“Yesterday and Today” (1 Viewer)

[King & Country]

Hi Guys,
Just a little reminder on a few (very few) of the many figures, fighting vehicles and battlefield accessories that K&C have produced over the last 7-8 years. A fairly eclectic collection I hope you will agree.
During those years I believe K&C have continued to improve and innovate significantly in both sculpting and painting.
Of course I maybe a wee bit biased… But then… so are some of our detractors!
Best wishes and happy collecting!

Andy​

 

[King & Country]

and a few more...

 

[villagehorse]

All neat diorama's from days gone by, let's hope there are many more to come. Robin.

 

[Fitzgibbon]

Andy, just love the Hussars. See you Saturday. Safe trip, Bob :salute::

 

[Maccoy]

Love the Afrika Corps diorama!!

I saw in this diorama three figures which i don't recognise.....possible new aditions to the DAK range

 

[wayne556517]

Is this new ??

The tracks look better than LAH 068.

 

[NicktheBaggie]

K&C is a utter joy to collect. I can't believe some of the negetivity being flung around this forum lately. Long may the company flourish and it churn out quality piece after piece. Just now need to get an official UK distributor sorted again.

 

[nysoldiers]

Again, it would be great if K&C would mass produce the three "half timber" houses in the Napoleon Hussar diorama!

 

[ivanmoe]

So, I collect toy pilots. To this end, I buy more than just new releases. In working my way back through older/retired sets, I've really no intention of attempting to buy complete collections. Rather, I try to pick up sets that I find affordable and which strike me as unique.

One benefit of following this strategy for creating a collection is that it gives me first hand knowledge of a variety of figure sets, and how a range might have evolved. With that stated, here are a couple of figures that I would suggest are emblematic of how the RAF sets have improved since their introduction:

View attachment 195058View attachment 195059


Rather than attempting to pick out my most/least favorite RAF set for imaging, I grabbed the figures which represent (near) chronological extremes in terms production WITHIN the range. In doing so, I wanted to see if I could capture changes which might have occurred in the sculpt and/or paint quality from RAF(0)03 on the left to RAF058 on the right.

At the risk of clubbing the readership over the head with the obvious, I see the following:

• The boots are improved in detail and color pallette (no more patent-leather).
• The blousing and pleating is more elaborate and lifelike.
• The shading is more sophisticated.
• There's less use of black outlining to highlight detail, or to create the illusion of detail in the absence of relief.
• When outlining is employed, its more discreet and refined.
• The flying gear (helmet and oxygen mask) is more elaborate and authentic.
• The visage is less cartoonish.
• The hands are better proportioned with the body.
• The newer figure is somewhat shorter and less girthy, perhaps more acceptable as 1/30 scale.

I find myself genuinely perplexed as to why anyone would seek to trivialize improvements like those which I cite above. Worse still, anyone who suggests that the enhancements simply do not exist, as has been repeated several times lately, hereabouts, has some serious explaining to do in regard to their motives.

In terms of the value of the figures and whether one is worth more than the other, the marketplace will settle that. The figures are worth what people are willing to pay for them. Period. Thoughts or comments?

-Moe

 

[wwiibuff]

Moe,

I agree with you that the newer K&C figures are basically improved over the older releases. I've been a K&C collector for over 10 years and have amassed a very large collection of mostly WWII but also many other ranges of K&C figures as well.

I am quite pleased with my newest purchases and see the same improvements you listed in many of the new figures. Of course I still love the old figures too and some of them are still at the top of my list as far as favorites (and are good figures too).... but you have to say that improvements have been made to many of the newer releases.

Andy and K&C have a knack for coming up with unique and interesting poses that make it a joy for me to collect their figures. The sheer volume of figures available, especially in my favorite era / WWII is impressive and makes the dio possibilities almost endless. I wish I had more $$$ so I could buy all the figures I wanted!! I have to discipline myself and be selective of the figures I do buy now, but it's fun to "browse" through all that is available.

So, I collect toy pilots. To this end, I buy more than just new releases. In working my way back through older/retired sets, I've really no intention of attempting to buy complete collections. Rather, I try to pick up sets that I find affordable and which strike me as unique.

One benefit of following this strategy for creating a collection is that it gives me first hand knowledge of a variety of figure sets, and how a range might have evolved. With that stated, here are a couple of figures that I would suggest are emblematic of how the RAF sets have improved since their introduction:

Rather than attempting to pick out my most/least favorite RAF set for imaging, I grabbed the figures which represent (near) chronological extremes in terms production WITHIN the range. In doing so, I wanted to see if I could capture changes which might have occurred in the sculpt and/or paint quality from RAF(0)03 on the left to RAF058 on the right.

