General Observations on the Evolving State of Toy Soldier Collection (1 Viewer)

[Arnhemjim]

Having read with both avid and careful interest all of the recent (~2 years worth) discussion on this forum I would like to reiterate and expand on some observations I have made in the past.

I initially started to provide a brief review of my personal background, i.e credentials, but thought better of it, and why bother.

• ‘Toy Soldier ‘ collectors today are physically and chronologically no longer children.
• Unless they collect vintage W. Britains or Wm Hocker sets (perhaps Imperial and Steadfast or equivalent), they no longer collect toy soldiers, they collect semi-connoisseur military miniatures.
• Even if they collect Britains or Hockers, they do not pay toy soldier prices.
• When K&C (Figarti, Collectors Showcase, et al.) changed the scale of figures from 1:32 to 1:30 scale their figures ceased to be toy soldiers, and became semi-connoisseur military miniatures.
• It used to be that people purchased sets of toy soldiers, not individual figures that cost more than multi-figured sets.
If they did purchase individual figures they were most likely connoisseur figures like Stadden, Greenwood & Ball or equivalent.
• It used to be that people collected toy soldiers, or aircraft, or tanks/military vehicles, or ships, but not all simultaneously and in demanded identical scale.
• It used to be that the majority of toy soldier collectors were traditionalists and displayed their figures/sets in mass formations in display cases, not in extensively detailed museum sized dioramas.
• Even though the detail may have been present in the castings, the style of painting reflected in toy soldiers did not normally elicit the criticism of incorrect shade of red ‘waffenfarben’ or the correct scale of accompanying tanks or vehicles.
• Today with the evolved level of detail afforded by the increased size of the figures, collectors have come to expect, if not demand, accuracy in the research and execution in every figure, vehicle, and aircraft.
• Within that context collectors have begun a cost/accuracy/quality analysis in their buying decisions.
• It used to be that the hobby was, for the most part much cheaper, and there were far more collectors.

You may equivocate and debate the finer points of these factors, but are going to be hard pressed to refute their fundamental validity.

Arnhem Jim
Arizona Territory

 

[PanzerAce1944]

Having read with both avid and careful interest all of the recent (~2 years worth) discussion on this forum I would like to reiterate and expand on some observations I have made in the past.

I initially started to provide a brief review of my personal background, i.e credentials, but thought better of it, and why bother.

• ‘Toy Soldier ‘ collectors today are physically and chronologically no longer children.
• Unless they collect vintage W. Britains or Wm Hocker sets (perhaps Imperial and Steadfast or equivalent), they no longer collect toy soldiers, they collect semi-connoisseur military miniatures.
• Even if they collect Britains or Hockers, they do not pay toy soldier prices.
• When K&C (Figarti, Collectors Showcase, et al.) changed the scale of figures from 1:32 to 1:30 scale their figures ceased to be toy soldiers, and became semi-connoisseur military miniatures.
• It used to be that people purchased sets of toy soldiers, not individual figures that cost more than multi-figured sets.
If they did purchase individual figures they were most likely connoisseur figures like Stadden, Greenwood & Ball or equivalent.
• It used to be that people collected toy soldiers, or aircraft, or tanks/military vehicles, or ships, but not all simultaneously and in demanded identical scale.
• It used to be that the majority of toy soldier collectors were traditionalists and displayed their figures/sets in mass formations in display cases, not in extensively detailed museum sized dioramas.
• Even though the detail may have been present in the castings, the style of painting reflected in toy soldiers did not normally elicit the criticism of incorrect shade of red ‘waffenfarben’ or the correct scale of accompanying tanks or vehicles.
• Today with the evolved level of detail afforded by the increased size of the figures, collectors have come to expect, if not demand, accuracy in the research and execution in every figure, vehicle, and aircraft.
• Within that context collectors have begun a cost/accuracy/quality analysis in their buying decisions.
• It used to be that the hobby was, for the most part much cheaper, and there were far more collectors.

You may equivocate and debate the finer points of these factors, but are going to be hard pressed to refute their fundamental validity.

Arnhem Jim
Arizona Territory

I'll drink a cup of tea to that !!! :smile2:

 

[Obee]

Jim,

I can't argue with anything you have said.....

Well Done,

John

 

[Hazebrouck]

Jim,

Stop it, You're scaring me!

