Roman, I can't comment on the armour but I can't see many Centurions at Teutoburg having spent too much time thinking, "Hmm, I can't possibly pick that sheild up, it's against the rules!"

"Hate"? Since when did criticism of a piece equate to "hate"?? Let's not over-egg the pudding here!

As for the comment about how much work does it take to cut off and replace the shield, I think the point is that for €50 / $55 / GBP 40 - you shouldn't have to!

I don't buy the theory about certain manufacturers or sculptors being "above criticism" on this site either. This isn't the first thread in which I've seen that claim made, but I haven't seen any real evidence of that at all and would be interested to see any examples of it. I've been a member here for over 6 years now and in that time I've seen pretty much any manufacturer I can think of come in for criticism at some point (and praise for that matter). Maybe it's just that some attract less criticism simply because they are more consistently good? Just a thought!

- Steve

 

[Colin_Fraser]

One question that has always slightly bothered me re. painted shields. Look at the reenactor shields above and tell me what sort of paints the Romans used to achieve THAT sort of result. I don't know a lot about Roman shields but I would think the surface would be painted leather over wood, or just wood? What sort of paint would the Roman have used that could have resulted in such bright, precise and high contrast design on that sort of surface. This sort of modern repro seems to provide the pattern for figure painters. Perhaps this issue has been discussed on other forums like Medren? If that is off topic, perhaps a separate thread?

@ Steve - i can think of several specific examples in the last two years where a comment on a release nearly triggered a flame war because the manufacturer was not receptive to constructive criticism or negative comment, but more so because other members jumped in to defend the offended. I don't see a lot of point in reraising the specific examples here as it would likely resurrect the same battle and would be totally off topic. My only point is that I don't understand why this figure has attracted so much critique but I agree "hate" is an overstatement.

 

[stu]

I personnally dont see what the problem is if a manufacturer stands by his product .

If they dont do they not care about it ??? Or if they do are they percieved as over sensitive. If something is wrong surely it would be better to own up ..correct it or amend if possible.

Maybe its the fact that the manufacturer challenges the critique thats the problem.

Off topic but another slant on it.

Stuart

 

[Babelfish]

Colin, what I meant was that pretty much all manufacturers are (and have at some point been) "fair game". It's not that people are "afraid" to criticise them, or are so sycophantic or "brand loyal" that they won't criticise them.

Whether or not (and how) manufacturers then respond to that criticism is a matter for them, but that's not the same as pF members being unwilling (for whatever reason) to post negative comments about certain manufacturers.

- Steve

 

[Colin_Fraser]

Steve and Stu - I PM'd you both to avoid this thread getting completely hijacked. My only point is that I kind of like the centurian but the throng sees little good in it.

But the shield is too thick for sure. Personally I think that is a hard fix.

 

[Martin64]

I don`t think it is needed to give evidence Steve was asking for (now edited in his post) because the notion that some critical comments on certain products are followed immediately by a flame war and others are not is anyway a personal one and this debate leads away from the original topic of this thread.

Colin:
That the Romans used these kind of shield designs can be seen on the images of the Trajan Column.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Roman_turtle_formation_on_trajan_column.jpg
How the Romans acchieved these results I don`t know for sure but here is an idea how the reenactors do it:

Cheers, Martin

 

[Johan Kees]

One question that has always slightly bothered me re. painted shields. Look at the reenactor shields above and tell me what sort of paints the Romans used to achieve THAT sort of result. I don't know a lot about Roman shields but I would think the surface would be painted leather over wood, or just wood? What sort of paint would the Roman have used that could have resulted in such bright, precise and high contrast design on that sort of surface. This sort of modern repro seems to provide the pattern for figure painters. Perhaps this issue has been discussed on other forums like Medren? If that is off topic, perhaps a separate thread?

Colin

Fair question about the intensity of the colours used by the Romans. As a general rule for the period, all dyes were based on natural resources like plants and insects/snails/.... How bright a colour would be, depended on the purse of the buyer. The most intense colours were extremely expensive. So it is very likely that the shields of the Roman legionairies would not be that brightly coloured at all, with the red presumably being more of an earth colour (example). Next to that, it is also very likely that their shield designs (if these were even common practice!) were not as artful or fancyful as we, modelers, try to achieve on our miniatures.

One thing is almost certain though. As the rectangular scutums weighted around 10 kilos, it is highly unlikely that shield designs would have been executed with embossed bronze/copper plating. To carry and use these heavy shields on the road and during battle would be troublesome enough without a superfluous raised shield design that would add only to the weight and be destroyed right from the first engagement with the enemy forces.

