The head set is an excellent idea. It wouldn't be a great stretch to make him Prussian, as I said I expect to see this figure a lot!

Martin

You seem to be going out of your way to satisfy everyone Graham. Personally as he was modelled on the Duellist, the film, then that's how I would have accepted him, warts and all. Well done though, no one can say that you don't go that extra mile to please us all.

Two opposing views and I can respect both while remaining firmly in Gaudin's camp. I would however like to address a couple of points to Wayne.
I do not make a model to appease my "asshole brother" or anyone else for that matter. I do it for my own satisfaction, and in doing that, getting it as accurate "as I can" is important to me. I do however find the inference that being "a button counter", or somone who values the accuracy of a piece makes me an "asshole", rather than just someone with an alternative viewpoint, somewhat offensive.
Neither do I feel I have any need to compete or establish any superior knowledge with other PF members. In fact these posts have enabled me to make many personal contacts with members who are much more informed than I am and I have benefited greatly from doing so.

What I do find amazing here though is Graham's genuine concern when it comes to addressing any issues raised with his product. On two occaissions now (this one included) he has taken steps to make changes to, or include additional parts with his releases, to rectify the points that have been raised. If only other companies were so conciliatory!

Despite having raised such issues with this piece myself, I will still probably be buying one anyway and the additional pieces that Graham has promised will help me and any anyone else, make whatever model they want to. Isn't that a worthwhile resolution for all of us?

Reading this all, I find it fascinating how a rigid polarity has firmly set on PF.
As soon as some one dares to ask a sensible question about historical accuracy (bad thing) there will be instant accusations of rivet counting and protect the model/sculptor/manufacturer from criticism (good thing).
I am for one getting fed up with this "she is a witch!" constant accusations and attempts to shut people up and dismiss when it is actually useful discussion...

Well I suppose that this is why it makes PF more interesting than just countless pictures on some other sites

Well David,
I acknowlege your reply,but I have many friends that I call "brothers".....very few brothers "in law" which I subtly refered to as ass*****.Maybe I should have used a stronger name.
Yes, you have the right to research until your purple in the face;but keep in mind all the books with colour schemes and detail were not written by God but with human hands and with human hands mistakes are made.And that was probably the basis of my post.I myself enjoy painting miniatures and if it's a great piece,I enjoy it even more.
A quirk here or there as far as historical accuracy goes does not bother me.....What bothers "me" is when the anatomy is not accurate.
So that being said I appologize to anyone offended by the "rivet and button" counter comment..........But as I said......It was only" my" opinion......Regards to all........Wayne

You could easily offend the foot guards if you weren't a button counter!

Martin

Yep, got legs! That's great!
Pete

Martin........never mess with a foot guard..........you could get a boot in the ass................

Pete..........Yep,got legs.........but how many?............

Hi Gra,
Good luck with this piece, it is a fantastic piece of sculpting and I suppose a Napoleonic fan's painting dream with all that ornate braiding. I'd give my back teeth to be able to sculpt that level of detail, well done Moz. I cannot wait to see this brought to life again with paint. It is not my period so I cannot comment on some of the questions raised, anyway I am an impressionist modeller who has used artistic license more than once.

Saying that I would expect similar comments if I released figures from my period if they looked this this, especially the one on the left.........

or adorning a tunic like this..........with no white piping or cuff detail!!!! rather than the classic look in the third photo.


Years ago I may have been sceptical myself, but references are drawn from all quarters and all three photo's in my examples are 100% correct. Just because it does not meet the "classic look" in some eyes does not make it incorrect. I can only put this into a context I know something about by my examples.
The first photo is a water colour painted in 1879 by William Whitelocke Lloyd who was an officer of the 1st Battalion of the 24th Regiment of Foot and saw active service during the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879. His artwork laid undiscovered and unpublished to the world for more than a century. The annotation on the bottom of the drawing is "Well seasoned material" "A pair of old Colony bush fighters". A snap shot caught of the actual time by his painting.
The second photo is the other ranks 5 button tunic (as is the third with the classic look) worn by Captain Godwin-Austen 2nd Battalion 24th Regiment of Foot. As you can see, it looks totally different.

I do like to see accuracy, but who can say what is accurate without exploring all the possibilities, if you take either of the first two examples in a single context then they look odd to the "classic look". But they are correct. Godwin-Austen tunic when tailored may have depended on the situation, time and material available, location, tailor and information available and who is to say that your figures uniform had not been tailored that way to fit the subject.

I hope my examples give some food for thought on accuracy. Apologies if my interjection and examples have in anyway side lined your post but is was the only way I could give a comment and answer. It is a wonderful looking figure and something that will be well received by the Napoleonic buffs. Again good luck with this mate it's a cracker.
cheers
Richie

I totally agree Richie!

It seems so many have a limited source of reference and take it as gospel. Unfortunately then fighting lived in a hole in the ground for the most part, they picked up, used and carried anything found to be useful. Human beings are resourceful when pushed.

Now I don't know whether the points raised are accurate or not. But Moz has made a great job and created a superb sculpt. In my opinion he should applauded for his work. Not not critiqued for inaccuracies that no can say categorically proved either way.
As I understand it the 18th of June 1815 was not a nice day, with heavy rain etc. So why wouldn't he wear 3 layers?

Carl

I remember it clearly it peed down the night before but perked up in the afternoon look.


I don't know why we formed square really, there plainly wasn't that many of 'em.
And they don't like it up 'em.

