Arnhemjim
Corporal
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 403
Would like to state from the outset that these observations are prefaced as my personal opinion as opposed to universally acknowledged fact. Also recognize that some observations may seem self-evident, if not trite, yet still relevant:
• W. Britains castings dating from the early to mid 1930’s were (are) greatly superior to the painted end product (even custom painted sets). By this I mean anatomically (perhaps slightly elongated, stayed, limited poses until late 1930’s) and in level of detail.
• Facts be known Britains vehicles, guns and aircraft were not accurately scaled to their toy soldiers, nor were they intended to be (primarily WWII motor transport), with exceptions such as King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery, horse-drawn RAMC ambulance and RASC wagons.
• The integration of scale model armor, transport, aircraft into the hobby, and the emergence of dioramists has raised a lot of new issues with regard to consistency of scale and compatibility of figures with armor, vehicles and aircraft.
• The hobby has seen a significant movement away from the classic toy soldier (Britains and Minot) towards military miniatures. Conscious exceptions being Wm Hocker, Asset, and Hiriart, to cite three examples, all which far exceed Britains standard normal painting in quality and detail.
• The introduction, development and resultant popularity of 1:30 Scale figures, has provided a tremendous boost in the animation and detailing of figures being offered today.
• When King & Country, 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.
• W. Britains wounded figures, such that there were, laid on stretchers at attention with all wounds carefully bandaged showing no blood. Care taken not to offend either child or parents. Suffices such is not the case anymore.
• The level of artistry achieved by highly skilled painters such as Aero St. Petersburg, elevates these masterpieces to objects d’art, far removed from the relatively crude classic toy soldier, even including such past masters as Courtenay and Stadden. The accompanying prices corresponding to their quality, placing them out of the range of the wallets of the majority of collectors.
• In the late 1980’s to mid 1990’s the level of artistry achieved by skilled painters in the People’s Republic of China was significantly superior to more recent production. That group of artists have either retired/died, or have because of their skills have moved on to better paying jobs. Compare for example the King & Country Crimean Series or early Streets of Old Hong Kong, to newer production. This has to a degree been off-set/compensated for, through the development and use of micro decals.
• 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, collectors no longer 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.
• 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 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.
• It used to be that the hobby was, for the most part much cheaper, and there were far more collectors. Collectors predominately purchased toy soldiers in boxed sets. If they did purchase individual figures, they were most likely connoisseur figures like Stadden, Greenwood & Ball or equivalent.
• As background I have conducted a “back of the envelope” statistical analysis of a given forum’s membership. Sample size 299 forum members. Based upon available data 220 would appear gainfully employed (inferring stable or growing income), 63 retired (probable fixed income, except for COLA adjustment if any, recognizing there are exceptions), 11 students (undetermined discretionary income), currently unemployed 5. This would strongly indicate approximately 26% of forum membership (based on this limited sample) are inclined to have little or no discretionary income.
• My observations on vintage Briains sales on e-Bay (Fewer sets of either quality or rarity, going for vastly inflated realized prices) is predicated on a comparison of the prices realized versus recent year’s results at Vectis Toy Auctions and Phillip’s in the United Kingdom and The Old Toy Soldier Auctions in the United States. Offerings at the latter auction houses have been, as a rule, in better condition for an identical set/gun/vehicle (boxed/unboxed), and even with the buyer’s premium, sold for less than prices often realized on e-Bay. You can certainly argue that e-Bay is exposed to a larger population, including many new and inexperienced collectors, however to the veteran collector the other auction houses are equally well known. I certainly will admit that I have not done a detailed in-depth analysis of comparative prices, and it very well may be that “anomalies” have made a more lasting impression than the norm. I totally concur with your assessment regarding that portion of the collecting population who are aging and on a fixed income. I feel very grateful that I was able to collect what i did, when I did it. My only regret is a short detour from Britains to Greenwood & Ball figures during the mid to late sixties, at least from an investment perspective, and what would have been a more complete Britains collection.
• Having studied architecture at university, worked as an engineer for over four decades, and collected toy soldiers for seven decades, I would cite the selection of scale, i.e. size, as a very important, if not critical parameter. It allows makers to execute proportion, anatomical reality, and detail (particularly facial expression, armament, insignia and accoutrements) not possible in smaller sized figures, yet still small enough to build fairly extensive displays/dioramas in a reasonable amount of space.
You may equivocate and debate the finer points of these factors, but are going to be hard pressed to refute their fundamental validity. Will be most interested in receiving any and all comments, be they round shot, grape, chain, even shrapnel.