I'm feeling a little old fashioned as I seem to fit into most of your "it used to be" categories!

Scott

 

[Martin Tabony]

I would agree that that what you say reflects this forum, but not necessarily toy soldier collecting in general. There are still plenty of collectors that either don't subscribe or don't make their views heard on this forum.

Martin

 

[theBaron]

I would agree that that what you say reflects this forum, but not necessarily toy soldier collecting in general. There are still plenty of collectors that either don't subscribe or don't make their views heard on this forum.

Martin

I think that many of those folks would tend to be older, and less likely to be online in general, so your point may actually support Jim's argument.

For me, Jim's list of points describes an evolution of the toy soldier away from the quality of being a toy, to being a scale model. Several of the bullets could be said to describe the habits or expectations of people who build kits.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Thompyt]

I agree. Technological development has cause the collector to demand historical and physical accuracy. I expect accuracy as well, but include the my past history as a 1/35 scale model builder. There is much more accuracy from newer slide-mold compared to the past. Why would someone not expect accuracy? Since we now wish to name ourselves "semi-connoisseur military miniatures" then the toy-like qualities won't meet expectations.

 

[theBaron]

Oh, I'm still happy saying that I collect toy soldiers, regardless of the style and level of detail. It makes it easier to describe what I do to outsiders.

I do concede, though, too, that even though I like the traditional gloss finish, I like a casting that has a lot of detail, think Imrie-Risley, Stadden, Puchala, and so on. For me, the finish lets me think of the innocence of childhood and toys, while the level of detail appeals more to my adult senses. So, I'll still call 'em, affectionately, my toy soldiers

Prost!
Brad

 

[Arnhemjim]

I agree. Technological development has cause the collector to demand historical and physical accuracy. I expect accuracy as well, but include the my past history as a 1/35 scale model builder. There is much more accuracy from newer slide-mold compared to the past. Why would someone not expect accuracy? Since we now wish to name ourselves "semi-connoisseur military miniatures" then the toy-like qualities won't meet expectations.

Fellow Forum members,
I neglected to include the following in my list of observations. For the most part, the use of matte paints tend to push the artist/manufacturer toward the incorporation of more detail. I'm not certain as to the correct nomenclature, but the availability of 'micro-decals' has also further enhanced the level of detail in current figures.

As a 'magpie' collector, I am personally totally unbiased in the soldiers I can afford (and sometimes ill-afford) to collect. My collection started in 1948 with W. Britains, and I continue to collect 'vintage' Britains on an active, but highly selective basis. As a retired engineer and amateur historian I equally admire the new generation of figures, aircraft and military vehicles. If you happen to glance at my blog page (http://www.arnhemjim.blogspot.com) you will see that 'I talk the talk, and walk the walk'. That being said, my application of the cost/accuracy/quality analysis to the newer figures is even more stringent. Particularly being retired and essentially on a fixed income, as well as being of Scottish/Swiss ancestry.

Arnhem Jim
Arizona Territory

 

[thebritfarmer]

I agree. Technological development has cause the collector to demand historical and physical accuracy. I expect accuracy as well, but include the my past history as a 1/35 scale model builder. There is much more accuracy from newer slide-mold compared to the past. Why would someone not expect accuracy? Since we now wish to name ourselves "semi-connoisseur military miniatures" then the toy-like qualities won't meet expectations.

I guess it depends on your collection, sometimes there is a charm that comes from the naivety of a figure. IMO the Britains hollow-cast figures are as charming today as they were 100 years ago and they by today's standards are not exactly well detailed.

 

[trooper]

I first started in the business fifty years ago. At that time Britains were still producing toy soldiers for children, their boxes were in every toyshop and they were regarded as playthings by everyone bar a few modellers who would convert them into quite exquisite pieces. Freddy Green was a master at this practice. There were three companies in the UK producing model soldiers, Russel Gamage, Norman Newton and Hinton Hunt and their customers were mainly modellers. The art of painting, converting and to a certain extent scratch building was the main part of the hobby. Since then modelling has been in decline and collecting has taken it's place. In vehicles complete conversion kits are now on the market and converting has just become alternative assembly. Now I know what a dinosaur feels like. Oh well, roll on the meteor! Trooper

 

[PanzerAce1944]

Fellow Forum members,
I neglected to include the following in my list of observations. For the most part, the use of matte paints tend to push the artist/manufacturer toward the incorporation of more detail. I'm not certain as to the correct nomenclature, but the availability of 'micro-decals' has also further enhanced the level of detail in current figures.

