Stormtroopers release

[iceman]

Originally posted by Charles Denomolos@Jul 27 2006, 06:42 AM
Tim, look at his CHIN, and where it is in relation to his SHOULDER. It's not an injustice, the figure does have a giraffe neck.

A well know sculptor once told me to trust your first impression, if it looks wrong, it most probably is wrong.

Charles, I see your point on that! It looks less apparent in the painted up version done by Adrian Hopwood, than the resin image posted originally by Roc. Apparently the resin is soft, so shouldn't be too difficult to rectify. The rest of the stance looks good to me.

Still has lots of character though and with all the different textures I'm sure would be good to paint. I like it so will probably buy it, "warts and all" and try and adapt the neck to be more in ratio, never tried anything like that before, so would be a nice challenge.

Regards

Tim

 

[Robin]

JIm

Judging from that then your first impressions must be spot on each time, is this the case, probably not ,as we all make mistakes with our first impressions, ask those of us who are divorced

The figure is at extreme angles and is twisting to look round something, he is actually one of a pair, the second to come, showing two back to back Frenchman as in the Duellists.

I have seen this figure close up and he doesn't have a giraffe neck, it could be down to picture angle and all sorts of things that make you have that impression.

If its has any faults which I am sure it does, then show me a figure that hasn't, the figures today are far better than the ones we used to get 15 and 20 years ago, but we seem to be far more critical of these figures, action in the figures is what makes the new figures great, straight up and down poses are not boring, they are static, and to be fair very few Sculptors can carry off a truly relaxed pose, I can think of only three who have done it. As the saying goes No Names No Pack drill.

Maybe we should as Tim says wait till we have seen the figure until we condemn it, there might just be a reason why its likes that or at least gives the impression its like that IE pics etc.

You could say I have a vested interest in it as I know Stuart quite well, I would say ask him and hew ill tell you I am his biggest critic and would tell him straight away if there was something wrong.

Its a good figure may never be a classic, but anyoine who buys it gets good value for money and a challenging paint job.

Robin

 

[iceman]

Good points, well made Robin.

Any idea when the other one will be available? Would make a fantastic vignette!!

Tim

 

[Sambaman]

Originally posted by Robin@Jul 27 2006, 11:33 AM
JIm

Judging from that then your first impressions must be spot on each time, is this  the case, probably not ,as we all make mistakes with our first impressions, ask those of us who are divorced

The figure is at extreme angles and is twisting to look round something, he is actually one of a pair, the second to come, showing two back to back Frenchman as in the Duellists.

I have seen this figure close up and he doesn't have a giraffe neck, it could be down to picture angle and all sorts of things that make you have that impression.

If its has any faults which I am sure it does, then show me a figure that hasn't, the figures today are far better than the ones we used to get 15 and 20 years ago, but we seem to be far more critical of these figures, action in the figures is what makes the new figures great, straight up and down poses are not boring, they are static, and to be fair very few Sculptors can carry off a truly relaxed pose, I can think of only three who have done it. As the saying goes No Names No Pack drill.

Maybe we should as Tim says wait till we have seen the figure until we condemn it, there might just be a reason why its likes that or at least gives the impression its like that IE pics etc.

Well, I don't normaly do this but here I go.

I have to say I don't think anyone has condemed this figure. I do however feel that a few people have expressed what they feel are suggestions as to what feels to them as "inacurate". Be that pose, anatomy or costume. We're not saying, "He's a freak, pack him up and send him to the circus!" I think it's all in a very positive and constructive manor. I think anyone who posts their "efforts" here should be willing and open to accept both good and bad, positve and negative, constructive and encouraging remarks. I feel that's ultimately the purpose of the site.

This brings up a good point, several times we have discussed the fact that some feel this site is too much of an "atta-boy" site. Maybe it's easier to give atta-boys than face this type of reaction when you express suggestions other than completely complimentary. I ALWAYS try to temper constructive comments with a positive remark. No matter what effort is displayed, I have no quams whatsoever applauding effort, or making suggestions for improvement.

If we step back and look at this, I don't think any of the comments are made as a personal attack, or as an effort to disuade purchase of the figure. I say if you like it, buy 2! One for you and one for your best collector. I may not be first in line to purchase, but I'm sure there will be pleanty right behind me that will!

Jay H.
OKC

 

[marcellin de marbot]

Hello Tim,
Excuse me, but it is impossible that the officer wore campaign trousers underneath the hungarian breeches, because these were very tight; the usual habit was extacly on the contrary, before breeches and above trousers, to protect the breeches from wearing out (and from cold, too).
Remainig in historical notes, it's improbable also the thin cord on the colback. When carried, the cords were more thick, but in campaign they were not used.
Regards
MdM

 

[Robin]

As I see it thts what we have done, some people have posted one side of a discussion and some people have posted the other side, quite level headed I thought.

I merely pointed out that maybe the figure should be viewed in the flesh so to speak before totally committing to your views of it, the figure has faults as we say, but its on the whole a good figure that will bring a fair amount of enjoyment to those who buy it.

Judging from one picture is always a hasty thing, I supose I merely asked for you to open minded about it and say that yes it could be that, it could be a the picture and the angle the image was shot at. The afct that you may be dubious about it is perfectly natural but view it all the same and just back up or change your views. I have the figure and base my findings on that not a single pic.