Arnhem Jim
Arizona Territory
• W. Britains castings dating from the early to mid 1930’s were (are) greatly superior to the painted end product (even custom painted sets). By this I mean anatomically (perhaps slightly elongated, stayed, limited poses until late 1930’s) and in level of detail.
• Facts be known Britains vehicles, guns and aircraft were not accurately scaled to their toy soldiers, nor were they intended to be (primarily WWII motor transport), with exceptions such as King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery, horse-drawn RAMC ambulance and RASC wagons.
• The integration of scale model armor, transport, aircraft into the hobby, and the emergence of dioramists has raised a lot of new issues with regard to consistency of scale and compatibility of figures with armor, vehicles and aircraft.
• The hobby has seen a significant movement away from the classic toy soldier (Britains and Minot) towards military miniatures. Conscious exceptions being Wm Hocker, Asset, and Hiriart, to cite three examples, all which far exceed Britains standard normal painting in quality and detail.
• The introduction, development and resultant popularity of 1:30 Scale figures, has provided a tremendous boost in the animation and detailing of figures being offered today.
• When King & Country, 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.
• W. Britains wounded figures, such that there were, laid on stretchers at attention with all wounds carefully bandaged showing no blood. Care taken not to offend either child or parents. Suffices such is not the case anymore.
• The level of artistry achieved by highly skilled painters such as Aero St. Petersburg, elevates these masterpieces to objects d’art, far removed from the relatively crude classic toy soldier, even including such past masters as Courtenay and Stadden. The accompanying prices corresponding to their quality, placing them out of the range of the wallets of the majority of collectors.
• In the late 1980’s to mid 1990’s the level of artistry achieved by skilled painters in the People’s Republic of China was significantly superior to more recent production. That group of artists have either retired/died, or have because of their skills have moved on to better paying jobs. Compare for example the King & Country Crimean Series or early Streets of Old Hong Kong, to newer production. This has to a degree been off-set/compensated for, through the development and use of micro decals.
• 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, collectors no longer 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.
• 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 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.
• It used to be that the hobby was, for the most part much cheaper, and there were far more collectors. Collectors predominately purchased toy soldiers in boxed sets. If they did purchase individual figures, they were most likely connoisseur figures like Stadden, Greenwood & Ball or equivalent.
• As background I have conducted a “back of the envelope” statistical analysis of a given forum’s membership. Sample size 299 forum members. Based upon available data 220 would appear gainfully employed (inferring stable or growing income), 63 retired (probable fixed income, except for COLA adjustment if any, recognizing there are exceptions), 11 students (undetermined discretionary income), currently unemployed 5. This would strongly indicate approximately 26% of forum membership (based on this limited sample) are inclined to have little or no discretionary income.
• My observations on vintage Briains sales on e-Bay (Fewer sets of either quality or rarity, going for vastly inflated realized prices) is predicated on a comparison of the prices realized versus recent year’s results at Vectis Toy Auctions and Phillip’s in the United Kingdom and The Old Toy Soldier Auctions in the United States. Offerings at the latter auction houses have been, as a rule, in better condition for an identical set/gun/vehicle (boxed/unboxed), and even with the buyer’s premium, sold for less than prices often realized on e-Bay. You can certainly argue that e-Bay is exposed to a larger population, including many new and inexperienced collectors, however to the veteran collector the other auction houses are equally well known. I certainly will admit that I have not done a detailed in-depth analysis of comparative prices, and it very well may be that “anomalies” have made a more lasting impression than the norm. I totally concur with your assessment regarding that portion of the collecting population who are aging and on a fixed income. I feel very grateful that I was able to collect what i did, when I did it. My only regret is a short detour from Britains to Greenwood & Ball figures during the mid to late sixties, at least from an investment perspective, and what would have been a more complete Britains collection.
• Having studied architecture at university, worked as an engineer for over four decades, and collected toy soldiers for seven decades, I would cite the selection of scale, i.e. size, as a very important, if not critical parameter. It allows makers to execute proportion, anatomical reality, and detail (particularly facial expression, armament, insignia and accoutrements) not possible in smaller sized figures, yet still small enough to build fairly extensive displays/dioramas in a reasonable amount of space.
You may equivocate and debate the finer points of these factors, but are going to be hard pressed to refute their fundamental validity. Will be most interested in receiving any and all comments, be they round shot, grape, chain, even shrapnel.
Arnhem Jim
Arizona Territory
