Rob,
I totaly see your point, and, with the exception of Thomas Gunn, I tend not to mix figures with K&C figures. However, if you don't mind me highjacking your thread just a bit, your point leads me to another related point: the futile argument constantly reiterated on this forum about who makes the best figures, vehicles, planes, dioramas, etc.
To me, the argument will always be futile, because these toys are really tiny sculptures, little works of art, and each manufacturer (and each sculptor, master painter, modeler and diorama builder within each manufacturer) has his or her own artistic style. I actually had a discussion with Andy at the OTSN about how I enjoyed equally his brother Gordon's magnificent dioramas and Ken Osen's completely different but equally magnificent dioramas, because each of these two diorama artists had mastered the style they preferred: Gordon was the master of what I would call the "Baroque" or "Hellenistic" theatrical diorama, with the most possible action and eye candy packed into every possible cubic inch of his 3-D masterpieces. Ken, on the other hand, is the master of the high renaissance diorama, simple, beautiful, stunningly accurate (you ever watch Dragnet as a kid - "just the facts, ma'am").
To me, the figures and vehicles are also reflective of the stylistic preference and artistry of the manufacturer. Andy's vision guides King & Country, John Jenkins' own style adds a different flavor to his figures, as does Matt's vision for First Legion, etc. Arguing the comparative merits of each artist's approach is like arguing whether Michelangelo, or Leonardo, or Bernini, or Picasso is the greatest artist who ever lived. They were all virtuosos of their own medium, be it sculpture or painting, and their own style from the high renaissance to the baroque to cubism. Different art historians will argue as passionately about the merits of each of these artists as we tend to argue about the merits of our favorite manufacturer(s). In the end, few passionately held opinions - and that's what these arguments all boil down to, the opinions of the beholders - are going to be swayed by the arguments of any supporters of a different camp.
As I have mentioned in other posts, I am one of the odd collectors who enjoy equally realistic matt figures and vehicles and traditional, toyish, glossy toy soldiers and tinplate vehicles and aircraft. My two favorite manufacturers are King & Country, the fathers of the mat revolution in the hobby, and Heco Tinplate Models, a mom and pop cottage manufacturer of very traditional, glossy, tinplate vehicles, aircraft and soldiers. My collection also includes figures, vehicles and aircraft by John Jenkins Designs, Figarti, Thomas Gunn Miniatures, and First Legion among the matt manufacturers, and Trophy, Imperial, Frontline, Britains, Tommy Atkins, Lezinski, and Edmunds Toy Soldiers among the glossy manufacturers. I have 18 of Gordon's K&C dioramas, 8 dioramas from Ken Osen, and a few others of materials from Build-a-Rama, JG Miniatures, and other diorama manufacturers.
I love them all. Who is the best among them? I refuse to beat my head against that brick wall, and leave that to the "true believers." To me every one of them is fine art, and despite stylistic differences, they are all excellent in my book.
So when I see fellow members posting "fact: this" and "fact: that" as I have on a few threads concerning the comparative merits of the wonderful selection of eastern front vehicles recently, I just want to say: "fact: not too long ago we were all grousing about the fact that no manufacturer was making Eastern front vehicles, now we are spoiled for choice, lets just enjoy it, and if you must vote for your favorite, do it with your wallet. Oh, and vote early and often . . . :wink2:
