Help support TMP

"Hey Perry Twins...A Question?" Topic

35 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the 18th Century Discussion Message Board

Back to the American Revolution Message Board

Areas of Interest

18th Century

1,681 hits since 10 Jun 2018
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

nevinsrip10 Jun 2018 4:25 p.m. PST

I have a question about Perry AWI pack 179.
British Light Infantry attacking (these are supplied with three types of separate caps, chain caps, chain caps with peaks and ‘butterfly' caps). Is it possible to list which regiment wore which cap? Since you bothered to sculpt extra caps, you must have had specific units in mind when doing so.

I have asked this on your F/B page without a reply, so I figured that I would try here.

nevinsrip10 Jun 2018 4:26 p.m. PST

I have a question about Perry AWI pack 179.
British Light Infantry attacking (these are supplied with three types of separate caps, chain caps, chain caps with peaks and ‘butterfly' caps). Is it possible to list which regiment wore which cap? Since you bothered to sculpt extra caps, you must have had specific units in mind when doing so.

I have asked this on your F/B page without a reply, so I figured that I would try here.

nevinsrip10 Jun 2018 6:39 p.m. PST

flippin' BUG

Personal logo Der Alte Fritz Sponsoring Member of TMP10 Jun 2018 8:17 p.m. PST

Osprey book: The British Redcoat from the Warrior series of books. Plate E shows all the different LI caps.

nevinsrip10 Jun 2018 10:23 p.m. PST

Thanks, Jim. Alan Kemp has a plate. as does Kiley. I referred to them in a similar thread here.

I was more wondering what the Perry's were thinking when they chose what they did. What did they have in mind?

Winston Smith10 Jun 2018 10:50 p.m. PST

If the Search function still worked here, I asked that question a few years ago.
I was puzzled over which Foundry LI corresponded to which Regiment.
I lost the link.

Perry Miniatures Sponsoring Member of TMP11 Jun 2018 3:30 a.m. PST

Hello Nev, sorry about the lack of reply on F/B. With the types of caps I wanted to allow people to make the most common caps depicted for Light Infantry companies in accounts and illustrations. The chain caps seem to have been made official in a general order 25th December 1770 and 'butterfly' caps are known to have been worn by, at least, the 69th and 15th in America. However, as you know, most regiments liked to distinguish themselves so there were many variations (too many to depict) and a lot caps were cut-down cocked hats to mimic the chain cap style. All 6 figures in the packs can be equipped with same style of cap i.e. 18 are included. Hope this helps, Alan

nevinsrip11 Jun 2018 12:01 p.m. PST

Thanks Alan. The question still is what units wore which caps? I'm looking for what you intended them for.


Cap # 1 was worn by a, b c and d Regiments.
Cap # 2 was worn by x, y and z Regiments.

22ndFoot11 Jun 2018 1:18 p.m. PST

Winston, could this be the conversation you're looking for:

TMP link

Winston Smith11 Jun 2018 1:36 p.m. PST

Yep, that's the one!

22ndFoot11 Jun 2018 1:47 p.m. PST

Google is a better search engine for TMP articles than the actual search function ever was.

Matsukaze12 Jun 2018 1:46 a.m. PST

As an additional question, I have to raise, what the regimental distinctive cap badges look like? Could you good Perry twins please provide the details? Thanks very much!

Perry Miniatures Sponsoring Member of TMP12 Jun 2018 6:29 a.m. PST

Hello Matsukaze, I'm sure you don't want me to list over 50 Line regiments Light company cap badges(or best guesses)of those regiments who served in America…? Supercilius Maximus is the man for that:-) In general the 'Ancient' regiments seem to have used their distinctive badges (as you see on their standards and drums)in pewter form i.e. the 3rd a Dragon, 5th St. George killing the dragon, the 7th a horse etc. For most regiments it would have been the generic GR with a crown and regimental number. Although locally made badges could have been unique

nevinsrip12 Jun 2018 11:59 a.m. PST

Alan I'm only asking about the caps that you sculpted.
What units wore the caps that you included.

By the way, Brendan referred queries to you.

Perry Miniatures Sponsoring Member of TMP12 Jun 2018 1:08 p.m. PST

I don't have a definitive list of which particular regiments wore which particular caps ( I'd be surprised if there is one) which is why I kept to the most common examples that are known.

42flanker Supporting Member of TMP12 Jun 2018 4:08 p.m. PST

Probably a keyboard slip, but to avoid any confusion, the 'Ancient badge' of the 7th Royal Fusiliers was 'The Rose within the Garter', while that of the 8th King's Regiment was the White Horse of Hanover on a red ground (although in 1765 the 14th Regt were also allotted that emblem on the turn up of their pre-1768 Warrant bearskins. I'm not au fait with their LI cap, but wasn't Maj-gen Keppel their Colonel? So…).

