The first 3, below, are the less satisfactory in my view.
I was particularly disappointed by Caesar, which I'd hoped would be a splendid mini; unfortunately he just doesn't look like the portraits of the general that I've seen. There is something I don't quite like about the legs, either, and he is the ghastliest sword I've ever seen on a historical miniature. That'll have to come off if I paint him. Overall I don't think it's as nice as Copplestone's Tribunes in the Foundry range; he's just not imposing.The Arminius figure I like rather more, but does he look like a 25 year old Roman Equestrian and Auxiliary commander? I think not. Even if depicts the General later in life, I can't see why he'd be so scruffy and poorly dressed. He is, however, in other respects a rather nice figure that I will use, but not as a general.
I'm also rather unconvinced by the Antigonus One-Eye/Mercenary General figure in the middle. That is, again, a massive sword by Macedonian standards, and his stance is very wide. I think Antigonus would be better depicted by a mounted figure, so I'll do a conversion or see what Polemarch come up with for mounted minis. And BTW where have those Polemarch cavalry got to? They seem to have deserted Antigonus, rahter like his son's horse did at Ipsus.
The minis in the second picture are, IMHO, much better. Marcus Calvinus is quite the finest Centurion I have seen; he'll be Primus Pilus for my EIR legion. The figure is beutifully detailed and very imperious. The Persian I reviewed early this month; he's a great mini.
Finally Babastus is a figure full of character. My only (mild) reservations about him are his slightly strange stance, and the rather crude scythe, which could have been done better; couldn't cut much mistletoe with that! I may give him a spear, instead.
All three of the above are available from http://www.gorgon-studios.com/?page_id=2
Sooo... I reckon from the six sculpts there are three really great minis, and three somewhat flawed ones. Steve is an excellent sculptor, but it seems to me that he approaches some tasks with more passion than others, and tends to give the less successful ones big swords. That Centurion is bloody marvellous, though!
As a matter of interest mate, are you aware of these?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.xyston.com/acatalog/28mm_Historical_Personalities.html
Cheers
JDE
Hi JDE,
ReplyDeleteYes I'm afraid that I don't like them v. much. They just don't look 'ard enuff; except Spartacus who looks good.
You good? I follow your club's website.
Thought you'd know, I've got a couple and like them. Our club bimbles on, as you've seen - I'm just preparing for Berkeley. You out to play this year?
ReplyDeleteSorry no Berkeley; I'm trying to write a Dissertation. Trying is the key word in that sentance. :-(
ReplyDeleteHi, I agree with most everything you've said in your comments - and particularly about the Arminius figure - except only I'm not that big a fan of the Babastus figure, not at all. To me, the headdress is very suspect. I mean I don't mind the GW antlered lot, whether on a Chaos warrior or a Wood Elf, but this version just cries out about how ridiculous, in reality, the concept of wearing antlered headdresses into combat actually is. I mean, if you took one mincing step the shagging thing would be sliding off your head, and I doubt any ungulate alive in historical times ever had a head and antler combo that looked quite like that. The pectoral cut off on the figure doesn't look that good either. And while I'm not particularly interested in male nipples, don't get me wrong, they should be showing on this miniature at this scale in the areas Mr. Saleh left exposed.
ReplyDeleteFinally, the Xyston Mark Antony and Alexander figures look decent enough.
Thanks for posting your thoughts.
Keir
Hi Keir, I reckon Babastus is a bit of a fantasy figure, really. I did think about using him as an AD&D druid, but decided he'd never fit down a tunnel! I still like him though. I can stand one of him in my Celtic army; he is obviously a nutter and can caper at the back with the druids.
ReplyDeleteRe the Xystons, I can't quite put my finger on what I don't like about them. The poses are a bit static, but then I often like static poses. Are some of the heads just a little too large?
Also I prefer my senior generals mounted.
Of the two, I prefer the Alexander which is a nice mini (but sword a bit broad?). I've thought about using him, however, I think the Foundry equivalents do Alexander a little better, I've a nice mounted version.
A friend just painted one of the Foundry Tribunes as his Mark Antony, and he looked rather good.
Thanks for replying!
Simon
If to replace to first three miniatures swords on smaller, they will look better. Probably it is necessary to make small conversion.
ReplyDeleteHi Andrey, I think they could be made to look better, but that they are still not very good minis.
ReplyDeleteThe Antigonos figure suffers for a number of reasons. One the sword is way off base, and out of scale. Two the figure does not have a diadem. Three, the use of a patch to cover the blind eye is somewhat fanciful.
ReplyDeleteThe figure was designed to represent Antigonos at Ipsus, where he was on foot, fighting with his phalanx as he went down under a shower of javelins.
I know it was designed thusly, because I designed it :)
However I have not as yet been able to paint it.. which I will soon.
Otherwise I concur with your points. The Caesar figure is most unsatisfactory, the Arminius, just another hairy dude with sword.
JJ
Hi Jeff,
ReplyDeleteDoing Antigonus is a great idea; its a shame he didn't come out quite perfect. I would imagine that, because sculptors rarely tackle minis of older people, it must be quite challenging. He looks a bit vigorous for an 80+ year old, but I suppose he'd led a very active life! Mind you, there are one or two really nice ageing Argonauts (by Steve?).
Wouldn't it be great if someone did some 60+ year old Silver Shields?
Cheers, Simon