"Worst Osprey Gaff Ever?" Topic

Gah, undefeated, not indefeated.

Yorktown campaign book and the plate showing french infantry attacking redoubt 9, led by a navy officer?

I think you'll find that's an AdC's uniform.

Then whats an AdC doing leading an assault. Besides it looks a lot like the naval officers uniform in the French in the AWI book.

Several French officers from other units and Rochambeau's staff attached themselves to the attacking force for "la gloire" – and if you read the book, you'll see that many of the regimental officers leading the assault were killed or wounded right at the start, so others had to take over.

Check Mollo/McGregor and see what a French AdC's uniform looks like. What "AWI book" are you talking about?

And to suggest this as the "Worst Osprey gaffe ever" is a bit silly, frankly.

What French in the AWI book? read the catalogue. As for being silly read the first post and check your ego.

1) It's an AdC's uniform. Naval officers had red cuffs and no buttonhole lace on their coat lapels and cuffs.

2) In any event, why would the presence of a French naval officer at Yorktown be a "gaff" given there were two French fleets present?

(Checked ego as requested – appears to be in perfect working order. Thank you for your concern.)

my pleasure always willing to help those in need

Personal favorite: The original series Stonewall Brigade MAA book, long out-of-print and not missed, featured bright mustard yellow in several plates as the artist's interpretation of butternut.

In particular, there was a plate (featured on the cover) of a Confederate private in 'full dress' uniform comprising the double-breasted full-skirted frock coat in that awful yellow color, with sky blue kepi, trousers, cuff and collar trim. (And white lace edging the cuffs. Oy.)

I knew at least one wargamer who painted up an entire Stonewall Brigade of 20mm figures, at 1:20 figure ratio, in that awful yellow 'full dress' uniform. Oh, the horror, the horror…

<<my pleasure always willing to help those in need>>

Oh dear – so two things you've misidentified…….

one misidentifed the uniforms. So I defer to your knowledge on uniforms.

I like the Yorktown book…… grovel, grovel!!! GC could do with a re-write just like MAA39, I like the Osrpeys for the artwork wish DT was on hand to do all their stuff.

My favorite was in the Mexican-American War volume. An illustration of a member of the American "Spy Company" wearing an armband hilariously labelled "Spy Company."

Re 'Spy Company' – British diplomats in Washington in WW2 were somewhat bemused to see office parking spaces marked "Reserved for Secret Service"…

zippyfusenet: " there was a plate (featured on the cover) of a Confederate private in 'full dress' uniform comprising the double-breasted full-skirted frock coat in that awful yellow color, with sky blue kepi, trousers, cuff and collar trim. (And white lace edging the cuffs. Oy.)"

A gaff indeed, BUT…'awful yellow' coat, sky blue facings and breeches, white /silver lacing: may look good on the Lace Wars unifom nba-sywtemplates.blogspot.com of a fictitious regiment from some Imagi-Nation?
link
ost-pommern.blogspot.com
cavenderia.blogspot.com
kolanhomm.blogspot.com

Such uniformology gaffs are quite common in uniform pictures of non-specialized books (and even in some old uniformology books, e.g. the Funcken "All Ages"), comics, TV series, movies… but sometimes provide pleasant and inspirational uniforms.

The Elite Series 'Sasanian Elite Cavalry' by Farrokh and McBride was appallingly bad, with many unsubstantiated claims in the text, illustrations that showed virtually no military subjects, dubious weapons (multiple arrow shooter – nawak anyone?), incorrect or non-attested armour (Julians legions in Segmentata, Asvaran with some bizarre [fabric?] frontal armour. The sad part is that people will have used that book to build armies with.

Well, it's clear that the Model 1895 combat spoon was not in use until after San Juan Hill, and yet there is Teddy, charging up the hill, Spoon in hand.

-A.

Khurasu

They did mention that the Roman armor in the Julian picture is not correct (pg 61). I am also ok with non-military elements in books on antiquity or other eras. They give a richer flavor than just uniforms (which you can get from more simplistic illustration) By the way could you provide the number for the plate with the weird Asvaran armour(is it the one on the Julian plate?). Than again I am not a specialist on the era:)

"By the way could you provide the number for the plate with the weird Asvaran armour(is it the one on the Julian plate?). Than again I am not a specialist on the era:)"

The front cover for starters. Much better to look at the Montvert from Nicolle.

regards

While not the worst gaffe, their Vanguard Union Ironclads 1861-1865 had two color plates, each with 2 ironclads on it, each misidentifying the ship as the other one on the plate.