Ahhh the old chestnut of who wore what Uniform and when, I am not a subscriber to the "They never wore that" brigade, because there is no proof. having served I can tell you no two squaddies look alike, the way they do things hang equipment, walk wear there gear is on the whole individual and any good NCO or Rupert would be happy as long everything that worked did and the guys did what was told of them when told.

My feelings is that there would have been some soldiers in finery and some not, I do believe that at Waterloo one or two officers fought in theore finery having been pulled from a ball, the book says they wore campaign stuff real life says different, and one thing that War is, is Very Real Life.

Regards

Robin

 

[marcellin de marbot]

Hello Robin,
First of all, try to excuse mu bad english. I agree with you that we cannot know for certain what those men wore in all campaigns, expecially in Spain or in Russia, where conditions of war were terrible. However, why to represent an exception, or an improbable condition about an historical figure? I think is better depict a clothes provided for rules, and in this case logic for the weather too. Trousers were surely better to protect from cold than breeches (and I assure you that was impossible wear trousers underneath tight breeches as said from Tim); red morocco boots were made of a leather too much delicate to use at war, and finally the cord, so tiny, on the colback is absolutely a bizarre pattern. Certainly, you can say that this officer has lost his trousers and his usual boots along the retreat, and he put on a cord taken from another cap of a died soldier, but why depict absolutely by force a strangeness?
Regards
MdM

 

[Robin]

Hi

Your english is fine so theres no apologies needed.

I see your point about the uniform, but one could say, why stick to the normal when you can do something slightly different or even wildly different so that it stands out and makes it interesting.

Just a thought.

Robin

 

[iceman]

Having served myself as well, 7 years as an officer in 2 Queens, I would have to concur with Robin, especially in the British Army, where frequently other countries kit was superior, i.e. West German Para boots, were better than the DMS and puttees, I had a pair for exercises.

I also know that to keep warm in the field we'd wear anything we could, I have even worn tights (just have to remeber to cut a slit in the front!) So it's feasible that the bulk in this figure is because he has worn as many layers as possible, surely it could be feasible that this is a pair of breeches from a larger dead comrade, which he has worn over the top of his own campaign trouser and breeches, hence they appear baggier. The cord does seem to be in an odd position and possibly thinner than one would expect, so perhaps he just picked up some cords to stop the flamme from blowing.

With regards to the Moroccon leather boots, one can only guess as to why he is wearing them, but one thing is for sure, he's done his best to make them more appropriate for the conditions by tieing fur around them.

I appreciate that everyone will have their own opinion and that we won't always concur, but always representing someone on parade can get a bit staid, how many WW2 or OIF figures are in sculpted in service dress and parade pose? and it seems that most people model their AFV's in action.

I think it makes a nice change to see a Napoleonic in something other than the traditional uniform we see in Osprey books, IMHO this fellow has more gravitas as a result.

Reagrds

Tim

 

[marcellin de marbot]

Hi men,
As I said, in campaign all was possible, then this matter can justify any fantasy of wear. But I always think that's better (for me, of course) represent all as correct for history, not the exceptions. Points of wiew, surely, everyone can sculpt and paint the figures as he wants. But everyone can say what is thinking about this, ins'n't true?
For Tim, and remaining in theme, the flamme in campaign was usually removed, put in the centre of the colback and covered from bad weather. All originates from the fact that officers must buy at their own expense all the wear and all their garments and arms, so they had all the care possible for them.
To end, I like very much campaign uniforms, as the parade uniform, and better to say all napoleonic uniforms, so what I said it was not simply to criticize, but only for love of this historical period.
Compliments at Robin for the choise of the 5th regiment, that was really in Russia...
Best salutes at you
MdM

 

[iceman]

Marceline

I bow down to your obvious greater knowledge of official uniformology for this period.

It's my favourite period for miniatures as well. I always thought that when they went into battle it was in their finery, I guess in a way to intimidate their opposition, is this not the case then?

As I said I'm still going to get it, will try and get if before Euro, if not I'm sure I'll get it at Euro.

Regards

Tim

 

[marcellin de marbot]

Hi Tim,
I really loven napoleonic era and I know a litte bit the french uniforms and rules of wear. Thanks to this passion, I knew my new friend Maurizio Bruno and I collaborate with him to make latest napoleonic figures for Pegaso and Romeo.
Referring to your question, I must say no, the men did not go into battles dressed in parade wear, also if many famous paintings show this, but is a very geat error, due probably to the will to express artistic istinct or to amaze the people. But you don't imagine how many mistakes are in the paintings, sometimes from famous painters as Detaille, or Gerard!
The clothes in battle was usually the same carried to move during the campaign, then no cords, no feathers, no tassels. Remember that all wears were payed by himselves from officers, and given to the soldiers by military administration to last some years. Every object of the clothes costed a price, so a colback about 50 french francs, a cord for the colback 25 or 30 francs. A complete equipment for a timbalier could cost util 25.000 francs, an enormous price for the period!
In any case, when you have any doubt, write to me, and I'll be happy to talk with you about napoleonic
My best salutes
MdM