Definitely under strength regiments

Not half, there's even a couple of Prussian turncoats there making up the numbers,
Grrrrr, If only I had a Baker rifle at the time I would have done a richard sharpe on them


www.redmolotov.com
(Other t-shirts and t-shirt companies are available)
Paul

As the issue of accuracy has been brought up again, here we go - Ritchie; I agree with your points but I would not criticise a model of the artwork you posted. I would accept it as a campaign uniform worn and adapted for the rigours of active service thousands of miles away from the depot and in an unforgiving climate. This misses the point -Napoleonic soldiers would look similarly dishevelled. The problem is that Moz, like the vast majority of sculptors, has chosen to depict what would be considered a parade order of dress as if just equipped with full kit. Although many members on this site seem to think The Duellists is the definitive accurate source for modelling it isn't.
The Napoleonic soldier would have full dress, service dress, stable dress, town dress (which would itself vary with the seasons), gala or ballroom dress and marching dress as well overcoats or capes etc. Try to think of our Royal Marines going into action wearing dress blues and Wolesley Helmets - hardley likely, but if they were ordered to do so I suspect they would all be dressed pretty much the same.
In Napoleonic times. Regiments would leave for campaign sometimes with items such as the pelisse left behind or carried in supply wagons. The use of the pelisse or Dolman would be mainly dictated by the prevailing weather (assuming both items were available and in supply). The Pelisse could be worn over the shoulder in action but it would be an encumberence and is more likely to have been used on the parade ground.
Ivo Preda's point about the cut of the Pelisse was that it could not be worn over the Dolman, and although I questioned this myself at first, I respect Ivo's knowledge in this area and I suspect he is right on this. Yes, Ritchie - an individual could have his pelisse tailored to accomodate the Dolman, but this is not likely - the two items were not expected to be worn together and if you look at actual uniforms the cut was usually very slight. It was also considered in vogue to wear items as tight as possible. The Polish Lancers in particular were renouned for their very tightly cut trousers.
There are many contemporary eye witness sketches of Napoleonic soldiers showing variations on regulation dress but I see no reason to accept them as representative of the majority. The fact that no one can know for sure does not mean we cannot make informed choices as to what was most likely.

Carl; you make a big assumption that those who comment on accuracy have limited resources and take them as Gospel. I have just made a quick count of my bookshelf, I have about 140 books on the napoleonic period alone. That does not include specialised uniform books such as Osprey, collections Historique etc, I also have numerous magazines and photographs taken and collected over at least thirty years. I never make comments without checking a few of these books beforehand. My opinions are not based on simple acceptance but on the weight of opinion garnered from those sources. If books are invalid as research material why do people buy them? Have you never consulted a book for uniform information? Are you as skeptical of published authors or do you generally accept that they are largely reliable?

There seems to be a lot of denial here, based on defending Moz as a sculptor rather than looking at independent information. please correct me if I am wrong here but I cannot find anyone on this thread having said Moz is a bad sculptor, only that this sculpt has a few questionable features - check them out yourselves if you want to.

Lady Butler got a few details wrong in her paintings - that does not mean she could not paint!

Thanks everyone, I think points from all sides have been made. I have mentioned the changes that will be made to the sabretache and lozenge number in order to make the buttons correct.
At the end of the day if you don't like it then don't buy it.
I don't see any gain in going over old ground.

I think everyone needs to recognize that no one is going "win" this discussion. There are clearly two camps and so it shall remain.

I would comment that I personally do not recognize the accuracy authority of an Osprey book above a medium quality uniform article in a hobby mag like MM (when the had them). While some Ospreys are very good, the majority IMO are agregations of low hanging fruit secondary sources. Some are truly dire in quality. Its just me, but no one is going to convert me to their point of view quoting from an Osprey.

Colin

Colin, I wasn't quoting from Osprey , in fact I pointed out that it indeed had discrepancies according to text and plate in same book, It did however mention the button layout and regiment numbers which had already been mentioned on here and from what I have gathered their documentation on that area is correct, hence 1st regiment, lozenge plate and 5 rows of buttons.

I haven't made any assumptions David, let alone big ones!
You have an extensive library David! But have you cross referenced them all? How many contradict each? I would assume a few, if not quite a few!
I was merely saying that it is quite plausible that a man in field could wear 3 layers.

I could understand this debate if this beautifully sculpted piece was carrying an M16. But lets just get clear. We are talking about whether an individual, who spent a night outside ( in the rain) would wear 3 layers. Its quite possible he would.

The sad paet this debate, and similar debates. Is at no point does it take into account Graham in this case. It evolves into a competition of I know more than you. My library is bigger than yours etc!

Now I've seen pieces with questionable anatomy, questionable proportions, stiff lifeless postures. But all the buttons and bow are correct its deemed a great piece.

It seems hyper authentic accuracy rules supreme over substance and visual aesthetics. Even if the head firmly wedged up the ass of the soldier, as long as he has the correct cap badge it fine!

Just my opinion for what its worth.

Carl

Just a small foot note guys. Sculptors do their best get it right. I've even seen sculptors rquest help on here with reference, and guess what, no one came forward....
So I guess what I'm saying a clumsy way is, its easy to pass judgement when you've got nothing riding on it.

I bet Carl on the retreat from Moscow there was a few more layers than that LOL.....Kevin

The comment wasn't aimed at you Gra. The use of Osprey has come up multiple times in this and other threads. It was a generic comment.

Cheers

Colin