Their first book on the Russian Army in the Napoeonic Wars was poor, including a completely ficticious cuirassier regiment in a yellow uniform…..

Gaffe or gaff?

Worst gaff might be the Angus McBride illustrated 'Drag Queens and Female Impersonators of the Second World War'. Judging by the un-womanly bulges on some of the figures it would appear that gaffs were entirely absent or vey poorly constructed.

Gaffes in Ospreys are numberless. I suspect that they deliberately insert them to keep the button counters amused/ outraged.

Field of Glory

Not a huge gaffe, but the original MAA American War of 1812 book has a plate with the identification for the U.S. 7th Infantry Regt and the British 7th Foot transposed. A friend claims he knows someone who painted the U.S. 7th in red coats based on the transposed names on the plate.

And another plate i.d. problem, in the Wild Geese MAA there's an illustration of a Spanish-Irish grenadier given the date 1709 when it's clearly of a later date (has tight coat with turnbacks etc.). One day while looking through the English-language version of Knotel's Der Uniformenkunde [sp?] printed in the '80s, I saw the black and white line drawing that served as the inspiration for the Osprey plate figure. It was a uniform of 1769, but the "6" of the "1769" handwritten on the plate by Knotel had been rendered in a varied stylized way so that it looked more like a "0" because the round part of the "6" was so exaggerated and the tail part was barely above the round part, so the artist did an excellent job of rendering the uniform but had misread the date.

The Gladiators book, whilst having nice colour plates, is dreadful. Full of basic mistakes, unsupported supposition and dreadful drawings and sculptures made by the author "based on the originals".

legatushedlius, I just received the Gladiators Osprey today! I'd be interested in knowing more detail of your objections.

legatushedlius, I didn't notice anything particualrly wrong with "Aircraft of the Aces 44: Gloster Gladiator Aces" and don't remeber anything about sculptures

I think I just found the worst gaffe ever. I bought a copy of "Peking 1900 The Boxer Rebellion", but they put the rebellion in the wrong town (maybe "Berlin" is an odd translation of Peking) and they had the Russians and Germans fighting each other instead of the Boxers. BTW, the year must have been from the Chinese calender as it's listed as 1945 instead of 1900. I didn't know the Chinese called their empire a "Reich", and thought it was eternal vice only 1,000 years old.

(Apparently Osprey got the wrong cover on the book. Is this common?)

All the titles with no bibliography- utterly shocking

Romes Enemies: Germanics & Dacians has a a chief with 4 shield rivets not 5 (yes, this matters!) & a Viking era thor's hammer

The sandal template in MacDowell's Late Roman Cavalry doesn't work (Tho' I used it as springboard for one that did)

Scottish and Welsh wars is a bit of a horror.

In my opinion the worst Osprey book is the one on the so called "International Brigades" during SCW. A totally politic book…one side oriented

I found Osprey's "The Spanish Foreign Legion" to be so pro-Nationalist and anti-Republican as to be virtually unreadable. I guess when authours write about something they are passionate about they risk losing impartiality.

I guess when authours write about something they are passionate about they risk losing impartiality.

Maybe they just want to lean towards potential buyers.

Sadly, like all "specialist" publishers, all of the actual specialists have been made redundant (or "out-sourced") by the accountants and bean-counters.

As an accountant who has worked in 'specialist' [non-wargaming] publishing I have never made anyone redundant but I have shown senior management what the financial data demonstrates and they have drawn their own conclusions. Out-sourcing is indeed a very effective way of controlling cost which we used extensively and successfully. Our principal problem was to show contract-experts that they were not as expert as they thought they were and how to actually research and do the job properly. Perhaps the postings on this topic demonstrate this deficiency only too well. Our editors did a superb job with the contractors.

All our contributors had at least postgraduate qualifications so should have done better but they all found out that writing professional material is much tougher than it looks. I can quote with some authority as one subsequently wrote a magazine article making this very point and commenting how his 'crap' first draft had been (politely) torn apart by the editor and continually reworked and resubmitted until there was a polished product that we could publish.

If there are publishers who are stupid enough to fire the specialists or not to contract their services in, and still aim to produce material, then they should not be supported by buying their products.

