hello again, I ahve some more info from Radek Sikora who wrote:
This is mostly in replay to Enion's post but not limited to him
A very concrete original example does exist for this particular wing as it is shown attached to this figure's back. We are talking about this one particular Polish hussar armor suit currently exhibited at the Wawel Royal Castle in Krakow(Cracow) Poland. The wings of that armor suit are dated to the 18th century – and Z. Zygulski Jr. who is currently the highest scholarly authority (and the world's) on the old Polish arms and armor supports this assessment – see his work “Bron w dawnej Polsce” (Arms and armor in old Poland) page 268.
In the 17th century the hussar wings had somewhat different shape than this figure's wing: the 17th century wing was either completely straight or the was mostly straight while the wing's end was curved above the hussar - like the wings in the first 3 pictures on my web-page
http://www.husaria.jest.pl/skrzydla.html).
If anyone wishes to see how 17th century suit of armor looked on a hussar, please got to my second web page
http://www.radoslawsikora.prv.pl/ and then click on
'ksiazki' there you will see. There I am wearing such 17th century hussar armor suit.

Finally, the issue of one versus two wings - this figure has only one wing, well there is nothing strange about it. Many times Polish hussars would wear no wings at all, at other times they had one or two on their back, and at some other times a wing would be attached to the saddle and not to a hussar's back. Also, they did also attach two wings to their saddle, but this was only true for the officers, who did not fight with the hussar's lance (5-6 meter long during the 17th century).
Generally speaking, there is some chronoloty to this classification: the wing(s) were attached to the saddle during the first half of the 17th century, then circa 1630-s Polish Hussars started attaching wing(s) to their backs (backplate). So during the several decades around the middle of the 17th century it was equally popular to attach wing(s) in both afore described manners and they existed side by side.
czolem

Hi Dariusz,
Thanks for providing us with all these fascinating details!


In reference to comments about picking nits; there are more figures out there than I can afford. Historical accuracy is one of the criteria I use along with pose, interest etc. If the sculptor/manufacturer can't be bothered to get things correct, I can't be bothered to give them my money!!!

Cheers
Andy

There are a lot of commercially available horses that, indeed, ARE NOT anatomically correct. I do not see why such a thing would not have to be pointed out.

And there are a lot of figures that ARE NOT historically/uniformologically accurate, too, and I, for one, assign importance to this when deciding what to purchase.

I do not hink it is fair to counter such a complete contribution of data, as that given by Dario (on behalf of Radek), with sentences of the kind "you were not there to see it".

Supposedly, we pay for HISTORICAL figures. They SHOULD NOT have mistakes. At the very least, they should be based, bona fide, on good sources, and the sculptor be familiarised with the subject. Even then, inaccuracies could creep, because history is a dynamic discipline and new discoveries can invalidate earlier sources; but I think sculptors and manufacturers owe us an effort to try to do it right.

Unfortunately, I think that really, we are going backwards, because every day, customers are more complacent and disposed to pay less and less attention to this; and we are getting less and less for more and more money.

I can understand some people do not care for historical accuracy, they are just as happy if they like a given figure, even after being warned of mistakes. That's OK, it's their choice, but a measure of respect is due, I believe, for those who ask for something more.

Dani

Very well said Dani!

Just what I wanted to say but lacked the words for it.

Dani, Thanks I have hesitated to remark or respond on the subject it really is a case of respecting EACH others opinion without slinging mud at someone because for them historical accuracy is important.

I remember a number of postings that took place concerning the weapons and or uniforms being worn for OIF.

http://www.planetfigure.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4274

I guess there are instances where it's okay to nitpick and others when it's not.


The amount of reference material available to sculptors and painters currently pales when compared to 10, 20, or more years ago. I believe there are at the very least some subjects where it is possible to put together a reconstruction that is 100% if not very close, while there are others where there is very little to go on. I can respect someone that cares little or not all for such things as much as those that do. This bridge has been crossed before and at some point will again. It would be nice to see all the energy and time expended here put into other threads that have or had potential for healthier debate. ~Gary

Hi Patrick, ditto

But the historical-accuracy buffs have taken a beating in discussions online more than once and I wanted to make the case for why accuracy matters again because the opportunity arose, that's all.

