Britains Got It Wrong. (1 Viewer)

[Cardigan600]

Yo Troopers, dont want to start a war. I am a ex Cavalry QOH collect all Cavalry Regiments from 19th Century. But Britains set #33 is totally wrong should have been put out as Ceremonial. The set shows the 16th/5th lancers in their Lancers dress from the 19th Century, but when they were the 16th/5th they would have been in karki dress 1920s. My old Regiment once a year ex 3rd Kings & 7th Queens own did a Regimental parade. Two Troopers & an officer dressed up in the Hussar uniform which were kept in the Museum so it was a ceremonial occasion only. What do you Old Brtiains collectors think, I mean it should be historically right dont you think, so Yo Troopers mount up, lets hear what you think.
Bernard.

 

[desk11desk12]

The quest for historical perfection is such an elusive pursuit leaving a few still dissatisfied. I’m sure glad this hobby is fun and not as exacting and demanding as a real life career.

Richard and Ken keep up the great work! So times we all make mistakes from time to time.

Carlos

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi Guys,

You do ask an interesting question but to be quite honest the drab "field" appearance really brings us to the question that the gents at Britains had to answer: Which uniform would sell to the kids in the 1920's? We sometimes make the assumption that our ideas are the same as those of the people who collected/played with toy soldiers in this era. What we forget was these guy were the green plastic toys of the time and we really would have to look at in from that perspective. The audiance in that time wasnt grown men who collect it was kids and those sets were for kids to play with and have back yard campaigns.

I love the notion of realism in things like tanks where they should have x-number of road wheels or hatches to be this varient or that but the idea that the folks at Britains were trying to sell their wears to adults when the set in question was made wont float with me. I agree that they would have been better suited in the Khaki but the splashy colours of the dress unifroms probably had more appeal to the kids. Heck when I was a kid in the early 1970s and could make a decision on this I went for the more colorful soldiers such as the Britians cowboys and Indians or the knights and any red coats I could find to make up my own wars etc. I really didnt get into the realism of WWII until I began reading about the War and building the models of tanks and aircraft.

I think its really a matter of perspective and maybe it would best to look at the older sets with this in mind.

All the best

Dave

 

[wadepat]

Hi Guys,

You do ask an interesting question but to be quite honest the drab "field" appearance really brings us to the question that the gents at Britains had to answer: Which uniform would sell to the kids in the 1920's? We sometimes make the assumption that our ideas are the same as those of the people who collected/played with toy soldiers in this era. What we forget was these guy were the green plastic toys of the time and we really would have to look at in from that perspective. The audiance in that time wasnt grown men who collect it was kids and those sets were for kids to play with and have back yard campaigns.

I love the notion of realism in things like tanks where they should have x-number of road wheels or hatches to be this varient or that but the idea that the folks at Britains were trying to sell their wears to adults when the set in question was made wont float with me. I agree that they would have been better suited in the Khaki but the splashy colours of the dress unifroms probably had more appeal to the kids. Heck when I was a kid in the early 1970s and could make a decision on this I went for the more colorful soldiers such as the Britians cowboys and Indians or the knights and any red coats I could find to make up my own wars etc. I really didnt get into the realism of WWII until I began reading about the War and building the models of tanks and aircraft.

I think its really a matter of perspective and maybe it would best to look at the older sets with this in mind.

All the best

Dave

Gentle Friends,

Simply stated, I am in total agreement with the perspective presented by Dave.

Warmest personal regards,

Pat

 

[Dickbuttons]

I have to agree with Dave also -- these sets were produced as toys for young boys. I wonder if Britains ever received any complaints fifty years -- that the uniforms weren't correct.

 

[Cardigan600]

Hi Guys,

You do ask an interesting question but to be quite honest the drab "field" appearance really brings us to the question that the gents at Britains had to answer: Which uniform would sell to the kids in the 1920's? We sometimes make the assumption that our ideas are the same as those of the people who collected/played with toy soldiers in this era. What we forget was these guy were the green plastic toys of the time and we really would have to look at in from that perspective. The audiance in that time wasnt grown men who collect it was kids and those sets were for kids to play with and have back yard campaigns.

I love the notion of realism in things like tanks where they should have x-number of road wheels or hatches to be this varient or that but the idea that the folks at Britains were trying to sell their wears to adults when the set in question was made wont float with me. I agree that they would have been better suited in the Khaki but the splashy colours of the dress unifroms probably had more appeal to the kids. Heck when I was a kid in the early 1970s and could make a decision on this I went for the more colorful soldiers such as the Britians cowboys and Indians or the knights and any red coats I could find to make up my own wars etc. I really didnt get into the realism of WWII until I began reading about the War and building the models of tanks and aircraft.

I think its really a matter of perspective and maybe it would best to look at the older sets with this in mind.

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave, Good point, have taken it onboard. I never looked at it from the 1950s angle only from 2008 now the collectors are serious adults. Will mention you in dispatches for this lol.
Bernard.

 

[REVWARBUFF]

Great response Dave!! I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Napoleon]

Hi Cardigan600,

I mounted up but it looks like they formed a square, and a solid one at that

Though the units name was officially changed from The 16th Lancers to the 16th/5th Lancers in 1922, Britains did not change the name until 1933 (which is the year that set 23 The 5th Irish Lancers was removed from the list). It remained in production until 1953.

It doesn't say specifically what they are doing like some sets do (like "At The Gallop" or "Service Dress"). As such, I am willing to accept it for what it is. We will add this little tidbit to the Toy Soldier Wiki when we enter set #33.

Thanks!
Napoleon