Matsukaze12 Jun 2018 4:11 p.m. PST

Thanks Perry bros! Since listing the cap badges is a herculean task, could you share some books or materials on this subject? Actually I am the guy who post a photo of recently painted AWI British infantry on your Facebook as a salute to you. Love uniforms, love Perry mins, love you twins!

nevinsrip12 Jun 2018 7:13 p.m. PST

OK Alan, thank you.

Perry Miniatures Sponsoring Member of TMP13 Jun 2018 6:55 a.m. PST

Ok, the most comprehensive book on the market which has all you need is Carl Franklin's British Army Uniforms 1751 to 1783 by Pen and Sword. Cecil C.P. Lawson's volumes on the Uniforms of the British Army are a must if you haven't got them , Ospreys, of course and Troiani's Soldiers of the American Revolution plus many links on re-enactment regiments sites. I'll quickly list the cap types and regiments lifted from Franklin, I haven't had time to go through the other sources. The normal chain cap serves for the 3rd, 6th, 14th 16th,31st,38th, 43rd, 45th, 71st. The chain cap with peak serves for 17th, 20th, 24th, 49th, 80th. The ‘Butterfly ‘cap for the 15th, 27th, 33rd, 65th, 69th. The 5th was close to a dragoon helmet the 10th and 70th were squat mitres and the 32nd,21st and 47th seem to be the same as the Saratoga caps. Yes, you're right 42flanker, I made a typo with the 7th before.

Winston Smith13 Jun 2018 8:12 a.m. PST

It looks like the main rule was "As the Colonel shall direct."

nevinsrip13 Jun 2018 12:04 p.m. PST

Alan Fantastic. That is just what I was looking for. Many thanks!

42flanker Supporting Member of TMP13 Jun 2018 12:18 p.m. PST

Perry bros (?Alan), I am interested to see that you have such confidence in the Franklin book. I would be reluctant to place a great deal of trust in it. Certainly not without corroboration. It does seem to contain numerous gaffes and errors, as well as what we migh politely call 'extrapolations.' The combined Tarleton with chains is intriguing. It would have been good to know his sources.

His LI cap illustrations in general are somewhat undermined by fairly regularly placing a black feather, on the right hand as opposed to the left hand side of the headgear, where cockades and feathers were customarily fixed.

Perry Miniatures Sponsoring Member of TMP13 Jun 2018 1:06 p.m. PST

Yes, I realize it's not perfect, but as I said "I haven't got time to go through other sources", to cross check, I'm a tad busy at the moment.

Bill N13 Jun 2018 1:59 p.m. PST

Anyone have any ideas on what the 60th wore?

42flanker Supporting Member of TMP13 Jun 2018 2:31 p.m. PST

Ach, well. Nevinsrip, I do advise caution

nevinsrip13 Jun 2018 2:57 p.m. PST

42 Do you have documentation otherwise? If so, please share it. It would be greatly appreciated.
I like to be as accurate as possible, but let's not forget that these are toys. The are supposed to be a representation of a real soldier. Not an exact duplicate in every way.
I welcome any evidence to the contrary of Alan's list.
If none comes forth, I'm happy with that.

Thanks again, Alan.

Winston Smith13 Jun 2018 3:46 p.m. PST

My general philosophy regarding "accuracy" is that I paint a specific regiment as accurately as I possibly can, given available information.
Then, in a game, it's more than likely to play somebody else.
It's not like I'm using a scythed chariot to play the 40th Foote though. If I painted the 63rd Foot and I need a warm set of bodies to be the 17th, you're up Lads!

Personal logo Der Alte Fritz Sponsoring Member of TMP14 Jun 2018 7:12 a.m. PST

I think that Alan has answered the question and has gone above and beyond what is needed. At some level one needs to start doing their own research. It is now that time.

One of my pet peeves is when someone imperiously declares that some book is rubbish and full of errors. Such declarations should be accompanied by DETAILED examples of every single error in said book.

Winston Smith15 Jun 2018 6:00 a.m. PST

I agree with Jim's first paragraph 100%.

As for his second, I agree up to a point.
We have been going back and forth here lately about infamous "deserter descriptions". It really boils down to a philosophical attitude over how far we wish to follow them.
I can say that Lefferts relies too much on deserter descriptions. SuperMax can say, with proof, that his section on the Queen's Rangers relies on postwar uniforms and over reliance on this or that.
But let's not forget that Lefferts is one of the giants on whose shoulders we stand.
I am in awe of the research and expertise in the book by the Company of Military Historians. Yet the red McNabb kilt… Oh, the heck with it. Mine will have the McNabb kilt, because I have A SOURCE that … that gives me permission.
However Mollo does give permission to have that Continental Regiment with peach trousers and brown velvet dressing gowns.

Winston Smith15 Jun 2018 6:24 a.m. PST

I think that too many "kids today" expect free research that many of us have paid for over the years.
We paid good money for those books that have taken years to collect.

I was raked over the coals for saying something like that years ago.
So it does rankle me when someone gives a list of what is known, and someone else says "That's not good enough. What about the 29th Regiment?"