<!--QuoteBegin-Patrick Kirk@Mar 16 2005, 01:54 PM
I understand your exaggerated point...[/quote]
Achem, those weren't exaggerated examples (in degree)! As I said they may seem to be but there have been much worse things seen in some models, that was my point :lol:

Einion

Whatever guys, I guess my point was missed...oh well...

Almost every time there is a new figure on the market this happens.

Part of the "emotion" that springs up is due to the fact that 99% of the time, a photo of a new release is put up so it can be seen by the memebership. Guy does a very good job of keep ing us up to date - or teasing us as with the Napoleon figure last week that's not due out until JUNE! :angry: , anyway, the intention is to show the membership the figure. Very often, you get some posts that are "wow I must buy, etc". The idea and subject of the initial post was to show it. That's all. Yet it gets into "the scabbard is 2mm too small for a soldier of the 12th century"-said with such confidence one would think the poster was there. Then it progresses into an argument. To those who think accuracy is important, but not of primary concern, it often is a case of a full page post on what's wrong with the figure-when all they want to do is see pictures.

To those of you who say "those who find historical accuracy important deserve respect"-well let me remind you that this is a hobby. Not a profession, not a class, a hobby-you'll get whatever respect members here desire to give you. To those "who won't buy a figure if not 100% accurate", well you'll be rich when you retire because there is no such thing and you can't prove otherwise. I'm not trying to be rude, insnesitive or start a flame war- but just to point out that we need to remind ouselves that this is a leisure activity-that's all. What is important to you, may not be to others. I don't personally disagree with either point.

This reminds me of political discussions where both sides think they're right when in fact they both are, but don't want to hear what the other is saying.

There is nothing wrong with wanting historical accuracy, there is nothing wrong with discussing it on the forum. Perhaps what could be done is one post shows the figure-if someone has historical commentary on the piece, then start a different post under the title "Historical notes on....". That way, those who want to know the nitty gritty can go there and read about it and those who just want to admire the figure and aren't interested, don't have to see the "picking of nit".

Perhaps having separate posts might reduce the constant bickering about who's opinion is more valid. Or maybe Guy can post the pisture and close it to discussion.

Despite my long rambling post, all I'm trying to say is to relax, take it easy and remember-the stress in your life should come from what you do for a living, not from what you do for fun.

Yeah I agree with Lou baby, besides that's why there are no longer any turkey's in Poland, they were all killed off for the hussars wings! Meanies! LOL!! :lol: :lol:

I agree with everybody.
I like painting figures. I like the figure how it comes, historically correct or not.
For me as a novice, my best figure was a Celtic Chieftain. At the MedRom forum it was totally burn to the ground. The figure was not accurate, the Celt was about 1000 years old. They came to this age because of the armour, equipment ect.
But it was fun to paint him.

That's what the PF is for, isn't.

I think that if a figure is incorrect, make some putty and make them correct. That's why i let the AFV modelling for what it is. I was tired of counting rivets.

Marc.

Hi Patrick

I don’t think that your point was missed, you put it very well, but I think that modelling figures is exactly what it is, modelling figures, finding a figure that is completely perfect will never happen, to many anomolies fighting against it. As you know for modellers the enjoyment is in the modelling itself, basically what i’m trying to say is, if its broke, fix it, if you are happy the way it is then leave well alone, the choice yours...

Dave

I, for one, do not intend to go on and on with this, because, on the main, postures are clear. In fact, I have certainly understood the points.