Hope this helps.

Jhan

 

[Colin_Fraser]

Colin:
That the Romans used these kind of shield designs can be seen on the images of the Trajan Column.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Roman_turtle_formation_on_trajan_column.jpg
How the Romans acchieved these results I don`t know for sure but here is an idea how the reenactors do it:

Cheers, Martin

Martin - my question is not re. design. It refers to the chemistry and finish of the paint. Vegetable dyes I assume but what carrier? Resin? Petroleum product? I can't see how the pristeen reenactor shields can be anything like accurate. I don't see how the Romans would have achieved that richness of paint colour. Just curious.

 

[Colin_Fraser]

Thanks Johan....that is what I was alluding to.

 

[Jerry_Groschke]

there is no reason why but someone love a figure other people do not - thats all.

 

[Johan Kees]

Thanks Johan....that is what I was alluding to.

You're welcome Colin.

On a sidenote: the odd thing is that while we can assume that Roman shield designs were rather crudely painted, the first figure painter that would dare to represent a shield design as a dauber (but clearly and most likely in line with historical correctness), he/she would be ridiculed and at its best put away as an amateur. No medals would be gained, that's for sure!

Jhan

 

[Colin_Fraser]

You're welcome Colin.

On a sidenote: the odd thing is that while we can assume that Roman shield designs were rather crudely painted, the first figure painter that would dare to represent a shield design as a dauber (but clearly and most likely in line with historical correctness), he/she would be ridiculed and at its best put away as an amateur. No medals would be gained, that's for sure!

Jhan

Totally agree LOL

 

[TADATSUGU]

My comment "floodgate of hate" was intended to reflect on what I thought was, IMHO, the level of reaction being attracted by a reasonable, if not perfect figure. I am surprised that the word "hate" has been focused on to such a degree and, to my thinking, out of context. Lighten up guys it's only a word. I'll take the lesson and next time leave it at "I don't think it's that bad myself" I really feel like you can't say anything on this site without causing major offence to someone.
As to the shield painting, Why do we assume that they were crudely painted. I don't know anything about this but surely the Legions had artisans to maintain their armour and equipment. Why wouldn't there be a level of artistry employed? Having seen the remains of Eygptian and Minoan artwork on stone and plaster still looking relatively bright and colourful after centuries of wear I don't see why their shields wouldn't have been equally as well painted. JUST AN OPINION.

 

[Martin64]

Martin - my question is not re. design. It refers to the chemistry and finish of the paint. Vegetable dyes I assume but what carrier? Resin? Petroleum product? I can't see how the pristeen reenactor shields can be anything like accurate. I don't see how the Romans would have achieved that richness of paint colour. Just curious.

I have visited several museums where you could see examples of Roman clothing dyed according to research and with natural means. I was amazed about the richness of some colors. It was not so easy to find examples (in English) on the net. Here we go:
http://www.tribunesandtriumphs.org/roman-clothing/colors-of-roman-clothing.htm
Some examples of natural dyes which are cheap like the peels of onions (second from the right in the top row) or madder / "Krapp" (centre of the second row)

and an example of red dye acchieved with madder on cloth:

and two examples on leather dyed with madder:
http://www.archaeoforum.de/viewtopic.php?t=1650


Cheers, Martin

 

[Colin_Fraser]

But we aren't talking about artistic ability or dyeing clothing. We are talked about painting hide or wood shields, unless I have the materials wrong. We now have oil and latex based paints that would do the job. But these were not available two millenia ago. What sort of paint from that time would you use to colour a Roman shield even if you were a superb artist? Surely not clothing dye, unless the shields were cloth covered. What carrier would they use to create a stable opaque bright paint for a shield?

Painting plaster is very different than painting hide. White plaster is absorbent and can be stained with little loss of colour. I have seen the extant paintings in the houses in Pompei so I get that. Painting a shield is not the same as painting a plaster wall though. So it's a chemistry question. Based on what I have seen so far, I have to assume Johan has it right.

 

[Martin64]

Well - according to sources written on historical forums in German vegetable casein, bees wax and linseed oil mixed with pigments was used to acchieve this:

.... not a bad result, eh?
Cheers, Martin

 

[Colin_Fraser]

That's what I was looking for. But still a lot darker, plainer and rougher than some of the shaded wings pieces I have seen on some Roman figures. Also I have seen the encaustic mummy portraits that are among my favourite pieces in the British Museum and the Romans certainly could do wonders with wax and pigment on portraits. Wax wouldn't stand up to battle though. Just interested.