Help support TMP


"Meeples & Miniatures Miniature Review #1" Topic


20 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 avoid recent politics on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Return to the Meeples & Miniatures Miniature Review #1 News


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Profile Article

Galloping Jack Reports from CanCon

Mal Wright Fezian journeys to and from the Australian national convention - and tells us what he thinks of panicking tank hordes and flat terrain!


Current Poll


775 hits since 2 Apr 2010
©1994-2021 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Connard Sage03 Apr 2010 8:44 a.m. PST

Hang on a minute, wasn't Neil apologising for the death of his 'Incoming' podcasts due to lack of time earlier this week?

And that looks like a bloody huge musket.

Lentulus03 Apr 2010 9:11 a.m. PST

Very nice review. As much fun as Incoming was, it was really more of "a review of pictures of miniatures." I find the comments about casting quality and the nature of the alloy a tremendous value add.

aecurtis Fezian03 Apr 2010 9:56 a.m. PST

"And that looks like a bloody huge musket."

I don't think… sorry: "Ah don't fink the moosket" is that bad. Come on over, and you can fondle mine. It's an India Pattern.

Allen

Lord Hill03 Apr 2010 10:30 a.m. PST

I don't get the whole "Alban = much more anatomically accurate" line. It seems like someone (probably Alban!) came up with it and now everyone just joins in and repeats.
I understand that Front Rank and Foundry have exaggerated features and big clumpy hands but the Perrys? or even the Victrix British Line?

THEY look anatomically accurate to me, and much more so than Alban. Have a look at a Perry napoleonic figure and tell me which part is "charicature-like"

Alban, by contrast, are SO thin and lanky. Admittedly, people's diets were lacking in those days (so we can expect skinny people) but if you were being serious you'd have to point out that this actually resulted in soldiers being SHORT!

If I want an army of basketball-playing consumptives I know where to turn, but please, enough of the "anatomically correct" mantra.

ComradeCommissar03 Apr 2010 10:38 a.m. PST

Tell us how you really feel, Lord Hill grin

Chosen Man03 Apr 2010 1:19 p.m. PST

Compare a REAL Napoleonic soldier to the miniatures on the market. I say REAL with capitals as I am not talking about re-enacters but the soldiers who would be on the field of battle.

The average soldier who would have been at Torres Vadres would have been a lean individual. In addition I would ask you to look at artistic human proportions.

Richard Ansell (sculpter) is a re-enacter and history buff and has sculpted for TAG, Rif Raf, Minden and Alban and is a trained sculpter who appreciates real historical proportions.

Therefore Lord Hill I must take the opposing viewpoint.
Yes… I do collect these figures and it is a case of each to his/her own but I feel that your comments re basketball players are way off base.

…and so continues the debate… ;-)

Ben Ten03 Apr 2010 2:41 p.m. PST

'I find the comments about casting quality and the nature of the alloy a tremendous value add.'

I find the comments about the metal odd. None of my Alban figures has broken or made mysterious cracking noises so I don't think the alloy is an issue. The casting quality is comparable to the fine detail found on GWs Lord of the Rings metal range I think.
It seems the figures divide opinion but the quality and detail can't be questioned. I will continue to buy.

Hazkal03 Apr 2010 3:32 p.m. PST

They're nice miniatures, but if they don't match well with the Victrix I have then I'll probably pass them by. Either way, I'd probably lose the bayonet, though (regardless of the historical accuracy) as that seems to be very long and would bring the 'visual' size of the musket down.

The review itself was good, covering all of the bases I needed it to; I've listened to some "Meeples & Miniatures" podcasts before, and they never had enough impact to make them a regular fixture of mine, but I'm convinced to give it a second try.

woundedknee04 Apr 2010 1:36 a.m. PST

Agree with Lord Hill. What's anatomically incorrect about the Victrix and Perrys? Theeir proportions look ok to me. These Albans seem nice sculpts but what about the hugely oversized musket? Each to his own, though.

database error04 Apr 2010 2:34 a.m. PST

If it's any help the musket is 26.5mm long which at 1/56th scale equals 58 1/2" which happens to be the length of a Short Land Pattern Musket. I've tried to keep the musket in scale with the scale height of the figure (5'6").
The bayonets have been thickened as a result of problems with the original TAG Austrians (which have now had their bayonets thickened too)are based on two that I own that are 21 1/5" long from end to end.
Before I started this range I examined figures by many manufacturers and found in general the muskets to be modelled too short. I understand that not everyone likes this look, but I'm doing everything I can to try and get these as correct as possible within my limited capabilities.