42flanker Supporting Member of TMP15 Jun 2018 7:39 a.m. PST

How gamers represent the armies on their table is of course entirely their business, but if accuracy is considered important as you indicated in your OP, then they deserve a much more reliable reference book than Franklin, the quality of which has been questioned since it first appeared, as discussed on TMP a short time ago.
TMP link

It is at best a tertiary source and, as I say, it should not be used as a guide without corroboration.

In the case of the LI caps, rather than offer contradiction, for each entry, it is more a question of asking what sources that Franklin was drawing upon. e.g for the 10th Regt, he has evidently drawn on Lefferts' strange, mitre-like representation of the Keppel model LI cap ('chain cap' as described here) to creat a style of cap that did not exist. Meanwhile we have the portrait of the Captain of the 10th's LI coy which shows us the actual style.

He has badges on the front of the officers' caps of the 3rd and 6th, which are speculation, albeit based on the 'Ancient badges' of those regts.

The 11th are shown wearing Keppel-style caps rather than the low fur cap found in the contemporary source that we have. The 13th are shown in something that only vaguely resembles the one source we have from before AWI. I could go on down the Army list, but I won't.

The point is that the format of the book presents as categorical what can only be conjecture for most regiments and, as well as the simple, unforced errors, shows styles and combinations of features I have not seen in any source. This at best shows a complete misunderstanding of the subject or, at worst, careless speculation or invention.

For good measure, from the pages I can see online-

He shows the 9th with a 'Brittania' shoulder belt badge that AFIK was only authorised in 1799- and with Arabic '9' instead of Roman'XI.'

The 6th have a SBP inscibed '1st Warwickshire,' a title that was only granted in 1783.

What reference was he looking at when he drew those?

He also refers to a system of regulation cap/hat feather identifiers that was only authorised in 1797.

And if you think that is nit picking, well, there are a lot of nits. The effect is accumulative. And I would ask, when a book states that the Black Watch was disbanded in 1783, at what point can it be considered reliable?

Winston Smith15 Jun 2018 8:24 a.m. PST

There is another "uniform" book often mentioned here.
It mainly consists of plates from previously published work, like Mollo.
But the plates are digitally altered in such a way as to make copyright issues problematic. Said book also "perpetuates errors" contained in the original sources.

If one is sufficiently read on the subject, one can even trace an error as it works its way through succeeding works.

I do NOT claim to "do research". I buy books. Period. Please do not claim that Googling "3rd Pennsylvania" is research. It's just looking up what someone else did.
I have never sat in a carel with clothing returns from the 3rd Pennsylvania (1777 version) to try to figure out the facings color. Nor have I secured permission from a library to handle back volumes of the Allentown Gazette with white cotton gloves while I search deserter description records.
I buy books that have already done that. It's a pity that some uniform books merely copy older ones, or just make it up.

42flanker Supporting Member of TMP15 Jun 2018 10:06 a.m. PST

Winston, I agree. However, I would qualify that by saying that between "doing research" and looking up on W***ped¡a, there is careful reading or 'study,' as we might describe it.

I have donned white gloves to handle documents from 1776, and got my hands grubby reading obscure Fencibles' Muster Rolls that have not seen the light of day since the Queen Empress sat upon her sit upon. In between those forays, the aforesaid study of others' research and analysis creates a working aquaintance with the sources which makes it easier to spot sloppiness and imposture ('sufficiently read,' as you put it).

nevinsrip15 Jun 2018 1:46 p.m. PST

from ?:

DAF/Jim – Whilst I agree that a few examples could be posted, I think what you are suggesting is asking a lot of a wargames forum. I assume you are referring to 42nd flanker's comment about the Franklin book – if so, then I would have to agree with him (as have others who have posted expertly on here regularly in the past, including <historygamer> and the late, lamented <Thomas Mante>). This book is not very well referenced (if at all most of the time), and a lot of "field mods" are simply ignored – eg those for the 40th Foot in 1777, which are well documented but are often confused with those of the Light Infantry (see both CCP Lawson – the "grandaddy" of this particular confusion – Mollo/McGregor, and the so-called "encyclopedia" of Kiley/Smith). It is very (VERY) tempting to suppose from this that, in the AWI section at least, Franklin has simply presumed that "official" regulations were followed unless he has found a specific reference to them not being followed.

42flanker Supporting Member of TMP15 Jun 2018 2:40 p.m. PST

Funnily enough, nevinsrip, I was just looking at the Franklin entry for the 40th Regt, and had noted the heading 'During the War of Independence' which offers this stand-alone note:

'They are shown wearing short "roundabout"jackets without facings, officers having plain buff facings. The light company wore black belts, battalion men had white leather.'

H'm. A little opaque for someone coming new to the subject. And not entirely accurate… I suppose you might count that as further confusion of the 'field mods' of the 40th battalion with the LI's jackets.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.