Open Book "Roman Cavalry Officer" - Young Miniature Review

[Guy]

YH1829
"Roman Cavalry Officer' - 180BC
1/10th scale resin - 12 parts
Sculpted by EBROIN
Painted by Franco Mocci

July's release from Young Miniatures brings us a fantastically detailed bust of a Roman Cavalry Officer in the year 180bc. Sculpted by the talented EBROIN and the box art painted by Franco Mocci this 12 part resin kit I am sure we will see on display tables for years to come.

[ continued in next posting ]

​

 

[Guy]

Arriving in Young's sturdy black cardboard box with all parts sandwiched between layers of foam. The small resin parts are sealed inside a small zip-lok bag and also sandwiched between the layers of foam.

Above you see various views of the separately cast head.

Above you see the four sides of the helmet with the beautiful detail EBROIN has sculpted into it.

[ continued in next posting ]

​

 

[Guy]

Above you see various views of the chest portion of the bust.

Above you see various separately cast parts that were sealed inside the zip-lok bag.

[ continued in next posting ]

​

 

[Guy]

Above is the separate cast plume for the helmet.

Also supplied with the kit is Young's traditional bust plinth.

Dry-fitting major parts

After removing the casting blocks you see the head fitted down inside the neck as well as the helmet fitted onto the head.

[ continued in next posting ]

​

 

[Guy]

Additional Box Art
Photographs


Painted by

Franco Mocci

Conclusion:
One of the best kits I have seen Young produce. Excellent detail and casting. Highly recommended.

Young Miniature Web-site
click here

R514
​

 

[Nap]

Guy ,
Thanks for the great review , the folds on the torso are wonderful but for me the helmet detail on the eagle especially is out of this world .

Great pictures , like the way you review

Nap

 

[Jazz]

Another fantastic piece from Young Miniatures with a very high standard that have now become the norm for this company. I love it and it is definately on my wish list for the future. Thanks for the review Guy.

 

[tonydawe]

Thanks for the review Guy. I ordered this bust from El Greco as soon as I saw it previewed on pF and can't wait to receive it. Your review has got me really excited about getting my brushes wet again.

 

[Tommi]

Thanks for the review Guy, its a cracking piece, I picked one up the weekend at Figure World, a real stunning piece in terms of detail and quality of casting.

Cheers
Tommi

 

[megroot]

Thanks Guy,
Now it makes it more difficult to wich figures spend my money at Euro.

Marc

 

[rheath]

Eeisshh ! nearly missed this 1 - great again from Young Min, I love the type of resin they use, very crisp sculpting & casting, a winner and must get.

 

[Caratacus]

Sorry to 'rain on the parade' - but this is NOT a figure (whatever the manufacturer may have labelled it as) from 180 BC. Neither can it be a 'Roman cavalry officer'. If it's anyhthing, it would be a tribune from the Imperial (Principate) period, i.e. from around the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. Why? Cavalry officers did not wear a muscle cuirass - they would have been armoured with either mail or scale armour (try riding a horse encased in a rigid armour like this). The helmet is an "Attic" type - of which there are no known intact examples - although they are known from sculpture. The 'dagger' is also not possible. This is a legionary's 'pugio' and not the short (ceremonial) dagger carried by senior officers. These were carried on a sling from the 'balteus', and not stuck through the ceremonial cuirass ribbon like this. In any case, this is a 'knock-off' from a bit of nonsense pushed out by a Spanish firm and which is meant to represent a pugio. How do I know? I've got one sitting on my desk as a paper-weight - right down to the she-wolf and twins in the centre.! Another bit of excellent sculpting ruined by poor research.

 

[JGREEN]

"Caratacus,"

Sounds like you have some knowledge of the period, and you may have some valid points. Too bad you've expressed them in such a haughty, disdainful manner.

Jason

 

[Caratacus]

"Caratacus,"
Sounds like you have some knowledge of the period, and you may have some valid points. Too bad you've expressed them in such a haughty, disdainful manner.
Jason

"Some knowledge of the period"? Well, how about these (just so you know):
(1) I work in a museum devoted to the Roman Army.
(2) I have publications to my name on Roman armour.
(3) I have a Master's degree in Roman and Celtic history.

So, yes, I would say that I have 'some knowledge' of the period. However, I don't consider my reply 'haughty or disdainful' - just honest and my considered opinion. (I can have an opinion, can't I?)

I must admit that I am tired of seeing uncritical 'reviews' of figures that do not address fundamentals and which display a lack of knowledge of the subject matter by the reviewer. Everything seems to be concentrated on how the figure 'looks', i.e. just the quality of the sculpting. I would be the first to agree that this is a superb piece of model-making but it is, in essence, a "Hollywood" fantasy piece. If that's your 'bag' - then fine. Good luck to you! However, if you want an accurate representation of a figure, then this isn't it. That's not being 'haughty' or 'disdainful' - just my (informed) opinion. That it happens to be at odds with that of the reviewer (or yourself), goes with the territory, I'm afraid.

These figures are not exactly cheap these days and I think that the buying public should be able to make a proper decision based on as decent and as complete a review as it is possible to make. I think that a reviewer should be critically fair and point out the pitfalls as well as the 'plus' factors. I simply pointed out some of the former that had been omitted - again in my opinion

Oh, and while I'm at it, although the chap who painted the bust (presumably for the box art) is clearly a superb wizz with the paintbrush, he should know that the cuirass cannot have been made of iron. The Roman smiths were incapable of 'working' iron sheets that large. The cuirass would have been made of bronze sheet.