But I want to say this: it is PERFECTLY feasible to do a 100% correct figure, both anathomically and historically; and NICE, besides that - and to defend succesfully it, "you were not there to see it" and the like theories notwithstanding. Yes, this is not factible on all cases, but there is a lot of solid sources on a lot of periods. And, you can do educated guesses in other instances. EDUCATED GUESSES - not just inventing, or happily moving the "artistic license" pawn, which is ill-understood and ill-advisedly moved in many cases. And, it is perfectly possible, too, in many cases, to make an informed critic of a figure and say confidently it is inaccurate - and prove it. I prefer an informed critic, that could perhaps be proved wrong later, with fresher sources, that a remark such as "this happened a lot of time ago and we would never know".

I am able to respect those who do not care for historical accuracy. But many of these do not hesitate to label a figure with a very specific historical label, say "Waterloo, 18th June 1815", and then get angry when someone points out that particular figure DOES NOT fit at all the stated label, even when such pointing out would help the unwary to reconigse that this work is NOT historical; that is, dispel confusion. And I have seen blatant examples, of figures labelled for a particular battle portraying features of a different time period, of a regiment not present, or featuring impossible combinations of colours or insignia.

And, speaking of commercial releases, they are liable to criticism, too. Even then , everyone can buy what he likes.

Commercial or not, much of what is being done today is pseudo-historical at best, this I admit, every one makes his choice; but I think one should not "sell" pseudo-historical works as historical works. Not to speak of disparaging those who really like, and try to do, historical works, as "nit-pickers", "fanatics", "talibans", "intolerants" and the like.

In other areas of life, if you buy a product you expect it to answer to your expectatives. If you buy a pack of spaghetti you want just that - surely you would complain if given fusilli instead, even if fusilli are just as nice.

Dani

(This is not meant to single anyone out or take sides, and I only use the term historical miniatures because Einion mentioned it earlier and it's appropriate.)

For some of us this is about historical miniatures and for others it's just about miniatures. Sometimes it's about both things for the same person depending on the subject. Personally, I am *very* nitpicky about Ancient Roman figures. Even if it's beautifully sculpted, if it's a fanciful design then I probably won't buy it. I want and demand accuracy (as much as can be reasonably expected considering we're talking about things that are 2000 years old) in this case. But for almost any other period, I really don't care. A 101st Airborne figure that has patches for the 1st Army instead? Eh, usually won't bother me. A Napoleonic with the wrong colors on the epaulettes? I kinda couldn't care less. I guess it simply doesn't bother me because I don't know enough about those periods to worry about it. Shallow perhaps, but I feel this way, and I suspect others do as well.

It's easy to look at others when they're nitpicking and to say they're going overboard (and sometimes they are, myself included)... but when it's a topic you personally care about you don't see yourself as being so unreasonable anymore.

Francesca

I'd rather have a figure that is extremely well sculpted and cast with lots of character...even if it's not 100 percent historically accurate.

In the context of this figure, it all comes down to how badly you want a Polish lancer in your collectionl. You can:

- Buy this figure and live with (or fix) the inaccuracies.
- Choose not to buy it and hope that a more accurate figure is produced sometime between now and the time you die.
- Sculpt your own figure.

It seems to me that the issue here is not “art” vs. “accuracy,” it’s a question of what your goal is with any particular project. You guys make me think – which is one of the many reasons I come here.

Normally I’d say I was in the camp of favoring a “pretty face” over historical accuracy. Then I realized that I do both – depending on my goal. The more knowledge and passion I have for a period, the more likely I am to demand historical accuracy. And this is tied largely to the fact I know enough to recognize inaccuracy. I almost can’t STAND that little fault! And if I can, I will correct it. On the other hand, I retreat to fantasy subjects precisely because they are not historical and I can do what I like. Some of us want to create a work that is 100% historically accurate, and that’s a noble goal that I respect. Some of us want something reasonably accurate that is more a work of art and gives the “feeling” of the era. Nothing wrong with that, either. Each of us is driven to do what we must (“amateur” being from the latin “amo” – to love; we do this out of love / passion.) Some of us spend our lives in one period and become masters of that era; others wander around the time spectrum like vagabonds and stay general or have hot spots of expertise. Both are ok.