"Osprey Men At Arms #233 French Army 1870-71, Franco-Prussian War 1 Imperial Troops"

Plate D #2 is described as a Tiraileur Algerien. Which is incorrect, it is actually a Zouave in Summer uniform, I think.

Whatever it is, it is not a Turco uniform. It should have the same shade of blue uniform as the #3 Chef de Bataillon, Tiraileurs Algeriens standing next to him.

"Osprey Campaign Series: Guilford Courthouse 1781" Pages 86-87 (among others) the picture shows the British wearing something that looks like a derby. I know they wore a modified hat in the Southern Campaign and I have the Perry figures. But I don't believe they wore derbys.

The Guilford Courthouse Osprey is full of errors, not least that the author didn't bother to check with the battlefield authorities and consequently missed that a new location had been uncovered for Greene's 3rd line some time before he wrote the book. Also, there's a colour plate showing the 71st firing in two ranks, with the front rank kneeling, which is wrong.

Anoraks abound!

You'd prefer to go with wrong information?

the plate D2 from Osprey MAA 233 isn't an inaccuracy, just an Algerian Tirailleur with white summer trousers having the common light blue and YELLOW turkish jacket, the Zouaves had one similar but dark blue and RED, an other picture here (Daniel Lordey from a De Neuville painting)

Indeed, but the blue is far too dark for a Turco.

One of the most poorly illustrated Osprey books was the Russo-Turkish War 1877(OMM # 277). Although the uniform details are sketchy at best, the illustrations, while well executed and bearing a resemblance to Russian uniforms were completely erroneous in detail. The kneeling dragoon is wrong on almost every front and the infantry drummer's wings are a complete fantasy. His Turkish and Rumanian uniforms fare a little better.

The Austrian Army 1740-80 Cavalry
The cut-out of the hussar in the centre of the front cover has the brown of a horse's buttock uncut from the background space between his arm and his body – try replicating that in your models.

I always though they had too many "Elite" books.

Every tin pot army think it has an elite unit.

Russish – elite units are few and far between.
They will be well trained, well armed and have experience in battle and be feared by their enemies.

In both Rome's Enemies: Germanics and Dacians and Germanic Warrior Goths are portraying in the color plates using stirrups. A strange mistake based on 19th Century assumptions.

No book (yet) on Charles XII and the Swedish Army from the Great Northern Wars? And how about a companion volume covering the Danes, Saxons and Poles to accompany the two volumes on Peter the Great's Russian army?

Geoffrey Wawro's lyrical description of sunlight reflecting off the Austrian Cuirassiers breastplates at Koniggratz (1866).
Unfortunately the cuirassiers handed their armour in in 1862.

The account of Guernica in the book on the Condor Legion: see link .

Factually wrong in many places.

The original Union army volume depicts an "Irish Brigade" soldier wearing a blue coat with green cuffs and grey trousers.

In introduction of the Von Pivka book on the Napoleonic Dutch Army:

Calling the Dutch Republic the "Spanish Netherlands" in 1795 is a nice one ;)

Thank God I had painted all those 15mm legere I had in the late '70's from the Funken book, before that Osprey NLI came out! I fortunately had no time to repaint them lighter blue before I learned I had them right in the first place! I have felt empathy for a few upon seeing those bright blue coats deploy on a tabletop! Is there any one picture that has caused more figures to be painted inaccuratly than that one?

Not very many gaffes in a publishing career spanning over 40 years!

@DCW1962. I agree heartily! We need the rest of the armies of the Great Northern War. Let's bug the heck out of Osprey 'til they do it!

@ Grand Quartier General; I believe that the illustrators of the Osprey volume on Napoleon's Light Infantry were attempting to imitate the duller blue of the late war woad dyed cloth rather than the darker, richer blue of the early indigo dyed cloth. just a bad effect of the colour separation process in printing.

I'm kinda late to the party here but I just found a good one last night. The "RPG" book which is otherwise quite good had one major gaff it repeated several times.

It stated that the Chechens armed with RPG-7's & 18's repeatedly knocked out Russian T-90s during the first assault on Grozny. It even has an artwork depiction of T-90s being taken out. This is 100% wrong.

There were no T-90s deployed to Chechnya in the First Chechen War (1995-96). The first T-90 deployed in a combat roll in the Caucuses was against the Chechen invasion of Dagastan in the second Chechen War. A single T-90 was engadged in combat and was said to have survived at least one RPG impact. No other T-90s were deployed in a combat roll in either war that I am aware of.