Historical Accuracy Poll (1 Viewer)

[plasmapulse]

75%.

 

[mk26gmls]

I find myself more in the 90% accuracy range myself. Glaring errors do turn me off. In life, I am more of a perfectionist in everything I do. I hold myself to a high standard. Just the way my brain is wired I guess. My father told me growing up that if I wasn't going to do something right, then just don't do it at all.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Depends on whose definition of accuracy you are using for starters. The older the period, the less accurate the descriptions in general. For the ancients, much of what we think we know is still based on vary few sources and we all know how fallible any source can be. Imagine for a moment what someone would think of our period if they were confined to one historians view.

That said, to me for these purposes, the standard of accuracy is whether it is plausible, not necessarily whether it was exactly that way. Where it can be definitively established that a certain unit looked a certain way, then that should be observed. Where not, as often is the case, if it reasonably could have looked that way from what was not uncommonly available and reported to have been done and that look is consistently applied, then that is ok by me.

As to figure size, well that is another topic by itself. One thing at a time as they say.

 

[Col. Hesler]

I voted 90% because accuracy is key in dioramas.

 

[Deitz]

I voted for 75% or better.

I am willing to over look a little inaccuracies on gloss figures, but for matte figures I expect them to be close to 100% correct.

 

[sv288]

I'd rather have it 100% accurate.