The Evolving State of the 'Hobby' (4 Viewers)

Thank you for that I am certainly for the harmony of the site prepared to ignore without computer assistance should all parties do similar
Mitch
 
I would like to amend my thread on “The Evolving State of the Hobby” with some additional observations. These have been prompted by at least two recent threads, “Vehicles or Figures or both?” and “So what’s your next purchase from K&C?”. In addition I have made my own personal superficial and limited assessment (non-scientific/statistical) of the socio-economic structure of the members of this forum, and how I believe this may impact on the collecting/acquisition habits of those members.

The first “toy soldier” I purchased (at an age when I would take care of it) was an un-boxed W. Britains Set 1201 Royal Artillery Gun (which I now consider an accessory) at Arnold’s Toy Store in downtown Cincinnati. That was followed by the classic red boxes of actual toy soldiers.

Reason for mentioning this is that tied to some of my original observations, and the referenced threads, that the majority of the members are currently acquiring what I would define as accessories, i.e., armored fighting vehicles, support vehicles, artillery, aircraft, buildings and landscape. Should not forget to additionally mention for the limited few, ships (HMS Victory and more realistically the USS San Pablo and 'Melik' and 'Sultan' on the Nile) and appropriately scaled trains (Reichbahn). Then in the context of extensive and extremely realistic dioramas, adding the appropriate personnel (‘toy soldiers’). So I would content that this is an integration/merging or synthesis of what were heretofore considered separate hobby fields; scale model aircraft, scale model armored vehicles, diecast vehicles and aircraft, model ship building and model railroading.

The extent of this evolution is however constrained for some by previously mentioned socio-economic circumstances; how far away can individuals go to attend shows and or stores (recognizing the internet precludes immediate inspection of your intended purchase), how much can they afford, and how much leisure time are they willing to spend in evolving/constructing displays/dioramas. I’m sure that we have all been able to stand in admiration of efforts on a small vignette just as much as an extensive diorama.

I feel certain that as well as myself, other members of the forum would appreciate comments on these thoughts.

Arnhemjim
 
Last edited:
Arnhemjim said:
I would like to amend my thread on “The Evolving State of the Hobby” with some additional observations. These have been prompted by at least two recent threads, “Vehicles or Figures or both?” and “So what’s your next purchase from K&C?”. In addition I have made my own personal superficial and limited assessment (non-scientific/statistical) of the socio-economic structure of the members of this forum, and how I believe this may impact on the collecting/acquisition habits of those members.

The first “toy soldier” I purchased (at an age when I would take care of it) was an un-boxed W. Britains Set 1201 Royal Artillery Gun (which I now consider an accessory) at Arnold’s Toy Store in downtown Cincinnati. That was followed by the classic red boxes of actual toy soldiers.

Reason for mentioning this is that tied to some of my original observations, and the referenced threads, that the majority of the members are currently acquiring what I would define as accessories, i.e., armored fighting vehicles, support vehicles, artillery, aircraft, buildings and landscape. Should not forget to additionally mention for the limited few, ships (HMS Victory and more realistically the USS San Pablo and 'Melik' and 'Sultan' on the Nile) and appropriately scaled trains (Reichbahn). Then in the context of extensive and extremely realistic dioramas, adding the appropriate personnel (‘toy soldiers’). So I would content that this is an integration/merging or synthesis of what were heretofore considered separate hobby fields; scale model aircraft, scale model armored vehicles, diecast vehicles and aircraft, model ship building and model railroading.

The extent of this evolution is however constrained for some by previously mentioned socio-economic circumstances; how far away can individuals go to attend shows and or stores (recognizing the internet precludes immediate inspection of your intended purchase), how much can they afford, and how much leisure time are they willing to spend in evolving/constructing displays/dioramas. I’m sure that we have all been able to stand in admiration of efforts on a small vignette just as much as an extensive diorama.

I feel certain that as well as myself, other members of the forum would appreciate comments on these thoughts.

Arnhemjim
Click to expand...

