The American Civil War Diaries (2 Viewers)

[Napoleontimo]

Cheers Al and well done:- I am guilty as charged or should I say "you sussed me out" ^&grin. Inspiration for the whole three episodes of my illustrated story and this shot in particular




was indeed Troiani's painting of "Lige" White's Gray Comanches at Fleetwood Hill



Bob

WONDERFUL Bob !!!

Best regards

Timo

 

[Warrior]

Bob,
What are your thoughts on the new range due soon from First Legion, I'd think these would be right up your alley considering the large dioramas you are famous for................just curious is all..................

 

[UKReb]

Bob,
What are your thoughts on the new range due soon from First Legion, I'd think these would be right up your alley considering the large dioramas you are famous for................just curious is all..................

Well they have certainly got my attention George. I- along with all other FL collectors- consider that my FL ACW figures to be amongst the finest in my collection and these "cheaper" Battle Mass versions are a most welcome addition to swell my ranks of Rebs.



Not sure if this is a sign of the times but what I do know is that UK FL prices are pretty sky high. Sure you expect to pay extra for such finely sculpted/painted military figures. However, the average price per FL single standing figure this side of the pond is now £60.00 ($85.00) A Flag bearer is £70.00 ($100) and a mounted figure is a whopping £140.00 ($196.00). Speaking with one of the FL dealers at the London show last year he said he rarely if ever sells multiples of FL at the show as most punters cherry pick just the odd one or two. Not sure if this is reflected Stateside but to justify spending up to £200.00 here for three single FL figures one needs to be a particularly brave soul. I have done it a few times but try not to think about it too much.

One slight annoyance I have though George with this new ACW venture are Matt's choice of the two new state flag bearers. Why Maryland? Any ACW buff knows Maryland as a border state did not secede from the Union. Indeed two- and only two- Maryland infantry regiments joined the Confederacy but one of them was disbanded in early August 1862. The 2nd Infantry Maryland Regiment served in Steuart's Brigade and yes- fought at Gettysburg and also saw some action at Cold Harbor. I'm being pedantic I know but I would have much preferred North/South Carolina or even Georgia flags which would have made them much more versatile to use in any number of Eastern Theatre dioramas.

Bob

 

[jazzeum]

I took the liberty of posting your post Bob in the "are these new thread" in the First Legion section of the Forum, where Matt posted a lengthy response earlier this morning.

Brad

 

[Terp152]

Well they have certainly got my attention George. I- along with all other FL collectors- consider that my FL ACW figures to be amongst the finest in my collection and these "cheaper" Battle Mass versions are a most welcome addition to swell my ranks of Rebs.

One slight annoyance I have though George with this new ACW venture are Matt's choice of the two new state flag bearers. Why Maryland? Any ACW buff knows Maryland as a border state did not secede from the Union. Indeed two- and only two- Maryland infantry regiments joined the Confederacy but one of them was disbanded in early August 1862. The 2nd Infantry Maryland Regiment served in Steuart's Brigade and yes- fought at Gettysburg and also saw some action at Cold Harbor. I'm being pedantic I know but I would have much preferred North/South Carolina or even Georgia flags which would have made them much more versatile to use in any number of Eastern Theatre dioramas.

Bob

Bob, we welcome all additions to the ranks! Especially those at more affordable prices as you mention. I probably won't buy these copies as I have the originals. Do like the flag bearers, although I don't think the Nat'l colors are correct. And Lee issued orders forbidding the display of state colors when he took command of the ANV, a move to promote "national harmony." So these would only be used prior to his arrival in '62.

Now, as a native of the great state of Maryland and your aspersions on the FL choice of state colors may I beg to differ sir. {sm2} Chris

 

[UKReb]

Bob, we welcome all additions to the ranks! Especially those at more affordable prices as you mention. I probably won't buy these copies as I have the originals. Do like the flag bearers, although I don't think the Nat'l colors are correct. And Lee issued orders forbidding the display of state colors when he took command of the ANV, a move to promote "national harmony." So these would only be used prior to his arrival in '62.

Now, as a native of the great state of Maryland and your aspersions on the FL choice of state colors may I beg to differ sir. {sm2} Chris

Chris

I salute your great state of Maryland ^&grin However, as we have both discussed before I would love to depict a few of the earlier battles of the conflict but due to a lack of colourful state flags I have never ventured my toe into the cool waters of Bull Run ^&grin

 

[tullock]

Bob,
I assume the reasoning behind the choice of The 1st (2nd) Maryland Infantry was that it was one of the very few units to carry two flags into action at Gettysburg, (1st Texas aside), and against orders.

