"1792 or 1806?" Topic
9 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.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Product Reviews Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
|
hi EEE ya  | 10 May 2022 11:27 p.m. PST |
Hello everyone, I would like to know if the Prussians of this range link are for 1792 or 1806? Thank you. |
| BillyNM | 11 May 2022 2:55 a.m. PST |
They look better suited to 1792 to me – compare with the beautiful 1806 range by Perry Miniatures for the contrast. |
| clibinarium | 11 May 2022 3:03 a.m. PST |
1792. They were originally listed as part of the French Revolution range. |
| Dave Jackson | 11 May 2022 8:21 a.m. PST |
1792. head dress is wrong for 1806 straight away. if you want 1806, look at the Perry Miniatures site. |
| Attalus I | 11 May 2022 9:08 a.m. PST |
Castingroom has some 28mm Prussian figs that are better suited for 1806. |
| von Winterfeldt | 11 May 2022 10:38 p.m. PST |
1792 – as for 1806 visit Perrys Miniature site, there you will find plenty, not only headdress, but different coat and other small details were different in 1806. |
| hi EEE ya | 12 May 2022 2:07 a.m. PST |
Their head dress is not good for 1806 and the rest of thei uniform? |
| von Winterfeldt | 13 May 2022 12:41 p.m. PST |
also as pointed out above, wrong uniform for 1806, please be so kind to look on the Perrys webside and compare those 1806 miniatures along with the 1792 one, then you can draw your own conclusion. |
| hi EEE ya | 15 May 2022 3:21 a.m. PST |
|
|
returns to Flintloque to paint an Ogre.
