"What happened to the new GNW ranges?" Topic

I've seen on Barry Hilton's blog that the Warfare GNW figures won't be out at the WI advertised date. And the Ebor GNW range also seems to be taking its time. Does anyone know when we might expect them? Or should I be using my Christmas money for something else?

The Colonel

I'm still trying to get over all the left-handed pikemen in the 15mm Dixon GNW range, from back in the 1980s.

Is GNW cursed perhaps? Musketeer Miniatures went belly-up after theirs (28mm) stalled; Eureka had plans for one (18mm) and made some nice samples, but it has never appeared. I'm not even sure that Foundry ever finished theirs, although I think the Irregular Miniatures ranges, crude as they were back then (their newer stuff surprised me by how good it is), did get completed in at least one scale.

Hopefully Barry will chime in here, but I think that the very reputable mold maker/caster has had about 80 or so figures for about a month. Should not be too long.

Well, I've sculpted 20 packs of Swedish foot so far for Barry, and I am told they'll be appearing quite soon.

The Ebor line has several figures that are complete, but an injury to Paul Hicks delayed the completion of the line. The initial figures are, as is usually true of Paul hicks, very nice. The initial figures have been available to the kickstarter investors.

There should be no lack of GNW figures in the near future.

There's no shortage of GNW figures right now – you are just looking at the wrong scale….

While waiting for the Warfare Swedes I have been beavering away on a Saxon army using Warfare's current generic figures. When the Swedes do come out, they will have someone to fight!

No comments on scale – we'll all have to accept our wee preferences. Dbf – you make a good point! Otherwise it sounds like patience should be the seasonal virtue.

The Colonel

The Musketeer Miniatures line never went belly up, its just moved :)
Its now part of Footsore Miniatures and we will be re-releasing all the MM ranges including the GNW in the next week or two. We are currently working on getting images ready for the whole range which is unfortunately a slow process. The range has now expanded considerably and is only short of around 3 packs before we can call it completed.

Some or all of the investors already have the first Warfare Swedes so they will probably be available very soon.
One thing is for sure: they are simply gorgeous. Easily some of the best figures I've ever seen.
The 'generic' Warfare Miniatures are already very good but these are even better.

And of course with all the possible variants a wargamer's dream.
Just wait for a little more. You won't be disappointed.

Hey Footsore -looking forward to getting at those FPW figs.
Serious epaulettes I see -fantastic!!!
Thinking about GNW as well.

The Musketeer Miniatures line never went belly up, its just moved :)

Well, that's good to hear – although too late for me, as I sold on all the infantry I'd bought. Unfortunately, the range spent a long time at the "ok, are you EVER going to do any cavalry to go with these?" stage, which is usually a sign that it will never be completed. However, good to see someone has taken it over as they were nice figures

I think Barry might be away on business right now, but there's an update on his blog form the 18th of November about the current status of the project; link

I think Footsore = Musketeer = Footsore

I'm going to do them in 18mm as part of the Marlburian range. I just have to decide whether to fill out the western ranges first, or get the basic stuff done for the Russians and Swedes after the Austrians' basic stuff, and then do the less numerous troops (dragoons, guards, lesser powers, etc). Hmm.

On the Swedes, depiction would probably be up until the period of Poltava, and you guys might not like the results. Truth is, the iconic GNW Swedish costume we recognise is in fact the late war dress, and the armies of Narva and, probably, Poltava would have looked quite different.

As one of the Warfare backers who has received some of the GNW figures, I fully agree with WillieB. They they are excellent and far exceed my expectations, which were pretty high to begin with. While I am a "backer," I won't receive any financial return from the sales of the new line, so I feel I can be somewhat objective.

"and the armies of Narva and, probably, Poltava would have looked quite different."
That's intriguing -what were they like and is there a handy Internet source of images?

Floppy hats, no turnbacks and large cuffs on the coats. Quite a different picture than what you get from most mini lines.