PTCohn04 Apr 2010 5:47 a.m. PST

The one thing I've noticed about the Perry muskets/rifles (and those of other manufacturers) is that they are consistently too short. Examples are the Snyders in the Sudan range and the British muskets in the AWI and Napoleonic ranges.

Timmo uk04 Apr 2010 10:18 a.m. PST

The Rifles on the Perry 95th look like carbines not rifles. I have couple of hundred Perry Sudan painted up and whilst they are nice figures (the best 28mm Sudan range IMHO) I reckon the heads are too big for true anatomically correct proportions. I still like them but they aren't perfect.

Chosen Man04 Apr 2010 1:14 p.m. PST

From Woodose's comment it is clear that the musket sculpts have been thoroughly researched by Mr Ansell.

I'm going to be contentious now and suggest that 'the difficulty for many in seeing the accuracy is due to the fact that the market has been subject to the "heroic" style ofhistorical sculpts for such a long time that some people have lost sight of, or indeed never had sight of historically accurate proportions'.

Chosen Man04 Apr 2010 1:15 p.m. PST

Cat meet pigeons.
;-)

Slappy04 Apr 2010 9:04 p.m. PST

who really needs 'hostorically accurate proportions'? Do the figures look good are they pleasing to the eye? If not dont buy them, if you like em by them.

Though I must say its a brave/foll hardy choice when confronted with Victrix and perry plastic of the same figure.

Lord Hill05 Apr 2010 1:47 a.m. PST

I didn't mean to sound so harsh on Alban – they are very nice figures (I've bought them!). It was only the argument that they are more "anatomically correct" than some other makes that I was questioning.

Apologies guys.

database error05 Apr 2010 1:52 a.m. PST

I have to admit it's reached a point where my heart sinks when I see my work advertised on TMP or my name mentioned.
I'm just trying to make figures that seem right to me. I'm not attempting to convert the world or tell everyone that they are wrong. These just happen to be the sort of figures that I personally would buy. Luckily there are a small group of people out there that also like this style and just about keep me in work.
I have to say I am surprised at the controversy that surrounds these figures as I would have expected them to be mainly ignored by most people.
I am the first to say that there are NO proportionally correct wargames figures anywhere on the market. All I have done is to actually use a scale rule and a calculator to work out the height of the figure using the average height of a soldier of that period and then given him a musket of the correct scale length. All the rest is sculpted by eye to give a reasonable approximation of a human being at that scale. Even so the details are still overly large to give people some hope of painting them and also some parts have been thickened to provide enough strength for the wargames table.
The bottom line is that the owner is happy with the figures, no one is forcing people into buying them and I just want a quiet life to get on with sculpting for the few people that do want them.

adster05 Apr 2010 3:49 a.m. PST

I am not one of the evangalists for "true proportions" who seem to raise such a hostile reception on TMP; I buy Alban's Napoleonics simply because the details, posing and character of the sculpts are so terrific. As a comparison, the Hat 28mm Napoleonics are quite similar in proportion but don't have the same appeal to me. It is always going to be a personal choice if a range of wargames figures works for you, but do make your decisions based on a first hand look rather than what the enthusuasts* or nay-sayers on here drivel on about. (*Including me of course :) )

MikeHobbs05 Apr 2010 5:04 a.m. PST

The bottom line is that the owner is happy with the figures, no one is forcing people into buying them and I just want a quiet life to get on with sculpting for the few people that do want them.

Wise words Richard and I know many people like these figures and will buy them

also well done Neil for producing a podcast that has got everyone talking and hopefully has introduced a few more people to these figures

EagleSixFive05 Apr 2010 6:35 a.m. PST

Having looked at both Victrix and Perry side by side, I would say I prefer Perry. Victrix just seem too exaggerated and bulky.

If I were to do 28mm for Spain, Alban would be my choice, simply stunning 28mm. Wonderful to see a 28mm that looks in proportion. I can't understand the whinging about the musket/bayonet, go and look at the painted examples on Albans website.

Damn well better than looking at half baked, stumpy crap from other ranges.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.