Hi Arnhemjim,

Thank you for such a thoughtful post! Your comments parallel my own thoughts and you have organized your observations in an easy to understand structure, perhaps much more effectively than I could do. I have even considered attempting to develop a Taxonomy of Toy Solider Collectors that emphasizes the very elements you mention, but I decided I would be the only forum member interested in such an intellectual exercise. :D

From my perspective, you are correct. The hobby has included a melding of modeling, as well as interests in trains, planes, ships, and miniature landscaping, with the actual hobby of collecting of toy soldier figures. In many ways, this evolution has been logical and predictable given the many improvements in toy soldier manufacturing.

However, I would like to add one feature to your fine discussion. You mention that, for some of us, the socio-economic constraints have prevented many of us from being able to eagerly pursue the more evolved state of the hobby. Doubtless, this is true. However, in my case, I prefer not to pursue the hobby at its most cutting edge. Instead, I am not only content to display, with minimal accessories, my figures in my curio cabinets, but I prefer doing so. While I definitely stand in awe of the many fine dioramas and vignettes posted on our forum, I simply prefer featuring my figures as stand alone displays. In short, I prefer viewing my figures without the potential distractions of all the accessories that add to the most realistic possible displays. For me, it is all about toy soldiers, not about all the other wonderful things that have become associated with our fine hobby.

Having said all of the above, I look forward to the considered thoughts of other forum members. Thanks, again, for providing such a thought-provoking post!

Warmest personal regards,

Pat :)
 
wadepat said:
Hi Arnhemjim,

Thank you for such a thoughtful post! Your comments parallel my own thoughts and you have organized your observations in an easy to understand structure, perhaps much more effectively than I could do. I have even considered attempting to develop a Taxonomy of Toy Solider Collectors that emphasizes the very elements you mention, but I decided I would be the only forum member interested in such an intellectual exercise. :D

From my perspective, you are correct. The hobby has included a melding of modeling, as well as interests in trains, planes, ships, and miniature landscaping, with the actual hobby of collecting of toy soldier figures. In many ways, this evolution has been logical and predictable given the many improvements in toy soldier manufacturing.

However, I would like to add one feature to your fine discussion. You mention that, for some of us, the socio-economic constraints have prevented many of us from being able to eagerly pursue the more evolved state of the hobby. Doubtless, this is true. However, in my case, I prefer not to pursue the hobby at its most cutting edge. Instead, I am not only content to display, with minimal accessories, my figures in my curio cabinets, but I prefer doing so. While I definitely stand in awe of the many fine dioramas and vignettes posted on our forum, I simply prefer featuring my figures as stand alone displays. In short, I prefer viewing my figures without the potential distractions of all the accessories that add to the most realistic possible displays. For me, it is all about toy soldiers, not about all the other wonderful things that have become associated with our fine hobby.

Having said all of the above, I look forward to the considered thoughts of other forum members. Thanks, again, for providing such a thought-provoking post!

Warmest personal regards,

Pat :)
Click to expand...

Hi Wadepat,

Thank you very much for your kind remarks. Incidently I probably should have included wargaming in my list of merged hobbies.

You bring up a very salient point. Depending on where and when as individuals we were introduced to the hobby, and first began collecting toy soldiers, a frame of reference occurred. It may very well be for some, perhaps even a majority, that massed formations in curio cases, lawyers bookcases, or other forms of display cases, represents the desired effect that best reflects how we see the hobby.

It certainly reflects my personal perspective, and I think can be classified as ‘purist’, perhaps even a bit anachronistic. Two classic collections immediately come to mind. That of Ed Ruby and Anne Brown’s at the Brown University Library. I've had the very good fortune to see both personally.

Malcom Forbes’ collection, while it existed at the museum in Tangiers under the stewardship of Peter and Anne Johnson, was the first time I can recall that an ‘individual’ collection of toy soldiers was expanded from pure formations on display shelves to include dioramas. Even these were rather stayed in appearance.

Hasten to say that any of those collections, particularly Forbes, even as ‘unstructured’ as it was, would put Figartt’s HMS Victory in a shadow, and are not a reasonable benchmark, except at a stratospheric end of the scale.

With W.Britains as the core of my personal collection, and seeing some of the recent offerings on e-Bay, Vectis and the Old Toy Soldier Auctions (cost versus condition versus availability), I tend to be content right where I am, rather than being envious of larger collections.

In that regard I think your idea of developing a Taxonomy of Toy Soldiers is a great idea. Would be more than happy to provide you with a preliminary personal list of candidate parameters. If you recall James Opie has provided some limited discussion along the same line in his books.