The coat worn from Narva until at least Poltava (and probably later) was the "middle coat," which was like the old coat (long, tightly fitting, no turnbacks, no collar, large cuffs) except it had a small standup collar. The coat that was shorter, a little looser, with smaller cuffs and turnbacks wasn't promulgated until 1707, and even then it only began hitting the Baltic provinces (closest to Sweden) a year later. One assumes it had not made it down into further troop locations until the following years. The hat does not get cocked into a tricorn for quite some time either. Also, the Karpus would be very very common in units in Sweden and the Baltic states at the very beginning of the war, but very soon after that they disappear for most of the period due to the difficulty in making them and virtually everyone wears the floppy hat. The Pokalem makes a return at the end of the war as the Russians move in on the Swedes.

So, rather than being the vanguard of fashion, the Swedes were a bit conservative. But as I say, it's quite a different look! I wonder how people will take to it. I assume most people game the period that this uniform was in use, 1700-1709, but want to use the uniform of 1710-21.

Edit: forgot to mention that the cavalry wear breast and back for quite some time after 1700 as well!

Sounds like late 17th century League of Augsburg figs could be used without any problems.
I do like the floppy hat look!!
Would this be the same for the Russians or were they still looking like Ivan the Terrible's troops at this stage?

I guess most of the Russians would still be wearing the kaftan

Not so fast Mashrewba! The Guards are depicted in tricornes in the painting depicting the crossing of the Duna in 1701 that was commissioned not long after the event. Nice discussion here: link

The other infantry are shown in the karpus.

The coat by described by Khurasan probably was never placed into service. Here is a great discussion about both Swedish and Russian uniforms:
link

I assume you're Tricorne, dbf1676? That thread is really just one person maintaining that he saw art with tricornes worn by guards. Assuming that's true, that would mean the guards wore the more fashionable hats. That would not mean the line troopers who adopted western hats wore formal tricornes. Hoglund says the tricorne was quite a late adoption and illustrations from the period depict what might best be described as an informal tricorne, turned up at the front and in some cases the rear.

Officers actually adopted the tricorne in western armies in the 1690s, before the enlisted men, so it wouldn't be much of a surprise to see swedish guards wearing it when the rest of the army wore the informal tricorne (just as Peter's guards wore western uniform at Narva when the rest of the army still had a medieval appearance).

I don't have volume 2 of Hoglund, but if he has decided that the transitional coat was never adopted, that still leaves the early coat for most of the part of the war when the Swedes were on the offensive --the most popular period with wargamers. That would be the long coat without turn backs or collar. The coat with collar, large cuffs and turn backs seen on most Wargames models would be more typical of the period in which the Russians were on the advance after Poltava. (What coat the Swedes wore at Poltava is up for grabs.)

Khurasan,

I am not Tricorne. I think a fair summary of the discussions in the links is that the supposed early Karoliner uniform model with large cuffs, etc., was never adopted. The Warfare NYW figures, therefore, would not work. It certainly appears that most regiments wore the karpus in the early years. How informal the tricorne was is, of course, is open to debate, since no one really knows.

Khurasan,

I am not Tricorne. I think a fair summary of the discussions in the links is that the supposed older Karoliner uniform model with large cuffs, etc., was never adopted. The Warfare NYW figures, therefore, would not work. It certainly appears that most regiments wore the karpus in the early years. How informal the tricorne was is, of course, is open to debate, since no one really knows.

Thanks -- not sure I follow what you're saying. Do you mean the so-called transitional uniform Hoglund describes in Vollume 1? That may be true. It leaves us with the old Swedish coat, however, until the one with turnbacks is promulgated in 1707. That older coat is the same as the transitional coat, but without a collar. When that newer coat, with turnbacks, was actually delivered to units is up for grabs. From a summary Daniel S gave me, it appears to have been delivered to units in the Baltics in 1708-9. We don't know if it ever made it to the King's army.