As a 'magpie' collector, I am personally totally unbiased in the soldiers I can afford (and sometimes ill-afford) to collect. My collection started in 1948 with W. Britains, and I continue to collect 'vintage' Britains on an active, but highly selective basis. As a retired engineer and amateur historian I equally admire the new generation of figures, aircraft and military vehicles. If you happen to glance at my blog page (http://www.arnhemjim.blogspot.com) you will see that 'I talk the talk, and walk the walk'. That being said, my application of the cost/accuracy/quality analysis to the newer figures is even more stringent. Particularly being retired and essentially on a fixed income, as well as being of Scottish/Swiss ancestry.

Arnhem Jim
Arizona Territory

ArnhemJim, You have a very wonderful collection. I like how you take pride in displaying and organising your collection of not only toy soldiers but other militaria.
I am sure that you enjoy viewing your displays each time you lay eyes on them. I enjoyed viewing them on your blog.
Yes sir you do walk the walk !!! Well done. {bravo}}

 

[johnnybach]

Now I like Toy Soldiers - I do!

The sort of Toy Soldiers I like - _ I suppose says a lot about me.

Okay.

But - I know that other modelers, adaptors, painters, tweakers, collectors etc., like them in different finishes, styles, sizes, etcetera. - and that's okay with me too.

They can call themselves Coinosseur figure collectors - or - whatever.!
I don't care. Fashions come - fashions go - and again I don't care.

I like them - well - the way I like them. Joe Bloggs likes them the way he/she likes them. Again - I don't care - and I don't mind one bit. Matte/ gloss/ satin - who cares? Military miniatures /scale models -

Toy Soldiers?

We all write our remarks on a thing called "Toy Soldiers Forum" - so we all know what we are talking about - and again - that's fine by me too.

If you want to describe your hobby as Collector, Painter, Model Maker, Adaptor - or any other name I can't put one too right now - then go ahead. No sweat!

We all like /collect/swap/paint/adapt what most of us know as TOY SOLDIERS.

Toys are what kids play with. Some Toys look more like models - and all models can be played with - so can be regarded as toys.

For one - I'm happy with the name Toy Soldiers to encompass the lot. If anyone else wants to call them something else - okay - that/s fine by me - but I reserve the right to call them ALL what they truly are.

TOY SOLDIERS

johnnybach - painter and guardian (in his lifetime) of glossy toy soldiers.

 

[ROAN]

Jim,

Concur with your analyses.

As far as old lead Britains figures though, I believe that prices have generally declined and have been gradually doing so since the advent of online auctions with lower prices being especially noticeable during the last five or so years for unboxed sets as seen in live online auction venues like LiveAuctioneers.com and Artfact.

My evidence for this is old dealer mail order price lists and auction house catalogs-one of the few ways for acquiring old Britains before the internet besides attending toy soldier, antique or collectible shows.

 

[MCKENNA77]

Having read with both avid and careful interest all of the recent (~2 years worth) discussion on this forum I would like to reiterate and expand on some observations I have made in the past.

I initially started to provide a brief review of my personal background, i.e credentials, but thought better of it, and why bother.

• ‘Toy Soldier ‘ collectors today are physically and chronologically no longer children.
• Unless they collect vintage W. Britains or Wm Hocker sets (perhaps Imperial and Steadfast or equivalent), they no longer collect toy soldiers, they collect semi-connoisseur military miniatures.
• Even if they collect Britains or Hockers, they do not pay toy soldier prices.
• When K&C (Figarti, Collectors Showcase, et al.) changed the scale of figures from 1:32 to 1:30 scale their figures ceased to be toy soldiers, and became semi-connoisseur military miniatures.
• It used to be that people purchased sets of toy soldiers, not individual figures that cost more than multi-figured sets.
If they did purchase individual figures they were most likely connoisseur figures like Stadden, Greenwood & Ball or equivalent.
• It used to be that people collected toy soldiers, or aircraft, or tanks/military vehicles, or ships, but not all simultaneously and in demanded identical scale.
• It used to be that the majority of toy soldier collectors were traditionalists and displayed their figures/sets in mass formations in display cases, not in extensively detailed museum sized dioramas.
• Even though the detail may have been present in the castings, the style of painting reflected in toy soldiers did not normally elicit the criticism of incorrect shade of red ‘waffenfarben’ or the correct scale of accompanying tanks or vehicles.
• Today with the evolved level of detail afforded by the increased size of the figures, collectors have come to expect, if not demand, accuracy in the research and execution in every figure, vehicle, and aircraft.
• Within that context collectors have begun a cost/accuracy/quality analysis in their buying decisions.
• It used to be that the hobby was, for the most part much cheaper, and there were far more collectors.