Thanks once again, as you, I think exchanges like this should be an integral part of the hobby.

Best regards,
Jim
 
Arnhemjim said:
Hi Wadepat,

Thank you very much for your kind remarks. Incidently I probably should have included wargaming in my list of merged hobbies.

You bring up a very salient point. Depending on where and when as individuals we were introduced to the hobby, and first began collecting toy soldiers, a frame of reference occurred. It may very well be for some, perhaps even a majority, that massed formations in curio cases, lawyers bookcases, or other forms of display cases, represents the desired effect that best reflects how we see the hobby.

It certainly reflects my personal perspective, and I think can be classified as ‘purist’, perhaps even a bit anachronistic. Two classic collections immediately come to mind. That of Ed Ruby and Anne Brown’s at the Brown University Library. I've had the very good fortune to see both personally.

Malcom Forbes’ collection, while it existed at the museum in Tangiers under the stewardship of Peter and Anne Johnson, was the first time I can recall that an ‘individual’ collection of toy soldiers was expanded from pure formations on display shelves to include dioramas. Even these were rather stayed in appearance.

Hasten to say that any of those collections, particularly Forbes, even as ‘unstructured’ as it was, would put Figartt’s HMS Victory in a shadow, and are not a reasonable benchmark, except at a stratospheric end of the scale.

With W.Britains as the core of my personal collection, and seeing some of the recent offerings on e-Bay, Vectis and the Old Toy Soldier Auctions (cost versus condition versus availability), I tend to be content right where I am, rather than being envious of larger collections.

In that regard I think your idea of developing a Taxonomy of Toy Soldiers is a great idea. Would be more than happy to provide you with a preliminary personal list of candidate parameters. If you recall James Opie has provided some limited discussion along the same line in his books.

Thanks once again, as you, I think exchanges like this should be an integral part of the hobby.

Best regards,
Jim
Click to expand...

Hi Jim,

Interestingly enough, the term "purist" is the exact term I had in mind for those of us who focus primarily on the figures, display our collections in curios and shelves, and who do not utilize many accessories. I have refrained from using the term as I have assumed it would not meet the approval of other fine collectors who prefer to enjoy the hobby in a variety of ways different from ours. I remember one collector who divided our ranks into two catagories: Collectors and Accumulators. I took exception to this structure as it reflected a difference in collecting behavior between collectors (those who specialized in one or two eras or topics) and accumulators (those who enjoyed a diversity of eras, but did not build a collection reflecting depth in one area). The two terms seemed to reflect an elitist position (collector) vs. a less informed or inferior position (accumulator). I would hope to avoid such a judgemental structure in a taxonomy as there are many legitimate ways to enjoy the hobby.

I would be very interested in receiving your thoughts regarding candidate parameters. In fact, I would enjoy receiving the views of all other collectors as well. Further, I think it might be fun, perhaps even useful, if a taxonomy of toy soldier collectors could be developed. I look forward to your receiving more of your thoughts regarding a taxonomy!

Warmest personal regards,

Pat :)
 
I'm not really sure what all this classifying and logging and naming of collectors' differences really has to do with advancing the hobby or having fun. Where does it get us?

It seems to me that classifying tends to create needless ill-will and division in a hobby that is already small. It promotes an "us - them" attitude. We really don't need any more of that, IMO. This kind of categorization is not likely to make our hobby attactive to new members. I have spent much of my life avoiding this kind of stuff in clubs, and I really don't relish seeing it appear here. Let's all just get on with enjoying out hobby.
 
Frankly, I didn't get the point of Arnhem Jim's original post from yesterday, that we've moved on from just figures to what he terms accessories. That is hardly news. Is it that while we are doing that we still call the hobby toy soldiers. That's just nomenclature, shorthand for the big tent that encompasses that term.

I, too, prefer not too get wrapped up in labels.
 
Why does one need any title/label other than "Collector of Toy Soldiers"? Does it really make any useful point to break the hobby down into catagories? It is all the same wonderful fun to me.:D -- Al
 
lancer said:
Why does one need any title/label other than "Collector of Toy Soldiers"? Does it really make any useful point to break the hobby down into catagories? It is all the same wonderful fun to me.:D -- Al
Click to expand...

.....................................................................................................