At the risk of clubbing the readership over the head with the obvious, I see the following:

• The boots are improved in detail and color pallette (no more patent-leather).
• The blousing and pleating is more elaborate and lifelike.
• The shading is more sophisticated.
• There's less use of black outlining to highlight detail, or to create the illusion of detail in the absence of relief.
• When outlining is employed, its more discreet and refined.
• The flying gear (helmet and oxygen mask) is more elaborate and authentic.
• The visage is less cartoonish.
• The hands are better proportioned with the body.
• The newer figure is somewhat shorter and less girthy, perhaps more acceptable as 1/30 scale.

I find myself genuinely perplexed as to why anyone would seek to trivialize improvements like those which I cite above. Worse still, anyone who suggests that the enhancements simply do not exist, as has been repeated several times lately, hereabouts, has some serious explaining to do in regard to their motives.

In terms of the value of the figures and whether one is worth more than the other, the marketplace will settle that. The figures are worth what people are willing to pay for them. Period. Thoughts or comments?

-Moe

 

[maddadicus]

K&C is a utter joy to collect. I can't believe some of the negetivity being flung around this forum lately. Long may the company flourish and it churn out quality piece after piece. Just now need to get an official UK distributor sorted again.

Most of the offenders have a personal issue with the owner, who does not back down or ignore their nonstop verbal jabs. He is like redmeat to the smallest carnivorous animal alive, who yelps when challenged and then slinks away to pout. :tongue:Michael

 

[ivanmoe]

Moe,

I agree with you that the newer K&C figures are basically improved over the older releases. I've been a K&C collector for over 10 years and have amassed a very large collection of mostly WWII but also many other ranges of K&C figures as well.

I am quite pleased with my newest purchases and see the same improvements you listed in many of the new figures. Of course I still love the old figures too and some of them are still at the top of my list as far as favorites (and are good figures too).... but you have to say that improvements have been made to many of the newer releases.

Andy and K&C have a knack for coming up with unique and interesting poses that make it a joy for me to collect their figures. The sheer volume of figures available, especially in my favorite era / WWII is impressive and makes the dio possibilities almost endless. I wish I had more $$$ so I could buy all the figures I wanted!! I have to discipline myself and be selective of the figures I do buy now, but it's fun to "browse" through all that is available.

Hi Duke,

Almost glad to hear that someone (other than myself) struggles with cost constraints. However, it certainly doesn't show in your displays. I've always been impressed with your collection, your scenes and your wonderful photography. My favorite are your aviation subjects. Go figure!

There's great irony attendant to the improvements that I've witnessed in ranges like KC/RAF. It lies in the past criticism of KC regarding many of the issues that have been addressed. There were these regular, very public bashings of the manufacturer regarding practices like "black outlining."

Now, we can see the outlining more or less ended, or at least much abated. However, there's a poster or two who don't appear to have noticed. Rather than celebrate their victory, the harangue just continues.

My message to them would be, "celebrate fellas, you won!" Of course, if carping is your deal, perhaps there's no joy to be had, one way or the other. Hey, maybe KC should send them some free stuff so that they can witness, personally, "the fruits of their labor!"

-Moe

 

[Jack]

So, I collect toy pilots. To this end, I buy more than just new releases. In working my way back through older/retired sets, I've really no intention of attempting to buy complete collections. Rather, I try to pick up sets that I find affordable and which strike me as unique.

One benefit of following this strategy for creating a collection is that it gives me first hand knowledge of a variety of figure sets, and how a range might have evolved. With that stated, here are a couple of figures that I would suggest are emblematic of how the RAF sets have improved since their introduction:

View attachment 195058View attachment 195059


Rather than attempting to pick out my most/least favorite RAF set for imaging, I grabbed the figures which represent (near) chronological extremes in terms production WITHIN the range. In doing so, I wanted to see if I could capture changes which might have occurred in the sculpt and/or paint quality from RAF(0)03 on the left to RAF058 on the right.

At the risk of clubbing the readership over the head with the obvious, I see the following:

• The boots are improved in detail and color pallette (no more patent-leather).
• The blousing and pleating is more elaborate and lifelike.
• The shading is more sophisticated.
• There's less use of black outlining to highlight detail, or to create the illusion of detail in the absence of relief.
• When outlining is employed, its more discreet and refined.
• The flying gear (helmet and oxygen mask) is more elaborate and authentic.
• The visage is less cartoonish.
• The hands are better proportioned with the body.
• The newer figure is somewhat shorter and less girthy, perhaps more acceptable as 1/30 scale.

I find myself genuinely perplexed as to why anyone would seek to trivialize improvements like those which I cite above. Worse still, anyone who suggests that the enhancements simply do not exist, as has been repeated several times lately, hereabouts, has some serious explaining to do in regard to their motives.

In terms of the value of the figures and whether one is worth more than the other, the marketplace will settle that. The figures are worth what people are willing to pay for them. Period. Thoughts or comments?

