Britains', Is This Kind of Letter Necessary? (1 Viewer)

Njja said:
Fortunately I have not been following this thread, but when I see a suggestion that Andy C. post his costs I feel the need to respond. As a businessman for quite a number of years, I can tell you Andy C.'s costs and labor situation are his concern and business only. There is no valid reason to even suggest he list such information.
King & Country produce a terrific product at a very fair market price, I am as concerned as the next customer about our hobby, but have nothing but confidence in the continued excellent production, and quality King & Country continues to make available to us.
If you are a competitor of King & Country do your own market research, and I don't think this forum is the place for that.
Njja
Click to expand...


Well I guess when he decides to pick apart my post and lists that I am completly wrong on his posts he should be willing to back it up! If I am completly wrong then it would shut me up right away, wouldnt it! I think you guys take offense because I dint stroke his ego like so many of you do! I spoke back to the god of toy soldiers.... uh oh!
 
And if I find a Van Gogh painting in the trash, take it and drive it home do I then charge 2 x my gas costs only? What the heck does it matter what it costs Andy? How much does it cost Tommy Atkins? Imperial? Trophy? Charles Biggs? Peter Greenhill?

I used to get into debates about this all the time. It doesn't matter what it costs to produce - only what the market will pay for it in the end.
 
To Mr. TLP,

I'm buying K&C in function of what I have for my money (i.e. quality), not in function of the percentage of the compagny profits. In fact, I wish that Mr. Neilson is making as much profits as possible, so I could continue to buy the military miniatures he would then be able to continue to produce for a long time again.

My best regards,
Pierre.
 
TLP,

There are no gods here. This if a forum for expressing your opinions. Opinions are what they are, they are not facts: there are no wrong ones, no right ones.
 
As a Britians Collector of very long time. I will say that the issue with the sculpting of some of the Britains lines has been a big topic of discussion for the past couple of years and they have had a lot of problems which I think were a direct result of the previous owners not having a clue. That said I dont collect King and Country for one reason and one reason only the size. They are some of the best looking sets out there espeically their WWII line but they dont fit my collection for a lot of personal reasons. Now as for Richards letter I have not read it but I have had many emails from him to answer questions and have found him to be very easy to deal with and forthcoming. So if the letter is as has been put forth, (and I dont doubt it coming from Jazzeum), it is probably due to a lot of complaints Britans has received over the last few years. I do think there also may be an issue with their people in China and as Britains has changed ownership they may be dealing with a lot of upset employees. As for what Andy has said well he has a point but I would also like to point out that his company enjoys a very snug niche and could use some good competition if and only if the Britains folks are willing to go the distance and to the detail needed to make a go a of it in the 60mm range. The Cost is also an issue for a lot of folks but in the old free market environment you charge what you need to charge to make a profit and keep up the competition so it is moot to discuss the production cost verses the cost to the consumer, if you dont like the cost find it somewhere else.

Dave
 
I just don't understand all the negativity about Britains quality. I read how bad the Britains sets are but in the last 4 weeks I have added 26 ACW Britians sets to my collection and I must say that I am VERY pleased with every one so far. I have shopped and compared manuf. over the past month and I feel I can pay much less for a Britains and get a piece that looks every bit as good if not better than most of the more expensive ACW sets out there. I too agree that K&C are hard to beat when it comes to WWII but I don't collect WWII (yet). So when it comes to Civil War miniatures, the quality and quantity available, and the low price, Britains is just hard to beat (with the exception of maybe Conte and Forward March).
 
I think the reason for most of this understanding is this...most people on this forum collect WW2 and Napoleonics with a few others mixed in, most of us here feel these are the best out there as for American Civil War perhaps most other companies are far better than K&C. King and Country made their Civil War Figures sometime ago when perhaps the their quality was not as good as it is today(evn the WW2 stuff wasn't great then)...since that time K&C has excelled in their figures quality and sculpting they have brought toy soldier collecting to a new level..unfortunitly K&C no longer makes ACW figures so the quality will always be stuck in that time period...I think if they were to begin producing ACW figures again I think you would find them much better and if they stuck to the same quality maybe even become the best at that as well!!! Andy has said on this forum that he will not be making anymore ACW figures for a long time because too many companys are already making ACW figures and are doing a great job at it. Its hard to beat someone if your not trying...isn't it?