You make an excellent point!

It is most unfortunate that we have had this discussion for quite some time

as some collectors attempt to "label" other collectors whom I can only assume

they disagree with.

I have found most people have different views on what they collect, how much they spend, and how they display their items.

To me, they are all collectors, just as I consider myself.:)
 
I don't really care about classifying collectors. Not only do I see no useful purpose for it, but my focus on what I collect has changed 10 times in the last several years. Do I need to get reclassified each time. :rolleyes::D

Terry
 
To All Forum Members,
Judging from the majority of replies, in the future I'll keep my thoughts in this area to myself or in PM to those who expressed a positive interest. It's not worth my time and effort to even try and explain the potential benefits.
Arnhemjim
 
Gentle Friends,

Oops! It appears the conversation Jim and I were having has struck a particularly sensitive nerve with some collectors. My apologies if my contribution to the discussion seemed offensive to you. It was not my motive to offend. Rather, my motive was to advance the understanding of and clarification of natural relationships within the toy soldier collecting community.

Given such strong reactions to the idea of the development of a taxonomy, I think I, too, should withdraw from further public discussion of the topic. Thanks to all who have voiced their opinions.

Warmest personal regards,

Pat :)
 
With all due respect to Jim and Pat, but particularly Jim, just because at first blush I didn't like what they were proposing doesn't mean that others don't or that I'm not interested in hearing about it or that others aren't and that we might not change our minds about it.

At the first sign of opposition, you shouldn't fold your tents and refuse to discuss it further. If an idea has possible merit it ought to be discussed and commented upon.
 
At the end of the day is it not true to say that all branches of collecting have a common interest and something to contribute to the overall enjoyment of the hobby. It matters not if that interest is specialised or general, inevitably there will be occasions when they overlap and that interaction can only lead to the strengthening of the hobby as a whole, which IMO is a good thing.
 
I think developing a taxonomy will be a useful and enjoyable enterprise.
I would encourage Jim and Pat with this endeavour. To me the overarching interest is military history. There are many aspects to this. There is interest in reading about the campaigns. This then converts into people doing serious research or visiting the battlefields. Others begin to collect militaria or medals. Others re-enact, others get into wargaming and others collect toy soldiers. The hobby has evolved over the years. Since WB went out of production in 1966 we have had cottage industries springing up to make "New Old Toy Soldiers" The figures of Jack Scruby and others morphed into the figures of Trophy and Imperial. These companies have also marched off into history and their figures are now talked about as classic figures and command high prices. The matt revolution further blurred genres. K and C, frontline the new WB etc have all played their role in this. Now we have Figarti mixing genres at will. They have merged model train collecting with toy soldier collecting. First Legion are now merging the connosieur market with the toy soldier market.
I think it is all good.
In my single decade and a half of collecting I have seen many changes and look forward to many more.
 
There is some really strange responses about this labelling issue and, strangely, posters do not seem to understand that everything anywhere creates a label whether positive or negative does not matter its the way things are.

The post from Jim was interesting and informative and, should be addressed and, if it creates a label who cares? How does that effect anyone under the alleged label? it does not.

I hope the taxonomy progresses. If one does not like it then one can become labelled as a non participator.
Mitch
 
wadepat said:
Gentle Friends,

Oops! It appears the conversation Jim and I were having has struck a particularly sensitive nerve with some collectors. My apologies if my contribution to the discussion seemed offensive to you. It was not my motive to offend. Rather, my motive was to advance the understanding of and clarification of natural relationships within the toy soldier collecting community.

Given such strong reactions to the idea of the development of a taxonomy, I think I, too, should withdraw from further public discussion of the topic. Thanks to all who have voiced their opinions.

Warmest personal regards,

Pat :)
Click to expand...

No sensitive nerve was struck and I certainly was not objecting to the discussion. I just don't see the usefulness of trying to classify collectors. And I suspect it would be too difficult anyway - too many categories and rules/criteria as to what category a collector fit into.

Terry
 
"Taxonomy is the practice and science of classification".

It has been a long time since I discovered a new word ! Not much use for this particular word for me but if some people want to relate it to their hobby they are welcome to it.

Regards
Brett
 
Jim/wadepat....

I hope the discussion will continue as it would be a benefit to the forum to have this added to the thread
Mitch
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top