-Moe

Moe

There have been a number of clear improvements. I do not look at figures closely but a polite and clear assessment always sends me to the cabinet to have a look. It goes to show that a measured critique actually carries more weight than constant, sustained criticism that is clearly driven by issues other than the actual product.

Comparing the different approaches ... well, it is like comparing British and American sports cars!

Jack

 

[BHogan]

Wonderful dioramas and displays Andy! My personal favourites are the Battle of the Little Bighorn diorama First World War British field hospital display.

Thanks for sharing!

Brendan

 

[ivanmoe]

Comparing the different approaches ... well, it is like comparing British and American sports cars!

Jack

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure that there's such a thing as an American sports car. For that matter, the only Americans that I know who would have one wear helmets and zip about town on overpriced bicycles. Do the British appreciate "enthusiast-class automobiles" as much as WE do? An affirmative response to a question like that surely raises the specter of not one, but two publics which MIGHT presuppose the usefulness of a deeper, more meaningful comparison between British and American sports cars, as though one actually exists. The world is going to hell, PDQ, Martin, and nothing will get us there faster than a false analogy.

-Moe

 

[wayne556517]

A lot of the newer companies have learned from the older companies figures the way to do things etc and like most things they evolve as is K&C but not too much I hope as I for 1 like their "Style" but do wish vehicles would match figures scale wise doesn't have to be perfect just so a soldier doesn't look over the hull of a Heavy tank and weapons aren't huge.

So as things get better the price rises a bit,well that's how I see it and I have noticed an improvement in the figures so as a K&C collector I am happy.

 

[Jack]

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure that there's such a thing as an American sports car. For that matter, the only Americans that I know who would have one wear helmets and zip about town on overpriced bicycles. Do the British appreciate "enthusiast-class automobiles" as much as WE do? An affirmative response to a question like that surely raises the specter of not one, but two publics which MIGHT presuppose the usefulness of a deeper, more meaningful comparison between British and American sports cars, as though one actually exists. The world is going to hell, PDQ, Martin, and nothing will get us there faster than a false analogy.

-Moe

Agreed. Yet let's look at our friend Wikipedia - A sports car (sportscar) is a small, usually two seater, two door automobile designed for spirited performance and nimble handling.[2][3] According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the first known use of the term was in 1928.[2] Sports cars may be spartan or luxurious, but high maneuverability and minimum weight are requisite.[4] They may be equipped for racing, "especially an aerodynamically shaped one-passenger or two-passenger vehicle having a low center of gravity and steering and suspension designed for precise control at high speeds."[5]

I acknowledge the danger of false analogies. I also acknowledge the danger of speaking about a shared 'national identity' the purports to be representative of an entire people. Yet I have always characterised American sports cars as being akin to P-47 Thunderbolts and British sports cars as Spitfires. Both get the job done but both are quite different. This may even provide an insight into the peoples that produced them. I hope. therefore, that my analogy of the aircraft offers a valuable insight into my analogy about sports cars, which in turn explains the point I was making about TS ... whatever that was!.

 

[ChrisTay]

The thread is running off track. I know you guys love to rally, but can we not tangent elsewhere on this thread as well? Thanks. And apologise if I offended anyone.

Rgds,Chris

 

[PanzerAce1944]

Moe,

I agree with you that the newer K&C figures are basically improved over the older releases. I've been a K&C collector for over 10 years and have amassed a very large collection of mostly WWII but also many other ranges of K&C figures as well.

I am quite pleased with my newest purchases and see the same improvements you listed in many of the new figures. Of course I still love the old figures too and some of them are still at the top of my list as far as favorites (and are good figures too).... but you have to say that improvements have been made to many of the newer releases.

Andy and K&C have a knack for coming up with unique and interesting poses that make it a joy for me to collect their figures. The sheer volume of figures available, especially in my favorite era / WWII is impressive and makes the dio possibilities almost endless. I wish I had more $$$ so I could buy all the figures I wanted!! I have to discipline myself and be selective of the figures I do buy now, but it's fun to "browse" through all that is available.

Hey Duke, I think your comments reflect the views of many K&C collectors. I wish I had more $$$ too, because half of it would go to K&C sets / Figures that are on my "Most Wanted List" {sm4}
Better to have a list to hunt after than seeking products from companies that are no longer in the game. I am all WWII now but, have an interest to do some Alamo pieces as well.
As many times as I have been to San Antonio and the Texas Show....It is time !

Wayne

 

[Rob]

For me its always been K&Cs own particular style that attracts me. I like the colour, poses , chunkiness of the figures, its an instinct thing i think. For more years than i can remember now Andy has been producing figures that in my view and in the medium of toy soldiers represent the history thats hooked me since about 7yrs old.( my wife would argue thats only five years ago! ^&grin:salute:

Rob