Or am I misinterpreting what you're saying?

I think the swedish troops at Narva would look like the guy on the first few pages of Hoglund's volume 1 -- karpus, long narrow waisted coat with no collar or turnbacks. In the years between then and Poltava, the look probably only changes in that more and more men wear western hats as "informal tricornes." It's really only around or after Poltava that the look we all think of as Swedish GNW becomes more prevalent.

I think we may be not understanding each other. It is my understanding that Hoglund now thinks that the picture of the Nerike-Varmland regiment that you are referring to is incorrect. Perhaps you should talk to Orjan Martinsson at Tacitus.nu

Ok that may be true because of the collar, but otherwise it's right. (Maybe the number of buttons too.)

But the coat can't be the one with turnbacks for the reasons already discussed.

Well, at least according to Tacitus, Hoglund concluded that the the "old" model was never issued, and Hoglund abandoned the idea of a "transitional" model. Tacitus stated that there is good evidence that what has been referred to as the "younger" model was being used in the 1690s.

That doesn't preclude changes in the number of buttons, etc., nor does it mean that the coat was always turned back. I'm not an expert in this, but was just suggesting that it was a question that should be looked into before one buys figures or develops a new range.

BTW, I am delighted that you are going to do a GNW range. Your WSS range is excellent. I only wish my eyes were 20 years younger, so I could paint 15mm again. Best of luck on this and all your other ranges!

Where does he state all of this? In volume two of his book? I find it a little hard to believe that the Swedish infantry were wearing turnbacks in the late 1680s!

We do know for a fact that the uniform with the turnbacks was promulgated in 1707, so I'm not sure how that same uniform could have been worn back in the 1690s. Why declare that a uniform that has already been in use since the 1690s…should be worn?

Actually, there is a possibility that we are talking at cross purposes here. There is definite evidence that the Swedish infantry first began turning their coats back in Poland in 1706, so perhaps the "new karoliner" uniform was in fact in effect before 1707, but that coat was not turned back until 1707-10. That would give us a coat with collar, small cuffs and horizontal pockets but no turnbacks.

Probably just a case of the administration catching up with a practice already widespread.

Anyway, back to the Colonels original question. The first 80 Swedish figures are apparently at the casters and Clib has finished sculpting 20 more, so it shouldn't be too long on the Warfare front.

It is interesting though that the Swedes, who were conservative enough in dress that they are still depicted wearing informal tricornes when western armies had gone with the formal tricorne for their troops, were using turnbacks at this extremely early period--especially when uniforms for the earlier periods with older uniform styles have actually survived!

Apparently all prototypes!

One hopes that the historical analysis is driving miniature ranges, and not the other way round.

Khurasan,

Please see the link below, discussing the issue.

link

It looks like a strong case can be made that the uniform worn in the war before the 1706 model was not significantly different in overall appearance from the 1706 model. The newer model had more pleats and no buttons below the waist. This might lead one to conclude that the new coat was intended to be turned back, but the fact that the lower buttons were to be eliminated may have reflected that there was already a practice of turning back the coats had rendered the buttons superfluous. Charles, at least, had his coat skirts turned back in a painting from 1706, in which he is not wearing the new model, and a notation on the painting states that this was how he looked in 1700. Whether the coat was always turned back or not by the infantry before receiving the new model may not be clear, but there doesn't seem to be anything that would definitively rule out turnbacks before 1706.

The initial figures have been available to the kickstarter investors.

Yes, I received my first batch of Ebor Swedes over a month ago. :-)

Yes, sorry about the lack of info here.. life getting in the way.

20 sets completed. 16 at production moulding which is taking an awfully long time. They will appear shortly. I am visiting the casters on Wednesday for other reasons but do not expect to see production figures now before Christmas. Alas, when there is a bottleneck in the process beyond your direct control you just have to wait.. which is what I am doing !
They are worth waiting for though… January should see me getting production volumes out there.

cheers