You may equivocate and debate the finer points of these factors, but are going to be hard pressed to refute their fundamental validity.

Arnhem Jim
Arizona Territory

This is a great post. Just the facts mam.

 

[Thompyt]

I guess it depends on your collection, sometimes there is a charm that comes from the naivety of a figure. IMO the Britains hollow-cast figures are as charming today as they were 100 years ago and they by today's standards are not exactly well detailed.

I agree with you. Antiquities have a completely different aspect. For details I would refer to "modern" figures. I don't expect the level of detail 1/35 figures have when the modeler builds and paints. Thise can become pieces of art and would have a hefty value.

 

[theBaron]

I guess it depends on your collection, sometimes there is a charm that comes from the naivety of a figure. IMO the Britains hollow-cast figures are as charming today as they were 100 years ago and they by today's standards are not exactly well detailed.

I agree, Scott! Interestingly, though, too, wasn't it classic holowcasts that the original BMSS members took and superdetailed, in one of the earlier steps in the evolution from the toy to the miniature.

Regarding the classic toy soldier look, I've always enjoyed seeing contemporary makers and hobbyists making "new" old toy soldiers, such as figures representing units Britain never modeler (eg, Imperial Germans other than Leib-Husaren or infantry in field order). I have a stash of wounded hollowcasts saved up for just such a project.

Prost!
Brad

 

[jac28]

Having read with both avid and careful interest all of the recent (~2 years worth) discussion on this forum I would like to reiterate and expand on some observations I have made in the past.

I initially started to provide a brief review of my personal background, i.e credentials, but thought better of it, and why bother.

...........

• Unless they collect vintage W. Britains or Wm Hocker sets (perhaps Imperial and Steadfast or equivalent), they no longer collect toy soldiers, they collect semi-connoisseur military miniatures.
...........

Arnhem Jim
Arizona Territory

Well, I can't argue with most of your points.. but the one I've left showing above is really not the case. You've neglected to include a fairly large segment of the toy soldier collecting community (not necessarily a large segment of this forum): Collectors of plastic toy soldiers.. Yes, I've said it and admit to it.. I like toy soldiers of all kinds and the bulk of my collection is plastic... not necessarily due to the cost of metal.. I just like plastic toy soldiers... I do own a handfull of Britains, some Del Prados and 1 K&C figure. Just thought I'd throw my plastic two cents in..

Jim

 

[Arnhemjim]

Well, I can't argue with most of your points.. but the one I've left showing above is really not the case. You've neglected to include a fairly large segment of the toy soldier collecting community (not necessarily a large segment of this forum): Collectors of plastic toy soldiers.. Yes, I've said it and admit to it.. I like toy soldiers of all kinds and the bulk of my collection is plastic... not necessarily due to the cost of metal.. I just like plastic toy soldiers... I do own a handfull of Britains, some Del Prados and 1 K&C figure. Just thought I'd throw my plastic two cents in..

Jim

Hello Jim,
My sincere apologies for not being inclusive. Although I have yet to paint them, and I'm not sure I still have the ability to do so up to my own standards, I have an original box of Airfix 1:32 Scale British Paratroopers, and a box of either Special Boat Service or WWII Royal Marine Commandos. The second set is the only one I have ever seen, in 1:32 scale, that includes a Folbot kayak in excellent detail. Unfortunately, and as you have probably observed, I've seen countless knock-offs of the Paras, but not the other set. Almost forgot, also have a Greek Evzone in Review Order manufactured by Aeohna.
Regards,
Arnhem Jim
Arizona Territory