I’m a bit annoyed with myself though as I broke my golden rule of always painting a test figure before going into mass production. I think this was a bit of laziness on my part but I’m regretting it now as I’ve had to repaint several things across all the figures. I used the Hinton Hunt painting instructions for the officer (thanks to Clive) but without the same for the gunners I found it surprisingly hard to get uniform details. My reference books and the web are inconsistent and nobody shows a gunner with full equipment, the way Marcus Hinton modelled them.
Painting Hinton Hunt figures is tricky, and it takes a bit of trial and error to decide what detail to include, leave out or invent. Sometimes less is more and the test figure is worth doing to make sure the finished result looks right to me. In the end I had to abandon the batch painting and complete one figure to sort it all out, serves me right.
23 comments:
Three batteries ought to be enough, how big is your planned army or do you not have a plan? The figures look pretty good to me, the officer in particular is real gem of figure, there's something about his pose that looks totally natural - not something you can say about all vintage figures. The uniforms look quite convincing to me (I'm NOT an expert); the trousers look more blue than grey but that could be the photo or my eyesight (or maybe they weren't grey?).
Hi Rob, my 'planned' British/Allied army is 8 foot, 5 cav and 5 batteries, I still have a way to go! The trousers are painted with Foundry 75B British Blue Grey.
They look the business to me!
Ian- Try not to be too hard on yourself..Your painting is superb. Great to see your progress on the Artillery. Cheers. KEV.
Cheers Matt and Kev!
They're looking great, Ian.
RA uniform of the Napoleonic wars is notoriously murky. There are very few contemporary depictions, and bugger all in terms of original artefacts - and as you say, they are inconsistent!
They look great to me Ian. I do like to see an officer with a map, he's a lovely figure.
WM - I was surprised at just how murky it is which is why I could definitely have done with the HH painting instructions!
Lee - yes, an officer with a map inspires confidence, unless it is my General Mack!
Ian, is my eyesight good enough to spot that you have BN143 in both the high and low Porte variants lurking in the second rank? Do you know whether both are vintage variants? I too have both, and both appear genuine. Yours confused.....
Nigel - the high porte chap is BN145 Ammunition Carrier holding a charge, BN143 (low Porte) is carrying a cannon ball. They are different figures and both original HH poses. This confused me too for a while as I thought the ammunition carrier would have a bag like the other nationalities however the bases are clearly stamped with the codes!
Archduke, There are definitely some unlisted variations in the HH range. I have some British Hussars with the fur hat with a peak which are original. I know that some others have them too.
In any case, color challenges notwithstanding, these are up to you usual high standards with the brush. Every time I see some of your newly (or about to be) finished figures, I get that ol' familiar Napoleonic tingle and begin thinking dangerous thoughts about having a(nother) go at the period myself. Lovely figures in any case.
Best Regards,
Stokes
Stokes - I'd certainly like to see how you handled a Napoleonic project, go on, scratch the itch!!!
Ah, further enlightenment. Thanks again, Ian. And whoever is anonymous, (I suppose that's the whole point of being anonymous), do you mean the one piece hussars BN55? that's fascinating.
Surely the British hussars with the peaked busby are the KGL separate figure, not some British variant and the KGL figure is a standard HH.
Archduke, it is the two piece BN 210. I wonder if it may have been done to cover the KGL hussars.
https://findthatfigure.blogspot.com/2008/07/bn-210-british-hussar-in-busby.html
Lewisgunner, You would have thought so but the only KGL figure listed has a shako (KLG 3 (?)) and I can’t see any others in the listings I have (Clayton catalogue from the early 1990s). The figures were given to me by someone who said that he had bought them in the 70s and were mixed in with ordinary BN 210s.
For years I have believed that KGL3 was listed as having a “peaked busby”. It isn’t, is it? This must be a typo, mustn’t it? HH’s literary offerings were not known for their proof reading. To describe a shako as “peaked” is verging on tautology. So far, I’m with Lewis Gunner....
I was going with the picture on Clive’s site which shows a shako. I found an online scan of an HH catalogue and it does mention a peaked shako.
http://findthatfigure.blogspot.com/2008/07/klg-3-british-kings-german-legion-in.html?m=0
A peaked shako isn’t necessarily a tautology as some had mirlitons.
True enough on all counts, but I still think on balance that it’s a typo. If the Kgl hussar had a shako, how would it be distinguishable from the
15th hussar figure?
According to the photo, the KGL figure has a bigger plume on his shako. All this depends on the photo being correct.
https://thisreilluminatedschoolofmars.wordpress.com/the-dress-of-the-kings-german-legion-1-some-primary-sources/8-3rd-hussars-1808-16/
An interesting article , illuminating, but not conclusive. The KGL appear to have what may be a fur covered shako which Hinton interpreted as rather furrier than the contemporary illustration.
Post a Comment