Cheers
WELLINGTON.....;)
 
I didn't think or had started this thread to be a debate about Britain's quality, although it may have veered off into there but to talk about the tenor of Mr. Walker's letter, which I didn't like.
 
The next time I post something I had better proof read it before submitting it.


Wellington
 
I've only noticed this thread now so have the advantage of reading the original post and then the sideshows thereafter without a lapse of days in between.

Just one observation: Richard Walker was involved in Britains but he also founded Forward March!, of which the ACW material was interesting. (I think he also had a spell with Frontline but you can correct me on that).

I just find it'd be difficult for him to argue that all those Chinese craftspeople he worked with over the years had all somehow failed, refused or neglected to follow through on what was planned. On the other hand if he happily spent so long in that work environment it'd be unimaginable that his views of their capabilities would be racist, so I'd say it's probably a sales pitch that came out a bit too cynically.

(Sometimes there's a tendency to make all sort of presumptions about the target audience. It is often presumed that toy soldier collectors are frequently people who have been in the armed services, or perhaps in some cases there are preconceptions as to what the seller thinks he knows what the audience want to hear. For example the car manufacturer Jaguar had a huge image problem in the UK, as it was presumed that the typical buyer was a 50-something man with handlebar moustache in a tweed jacket and/or monocle. Ridiculous! But the pony-tailed goatee-bearded marketing gurus were called in to turn things around and the various firms happily trousered a large amount of money from Ford's Premier Automotive Group but alienated existing buyers whilst not attracting much new business. I'm sure Richard would not wish to spend his time thrashing his previous work and then using that as a basis for selling essentially the same product).
 
Hi Again,

Good point in the last post from Cannon fodder. I have to say I think there was a very good reason Richard said what he said in his letter. I would think that from time to time no matter how much you spend on preparation the resulting product might have some flaws and maybe he is having an issue with the labor force in China. I would think that since he does peruse this forum he will go ahead and clarify the issue. But as I said before there has been some disucssion on other forums and among collectors about the so call "poor sculpts" the models were based on in the past. I for one have not felt the need to take issue with the Britains sets I have in my collection and think the figures look just fine. But everyone has an opinion right?

Dave
 
The feedback on my comments have been very interesting. Please keep them coming.

Replying from home tonight on my old Forward March account.

I believe there are many talented sculptors all over the world. Simply wanted to make a point that the new W. Britain was using US and UK sculptors for a change. As for drape and hang of uniforms, sure they will understand US and European uniforms, weapons etc. better - they can see, hold, touch, wear, etc them. And the Chinese sculptors who nail these details are indeed very talented, as they have not had the opportunity to see these details up close. This makes no presumption on how talented a sculptor or indeed an entire race of people are - its just stating what I thought to be an obvious fact concerning proximity and familiarity.

Glad to see such vibrancy and passion in this wonderful hobby.

Richard Walker
 
Wow guys! I guess I am getting into the game on this one very late, but here goes:

I have never seen better scupted figures than those produced in both Russia and China, so comments about leaving Chinese Sculpters for better U.S. or British sculpters seems a bit cynical, if not a bit nationalist or racist.

As far as the quality of Civil War figures, I think Frontline is far and away the best. Another excellent company no one else seems to have mentioned is Guards Corps., which made beautifully sculpted and painted glossy Civil War figures, especially dismounted cavalry. K&C took one poke at glossy Civil War figures in 1990-1993 which was fairly good for glossy stuff, and a second effort in his early matt days, which I don't think measured up to Frontline's efforts on the subject. However, should Andy's present team address the subject, I am convinced that they would blow away the competition, particularly Britains, the quality of which has been suspect for years, and which has a lot of catching up to do.