So each viewpoint here is valid, depending on your goal. We need passionate, highly informed people to point out inaccuracies to keep the sculptors honest, and to inform us so at least we are warned in advance of what we are buying. And it’s no surprise that many of these folks are also excellent original sculptors and artists. Hell, I WANT you guys doing the sculpting, since due to my poor talents, I rely on you as a group to give me the raw material to paint. On the other hand, we also need artists that convey the beauty, feeling and atmosphere of the era. And, the two goals are not mutually exclusive either, as I think most of us would say we do both. So, we need accurate, well-sculpted, well-cast pieces. But, life being what it is, we may sometimes settle depending on our goal for that project.

On this site we are all friends and colleagues. We ought to be able to speak our minds honestly as long as it is done respectfully. I don’t see any lack of respect in this thread. In my view, I always assume that any criticism of my work or viewpoint is submitted with respect, until someone calls me a bodily orifice or questions my parentage, etc. Someone’s views may not be a point you agree with or want to live by. Ok, consider it and move on. No need to take it personally. We don’t always have to agree. Keep the passion in the figures; not directed at each other. I like the figure and will probably buy it because I enjoy the subject and it is a different presentation. At least I now know what I’m getting for my money. If it’s too inaccurate for you, then you have the right to express that opinion and not buy it. If we all had the same opinions and did the same thing the same way how dull this hobby would be!!

One final point to those critical of this piece’s accuracy. My profession is a technical one. I am often the guy in a roomful of otherwise happy people pointing out the turd in the punch bowl. It is my observation, after 30+ years, that people are not often grateful for this service, no matter how respectful or positive I say it or how important or accurate the observation. I think this is just human nature, and I don’t take it personally. Don’t be surprised if people are not happy about the point you make. It’s nothing personal; it’s just the way it is.

This is a great looking figure though....isn't it?

errrrrrr scuse me guys could ya help me, I used to go on a site where everybody talked about figures and had a real good time, anyone seen it here abouts.

Robin

Yes I have been looking for it too....like the elusive Polish Turkey!

Once when I was new to the hobby, I painted a Poste Militaire hussar entirely in shades of purple, because it was a gift for my girlfriend whose favorite color happened to be purple. Did I know that not one of Napoleon's Hussar regiments wore purple regimentals? Yeah. Did I care? F*** No. Did my girlfriend love it? Yup. And it really was one of my best paint jobs. Accuracy would have been a serendipitous coincidence but was not a paramount concern in that instance. Would I do the same thing today? I don't know but I hope so. Would I show it?
Not if I didn't want to get my 'artistic license' revoked!

John

p.s. Polish Winged Hussars have never done a thing for me

Steven proposes these as the options we have:

Which are correct. But you can choose either of them, and still, you have the right to insist that manufacturers should make the effort to do their homework and ensure that their offerings are accurate on every respect, be it anatomical or historical.


Lou states

Which it is, is is a great looking, but it would seem inaccurate too, figure. It could have been acurate, and still, would not have lost none of its nicety (or character, aesthetic quality, or whatever you want to name it). Accuracy does not harm.

BTW, Lou proposed, also, that any comments intended to make a critic of a particular figure, on accuracy grounds, should be relegated to a different section. I wonder why. Lou, if you, for one, do not care for such minute questions, why are you disturbed by other people, who do care, commenting on these? Those interested can pay attention, and those not interested can ignore it.
Lou's other proposal, that is just close these threads, to discourage discussion, I do not like neither.

And, as a last thought, John's purple hussar anecdote just proves my point of how easily "artistic license" is inapropriately invoked, and how there is a tendency to try to create the notion that fun, aesthetics and art are somehow incompatible with research, accuracy, and historicity - which THEY ARE NOT.

And, I want to underline, nobody is OBLIGED to make accurate figures; but you have to admit if they are, of if they are not. If you present a figure as a HISTORICAL subject, you should make the effort to back your claim. And this is specially applicable to manufacurers.

Of course, this is my opinion.

Dani