Hmnn... an interesting conundrum.
When I first saw this 'famous armour' I assumed a gap in my own knowledge (I've always been more into rank and file PBI than the big bods anyway) but, thanks to Martin*, Zastro and Ivopreda I now know more about it and can place it into context.
As Nap, Henkm and others have said, there are two dimensions: artistic/technical and historical (sorry Chris, it does matter to some of us).
From the artistic/technical point of view there seems little doubt that the piece is a tour de force... as I initially said 'fantastique' (I'm sure that we all keenly await Nap's review).
The historical issue is more problematic**. Yet what we have here IS ACCURATE in that: we know it existed, indeed it still does and we can see it in Paris; we have good records as to why, when and probably who made it; evidence suggest that Napoleon tried it on, probably in private (or at least with only members of his household present); however, reports suggest that he thought better of it and never wore it in public (and probably never again).
So, HISTORICALLY, it is likely to be a fair representation of Napoleon in a one-off, pretty-well private and brief moment in time***.
What IT IS NOT is a typical representation of him from any time in his career.
But, there again, the parade ground strict Regs figures that used to dominate the hobby didn't represent typical troops either (either on campaign or, other than the Guard, parade). Indeed, there are plenty of accounts of equipment shortages, issue delays, locally made kit, wear and tear etc from the Revolution to Egypt to Italy to Russia to the Peninsula and finally Waterloo). In response to changing fashion there's been a bounce-back with a raggedy army of releases that to my mind sometimes go too far, but that's a matter of personal taste.
So, in my view this bust is perfectly legitimate (even if the original backstory isn't), albeit for a very brief moment in time, and I'm sure that as a novel show-stopper and painting challenge it will be the centrepiece of many a collection.
Everybody look after yourselves
Neil
* I don't think I saw the initial posting that others have referred to but if it was discourteous then that's not legitimate: mutual respect and courtesy, even in criticism, must be displayed.
**As many will recognise, to me accuracy does count: indeed, these days I rather prefer the research to any actual modelling... I have at least a dozen un-started 'project files' stuffed with info yet not a blob of putty or paint in sight.
**
* Of course historical accuracy tends to become more of an issue the further back one goes (with particularly murky patches such as for 'the dark ages') and there's lots of space for historical speculation and a degree of artistic license. Nevertheless, it's best to avoid avoid horned helmeted vikings (and the now ubiquitous spectacle helmets were not that common) or tartan decked and face painted Wallaces... indeed to my mind most figures based on Hollywood or TV blockbusters are best treated as a sub-category of fandom and fantasy than as historical reality.