Now for a little tirade about Britains: When I started collecting about 15-18 years ago, all I knew about was Britains, so I joined the William Britains Collectors Club, and bought about 2,000 new and older production Britains figures. There was absolutely no improvement or innovation in Britains over the 50 years or so of their figures I was exposed to. I can only assume this is because they were comfortable selling static unimaginative poorly executed stuff because it sold. Then I discovered other makers (Imperial, Trophy, Tradition, Frontline, K&C, etc.) These companies all brought a different and more proactive approach to toy soldiers, with fresh action poses, more realistic scenery, vehicles and accessories. Suddenly, after these companies cut into Britains bottom line, Britains is copying them by producing more realistic matt figures, diorama materials and vehicles. I prefer the innovator, K&C, which continues to improve and push the envelope, as opposed to the copycat, Britains, which only abandons the 100 year old approach to toy soldiers it clung to when if was forced to by the bottom line.

Finally, I don't care what Andy's costs are to produce K&C figures, (not to mention what are I'm sure the high costs of shipping them from China to the U.S., Great Britain and Europe), the simple fact is they are second only to the best Russians in quality of execution, at a tiny fraction of the price of St. Petersburg figures. They are no more expensive than the far less well executed figures produced by their competition. My final, and perhaps most damning statement about Britains: I have something like 8,000 to 9,000 figures in my collection, but the space to display perhaps 3,000 to 4,000. My display will include mostly K&C, some Trophy and Frontline, but not a single Britains figure, none of which are good enough to warrant th space.
 
Last edited:
Ouch! C'mon Louis, you can't complain that they didn't change anything in 50 years of production and then accuse them of copying other companies when they finally DID attempt to move forward. Plus, you are railing against the "Old" Britains powers-that-were, but we haven't even seen what First Gear is planning to do with them now that they have purchased the company.
I used to practically bang my head against my desk in frustration as I attempted to get the Britains company to listen to my customers' input and requests (not to mention my own!) regarding less static poses, additions to lines etc., but it seemed the people who had the real authority to make decisions were always out of reach (and out of touch) across the ocean in the UK office. I am thrilled by First Gear's acquisition of the Britains company and have very high expectations of the line as it develops under their control. First Gear has an exceptional reputation for quality die-cast models and has hired on highly competent people to manage the company and produce and sculpt the figures.
The 2006 Britains catalog should be out by the end of this month. Let's reserve judgement until we see what First Gear can do with this venerable name in toy soldiers.
Maybe I just have a soft spot in my heart for Britains because that is the company I cut my toy soldier teeth on, but I enjoy the Britains line; the wide variety of lines it offers both in eras and finishes and the fact that the figures are less expensive than some others which allows more young people and families who explore history together to play the game and enjoy the hobby.
 
Wasn't Andy playing catch up years ago against the likes of Trophy and Frontline? Actually having knocked off a bunch of Trophy figures - something about cease and desist (spelling)? Talking about copycat really doesn't apply when including K&C in the sentence. Andy was/is as mercenary as they get - something I kind of respect so don't take it as an insult. Also, if I remember correctly, I believe Britians released their matte finish Civil War figures before K&C introduced theirs.

Not to incite here but come on. Britains has done some wonderfull things over the decades. THeir Swoppit and Deetail series are very serious figures and vehicles. The Premier/Charles Biggs sets were excellent as well. Also, they truly held the tradition of getting people interested in the hobby at an earlier age and continue to produce for different age groups and different price ranges. It really isn't fair to say that Britains has done nothing different over the past 50 years.

I totally agree with your comment about Guard Corps. I knew Alan Silk and I was proud to have his figures grace my shelves.

I still think Ken Osens' sculpts are better than Frontline.
 
Last edited:
Shannon. I agree with Louis. Although I have not collected as long or have as many figures, my research into Britains is reflected in both Louis' comments, and the fact that the company failed to meet customer demand, sound familiar GM and Ford, and is therefore no more (the old company).