Chris,
Detailed research shows that the 1st(later 2nd) Maryland Battalion most likely carried both these flags at Gettysburg. Don Troiani shows both flags in his superb painting. Unfortunately FL have got the National colors wrong. Obviously they should be RED WHITE RED not WHITE RED WHITE.
Jeff

 

[Terp152]

Bob,
I assume the reasoning behind the choice of The 1st (2nd) Maryland Infantry was that it was one of the very few units to carry two flags into action at Gettysburg, (1st Texas aside), and against orders.

Chris,
Detailed research shows that the 1st(later 2nd) Maryland Battalion most likely carried both these flags at Gettysburg. Don Troiani shows both flags in his superb painting. Unfortunately FL have got the National colors wrong. Obviously they should be RED WHITE RED not WHITE RED WHITE.
Jeff

Thanks for that info Jeff. Had not realized they carried the colors at Gettysburg. Troiani did another painting depicting the 1st Texas colors at Gettysburg as well.
Chris

 

[UKReb]

Bob,
I assume the reasoning behind the choice of The 1st (2nd) Maryland Infantry was that it was one of the very few units to carry two flags into action at Gettysburg, (1st Texas aside), and against orders.

Chris,
Detailed research shows that the 1st(later 2nd) Maryland Battalion most likely carried both these flags at Gettysburg. Don Troiani shows both flags in his superb painting. Unfortunately FL have got the National colors wrong. Obviously they should be RED WHITE RED not WHITE RED WHITE.
Jeff

Many thanks for your explanatory comment Jeff. I do now recall when I was researching the Maryland Infantry regiment at Gettysburg before constructing this diorama.......



......that I did not have an exact Maryland State flagbearer as shown in Troiani's painting Band of Brothers and subsequently used instead the closest flag I had for my diorama imitation



Well done Jeff and thank you for reminding me of that

Bob

 

[6th Wisconsin]

Bob, we welcome all additions to the ranks! Especially those at more affordable prices as you mention. I probably won't buy these copies as I have the originals. Do like the flag bearers, although I don't think the Nat'l colors are correct. And Lee issued orders forbidding the display of state colors when he took command of the ANV, a move to promote "national harmony." So these would only be used prior to his arrival in '62.

Now, as a native of the great state of Maryland and your aspersions on the FL choice of state colors may I beg to differ sir. {sm2} Chris

As a native of the state of NC, I do appreciate Reb's observation, although certainly I have nothing against Maryland. As a lover of flags, I think it would be great to see lots of them represented.

 

[sammy719]

Chris

I salute your great state of Maryland ^&grin However, as we have both discussed before I would love to depict a few of the earlier battles of the conflict but due to a lack of colourful state flags I have never ventured my toe into the cool waters of Bull Run ^&grin

I vote First Legion do a version of the Virginia 55th, great looking flag with a lot of history, plus I'm a little biased with the unit ...Sammy

 

[MajorPoint]

I've been following these posts for many years now Bob. You are the King of the Diodrama, without a doubt. Looking forward to the next installment.
Rodney.

 

[UKReb]

Recently purchased all of the new First Legion Mass Battle Confederate Infantry figures (minus the two officers who were practically identical to the originals). Four of them were carrying patches on their pants which I have a personal dislike for. There were I'm sure plenty of ragged Rebs especially toward the last 18 months of the war but to have metal figures adorned with multi-coloured pattern patches on their pants- which can make some of them look like circus clowns- is simply a personal bug in the butt for me. I would much prefer they had splits/tears and renders in their uniforms-but Hey! that's just me.

Subsequently, any carrying such odd looking squares of gingham type material are ground off and repainted with the original or nearest to colour of the pants or jackets. The picture below (ignoring the re-painted WB Reb on the left) are six First Legion Rebs who were all were sculpted with pants patches which have now been removed.



Four of the above are FLs MBs and two are First Legion originals-those collectors who have these figures will quickly identify who is who. However, whilst having the patches ground off the four MBs have had discreet shading added to their uniforms in a vain attempt to raise them from just the base colours as bought. Not yet fully complete more like a work in progress-EG-shading on the faces and a final coat of matt varnish still required. Not sure what you guys think or even if you can see a difference :rolleyes2::rolleyes2:

Reb

 

[jazzeum]

Did you add any shading or color to their faces Bob. I saw them about a month and they looked a little pasty to me.

Brad

 

[Terp152]

Recently purchased all of the new First Legion Mass Battle Confederate Infantry figures (minus the two officers who were practically identical to the originals). Four of them were carrying patches on their pants which I have a personal dislike for. There were I'm sure plenty of ragged Rebs especially toward the last 18 months of the war but to have metal figures adorned with multi-coloured pattern patches on their pants- which can make some of them look like circus clowns- is simply a personal bug in the butt for me. I would much prefer they had splits/tears and renders in their uniforms-but Hey! that's just me.