 

[kagemusha]

Hi Caractacus, there is no arguing with your qualifications in this field. That's for sure. In fairness to Jason tho, when I read your 1st post, I too found it a little acidic. Now that we know where your passion comes from, your remarks are understandable. Would you not agree that there is a lot of 'Hollywood' in todays figure market in order to create impact on first sight which will, hopefully, lead to greater sales and early recoupment of costs to the manufacturer.

Regards

Ron

 

[JGREEN]

"Caratacus,"

You dont get it. I did not in any way question your qualifications, so there's no need to list them "just so we know" (the arrogance there is remarkable). Nor did I ever question your right to express your opinion. You might be the worlds leading expert on everything Roman for all I know (or care). It's your acerbic, condescending tone that rubs me the wrong way (and that applies to both of your posts). And as for you being "tired of seeing uncritical reviews of figures that do not address fundamentals and which display a lack of knowledge of the subject matter by the reviewer," are you serious? Do you expect to Guy (or any reviewer) to be an expert on the period of history related to every piece he reviews? You seem to be an expert on Romans, but how would you fare commenting on the historical accuracy of a Napoleonic piece, or a WWII piece? I'm just thankful Guy takes the time to do these reviews. As has been explained, Guy's reviews are not intended to analyze the hisorical accuracy of a piece. It would be impossible for anyone who reviews as many pieces, and such a wide variety of pieces, as Guy does to critique the historical accuracy. If you're so tired of these "uncritical" reviews, why don't you grace us with your immense knowledge and do a review of your own? Btw, Young is a highly respected manufacturer, considered by many (myself included) to be producing the best busts on the market. OK, they may have made a couple of errors on this bust (I say "may" because I'm NOT an expert, and I simply don't know), but to describe it as a "knock-off from a bit of nonsense . . ." displays a real air of superiority and lack of tact. Again, that's your opinion and you have every right to express it, there's just better ways to do so.

Jason

 

[Mike S.]

 

[Caratacus]

Would you not agree that there is a lot of 'Hollywood' in todays figure market in order to create impact on first sight which will, hopefully, lead to greater sales and early recoupment of costs to the manufacturer.
Ron

Hello Ron!

Yes, I would certainly agree with you on this. I have no objection to it either. Everyone has to make a living. Provided it is labelled as such - that's fine. Then we all know what we are getting. My objection comes with the disguise of a figure as 'fact', when actually it's made up. I paint historical miniatures and I expect them to be as accurate as possible. This demands proper research (no, I assure you that I am not talking 'academic' research here - just what can be obtained with a little effort). As an example of this I would hold up Adriano Laruccia and the figures he makes for 'Soldiers' (and a few other manufacturers as well). He always quotes his source material and I have never found an error in his work where his Roman subjects are concerned.

I have re-read my original post. I can see how it can be interpreted as a bit 'acidic' (perhaps an 'emoticon' would have helped?) I have to say that it wasn't meant to be so. I wasn't trying to be 'clever' - but I was exasperated at what I regarded as something that I thought was rather lazy work. I still say that this chap Young is a marvelous sculptor of busts - I have no quarrel with his abilities at all.

 

[Caratacus]

"Caratacus,"
You dont get it. I did not in any way question your qualifications, so there's no need to list them "just so we know" (the arrogance there is remarkable). Nor did I ever question your right to express your opinion.
Jason

Oh dear! Did I disagree with your opinion? Actually, you DID question my 'qualifications': "Some knowledge of the period" is a rather dismissive way to put things. I'm not 'arrogant' about it - it just seemed to me that you were implying that I didn't know what I was talking about, so I provided you with some evidence that I did know. And I was not being condescending either. I was just stating my opinion - that's all. Thank you for allowing me to do this - so kind.

Actually, yes, I am serious about this, I do expect a reviewer to have a knowledge of such things. If not, what's the point of the review? People rely on these reviews and spend their hard-earned currency on them. The point is (and I don't think that you get this) that I would not dream of reviewing a WW II figure - precisely because I know damn all about the period. I could review such a figure but I would then state that I was only talking about the technical aspects of the model (sculpting, animation, mould quality, fit of parts, etc) and that I could not vouch for the accuracy of the figure.

If you are happy with Mr. Young's work, then good luck to you, Sir! It's your cash. Perhaps you can explain why, if he is such a 'highly respected manufacturer", he can make 'a few errors' - one of which was an attempt to pass off a not-very-good (actually, it's little more than a toy') Spanish 'souvenir' as a piece of Roman equipment?

Now, I do write reviews for a number of other publications and web-sites. I concentrate on the area in which I have sufficient knowledge to be able to make them useful to the reader. If I can find the time, I might even submit one of them here.

 

[Guy]

Actually, yes, I am serious about this, I do expect a reviewer to have a knowledge of such things. If not, what's the point of the review?

Evidently you are not a good researcher as you would of looked at the two different types of review we do here on Planetfigure. I do "Open Box" reviews showing the kit only and the parts of the kit. Had you done your research before you posted you would of found this out.

I have no respect for anyone who hides behind another name, in your case
"Caratacus", and not stand behind what you say with your real name.

If you don't like my style of reviews.........don't click on them. I've done over 500 kit reviews and I am not going to do historical research for every kit just to satisfy a nameless member, such as yourself.

Guy