I do agree with you on First Gear. I got into this hobby by collecting die cast construction equipment. I have a room full of some pretty wonderful die cast equipment and First Gear, along with Franklin Mint, are, in my world anyway, the best made, most actuate, and cost effective of them all. If they can do for Britains what they do for die cast, we are all in for some great soldiers. I am inpatient to see what they will offer.

Remember, it’s the customer not the manufacturer that makes the industry (any industry). Michael :)

And, you know.... Napoleonic’s. :confused: :p
 
Sorry if I sounded a bit grouchy against Britains, and in all honesty I know very little about the new owners, but Britains has long been a monolithic force in the industry which (as your own response points out) was completely unresponsive to the suggestions and input of metal Toy Soldier collectors.

I do, however, agree with Gideon that in the past they made some cool plastic toy soldiers (Britains Detail and Swoppit) we all grew up playing with as well as some nice Dicast vehicles for the plastic figures. This however, was a different division of Britains, which was aimed at kids not collectors. For the metal toy soldier collectors, Britains just renumbered and reissued the same sets it had been producing since it changed over from hollowcast to solidcast (which, for all intents and purposes were in the same poses as the earlier hollowcast figures).

As far as the comments about Andy's tendency to copy other company's figures (Trophy and Atlantic immediately come to mind) in K&C's infancy, this is very different than what Britains has been doing for the last five years or so. Britains is not a new company trying to find its footing. Its a more than 100 year old company which, after discovering that its disregard of collector's wants has backfired, is trying to lure collectors back under its standard by using its long established chain of distribution to play catchup. Finally, Gideon, you are incorrect about the matt Civil War. Frontline first released matt Civil War (most likely in response to the success of K&C's matt WWII), K&C tried to poach on their preserve circa 1998, and then Britains came out with its matt Civil War around 2000.
 
I'm new to this board and I'm not quite sure I understand the Britains bashing buy the King and Country "cult". K&C figures look nice but not everyone likes that type of figure. A lot of people like myself prefer the glossy traditional toy soldier. I think a set of marching,colorful old set of Britains or Mignot look better that the new matte figures. The WW2 figures to me are boring, just drab green and gray colors and the K&C SS figures are deplorable. What's next, figures of the 19 September 11th hijackers? The nicest toy soldiers around today were Imperial, too bad they stopped production. Personally I think they were nicer than anything K&C has.
 
Welcome to the Forum, jrsteel.

I think you can sense the passion of the K&C people here:D

While the matte figures seem to be sweeping the market right now, there is still something special about the glossy figures. They have their own niche. While the 'big boys' (K&C, Britains, etc) have gone almost exclusively matte, there are still many smaller maufacturers making tremendous glossy figures. Imperial was one of the best (we hated to see them go). We have been selling record numbers of Beau Geste sets lately - so glossy collectors still abound.

While there is some cross-over, for the most part matte collectors are matte collectors and glossy collectors are glossy collectors. We hear it from both sides, "Who would want to collect THAT?" Good thing there's room in the hobby for everyone.

Pete
 
I'm of the mind to see what the new Britain's ownership has to offer. As I've previously mentioned, I loved the two British Para sets they did a couple of years ago. In fact, it was my first introduction to toy soldiers and they still have a place in my collection. So, I'd like to reserve judgment.

As a general rule, I don't really care for glossy soldiers. Yes, they are traditional but I think the new blood in this hobby is coming about, in part, because they're in matte. I hate to be critical on your first post, JR, but traditional toy soldiers are somewhat in the past and you wouldn't be getting this interest at all in toy soldiers but for the likes of King and Country. People are looking for realism and the matte 60 mm soldiers bring this realism. Andy's soldiers bring this more to life than anything I've ever seen and I know I speak for many, many collectors who wouldn't be collectors but for King and Country. Frankly, there's nothing better than a K and C toy soldier. However, diversity is good and if people want to collect glossy, good for them. I just don't think it's the future.

As far as the LAH series, that's a different topic but Andy feels that history shouldn't be ignored and although I don't collect that series, I support his right to do so. And BTW, he has produced a Bin Laden soldier as part of the Afghan series. Unpleasant history, but history nonetheless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top