Subsequently, any carrying such odd looking squares of gingham type material are ground off and repainted with the original or nearest to colour of the pants or jackets. The picture below (ignoring the re-painted WB Reb on the left) are six First Legion Rebs who were all were sculpted with pants patches which have now been removed.



Four of the above are FLs MBs and two are First Legion originals-those collectors who have these figures will quickly identify who is who. However, whilst having the patches ground off the four MBs have had discreet shading added to their uniforms in a vain attempt to raise them from just the base colours as bought. Not yet fully complete more like a work in progress-EG-shading on the faces and a final coat of matt varnish still required. Not sure what you guys think or even if you can see a difference :rolleyes2::rolleyes2:

Reb

Good morning Bob,
I share your disdain for the "patch syndrome." Makes repainting more difficult and actually has gotten to the point where knee patches are now a uniform requirement for our southern boys, as though they were issued from the depot so adorned. Anyway, your work in progress, as you describe it, looks very good. I have the two MB color bearers and may do some touch up to them as well. Certainly as splash of dull coat to faces at least. BTW, hoping the 2nd Maryland colors are seen leading your brigade into the fray. :wink2: Chris

 

[UKReb]

Did you add any shading or color to their faces Bob. I saw them about a month and they looked a little pasty to me.

Brad

Hi Brad

Yes the figures on either end of the row have had a slight "sun-tan" flesh tone application-still have the rest to do. And your observation of the figures faces are correct "pasty" is the best way to describe them-but easily rectified.

 

[UKReb]

Good morning Bob,
I share your disdain for the "patch syndrome." Makes repainting more difficult and actually has gotten to the point where knee patches are now a uniform requirement for our southern boys, as though they were issued from the depot so adorned. Anyway, your work in progress, as you describe it, looks very good. I have the two MB color bearers and may do some touch up to them as well. Certainly as splash of dull coat to faces at least. BTW, hoping the 2nd Maryland colors are seen leading your brigade into the fray. :wink2: Chris

Hi Chris

My Maryland Regimental Colour Bearer was broken on arrival-the base was sheared off at both of his ankles. I have no doubt due to the effective FL packaging the damage was carried out at source when packed. Currently, awaiting a replacement plus the two "Ragged First" FBs as well. So far all extremely well sculpted figures with the bonus of a hell of a sweet price :wink2:

Bob

 

[jazzeum]

Hi Brad

Yes the figures on either end of the row have had a slight "sun-tan" flesh tone application-still have the rest to do. And your observation of the figures faces are correct "pasty" is the best way to describe them-but easily rectified.

Thanks Bob. I was thinking of purchasing a couple with the idea of fixing that issue. Do you have any suggestions in that regard.

Brad

 

[sammy719]

Recently purchased all of the new First Legion Mass Battle Confederate Infantry figures (minus the two officers who were practically identical to the originals). Four of them were carrying patches on their pants which I have a personal dislike for. There were I'm sure plenty of ragged Rebs especially toward the last 18 months of the war but to have metal figures adorned with multi-coloured pattern patches on their pants- which can make some of them look like circus clowns- is simply a personal bug in the butt for me. I would much prefer they had splits/tears and renders in their uniforms-but Hey! that's just me.

Subsequently, any carrying such odd looking squares of gingham type material are ground off and repainted with the original or nearest to colour of the pants or jackets. The picture below (ignoring the re-painted WB Reb on the left) are six First Legion Rebs who were all were sculpted with pants patches which have now been removed.



Four of the above are FLs MBs and two are First Legion originals-those collectors who have these figures will quickly identify who is who. However, whilst having the patches ground off the four MBs have had discreet shading added to their uniforms in a vain attempt to raise them from just the base colours as bought. Not yet fully complete more like a work in progress-EG-shading on the faces and a final coat of matt varnish still required. Not sure what you guys think or even if you can see a difference :rolleyes2::rolleyes2:

Reb

Hi Bob, Your touch ups on the patches look great!! I see no visible signs of any "unwanted" patches, I'm certainly no expert in any field of modeling/painting but again looks to me you did a mighty fine job...Sammy

 

[7th OVI]

Bob, great job on removing the patches. I have been looking at these FL MB figures as an alternative to WB. Good to see them side by side. I agree on the patches and pasty color of the faces. Patches on one is fine but not on every figure. Again great job in getting them in line. Look forward to your next installment. Chris