Changes at the Pelisse

So the blog is hitting a couple of milestones: 200 posts and 50,000 visits. I figured that means it is a good time to make some changes. The following list outlines what I am planning. Please comment if you have other suggestions, or feel any of the following are bad ideas.

1. In reviews, I have recently dropped the comment on body sculpting style. My thinking is that I don’t have any kind of consistent yardstick to apply, so the results were simply what I felt after looking at the figure. Since all readers can do the same by looking at the image, my categorization seemed superfluous.

2. I will be starting to record height of figures to the top of the head, while retaining the measurement to the eyes. This would allow comparison to other measurements used on other sites and blogs.

3. For plastic figures, I will stop providing pricing information. Plastic figures are available from a wide variety of retailers, even when they are out of production. Showing a price from one random store does not really say anything about the actual market cost of the figures. However I will continue to comment on which figures are out of production, when I have that information.

4. I am trying to clear up the “noise” in the right-hand column. As the number of labels grows, the other material gets pushed down. So I have started using the “page” functionality (accessed through the nav bar above) and it will replace the lists of links at the side. At this time though, I plan to retain the links to hobby blogs, since they are constantly updating.

5. As intended, the blog has really been focused on metal/plastic comparisons. However there was always a subordinate intention to consolidate information on metal manufacturers with 20mm, 1/72nd and traditional 25mm ranges. I hope to focus more on that going forward, with more frequent news items, and more extensive descriptions of each manufacturer’s ranges.

6. The growth of this blog is dependent on a growing collection of samples. I hope to encourage readers to help me fill in gaps in this collection by posting a “trading” page, listing my needs and the items that I have available for trade. (Of course I am also open to donations of samples.)

7. Finally, I expect the growing complexity of this blog will lead me to set up a website that can be accessed and searched more easily. However, not being a web developer myself, I need to learn a lot before I can do it. Any suggestions for a starting point would be very welcome.

New Feature: List of Manufacturers

I have decided to take advantage of some additional functionality from Blogger, and start adding some permanent pages with reference material. They can be accessed from the navigation bar above the posts on the home page.

So far I have only posted one page, and it is a very rough draft at this point. The intention is to have three lists of metal manufacturers, sorted by size. The list will include both present and past manufacturers, and give an overview of the ranges offered. The page will replace the link list on the sidebar, which will help make the blog easier to use.

Eventually, there should also be other pages showing which current manufacturers cover each historical period.

I will not bother doing the same work for the plastic ranges, as they are already fully covered by PSR.

As mentioned, the document is still an early draft, and will be updated over the next few weeks to make it more user friendly.

Feedback: Metal Figure Preparation

Recently, I noticed a short thread on Rafa Pardo’s forum. In the thread, Rafa very kindly introduced this blog to his fellow hobbyists. One of the readers (under the name “lannes”) then posted a suggestion that the pictures used here would be more helpful if the metal figures were prepared. Up to now, I have just been shooting the samples as they come, but this comment made a lot of sense to me.

So I decided to experiment. The photo above shows the result. The figure used is Irregular’s Napoleonic Highland officer (BNI 14). The example on the far left is simply bare metal. Moving to the right, the next figure has been sprayed with white primer. The third figure has had a black wash applied over the bare metal. Finally, the figure on the right has had both primer and black wash applied.

Based on the results, I think the black wash on bare metal gives a very good result. There doesn’t seem to be enough improvement between the third and fourth figures to justify the additional step of priming.

Going forward then, comparison shots on this blog will include metal figures that have been treated with a light black wash. Thanks Rafa and lannes!

To see the rest of the resource section of that forum go to:

Recursos/Resources

Period Consolidation

Those of you who rely on the labels to look for particular figures will notice a change shortly. I have decided to consolidate some of the labels into broader periods. There are three reasons for this:

1. The list of labels is growing quite long, and there are still many wars not yet covered. This is pushing down some of the other information in the side bar, making it harder to find.
2. Some of the labels I am using are not creating any meaningful differences in categorizing. In other words, for some labels, all posts labelled "x" are also labelled "y."
3. The motivating reason: the software puts a limit on the length of labels associated with a single post. For some recent posts, I have had to select a smaller number of labels than I would have liked.

If any of the changes I make end up being really unhelpful, please let me know.

Feedback and Response

On August 20, I asked readers to provide feedback on the Plastic Pelisse. Between comments on the blog, and posts on a thread at TMP, I heard from about a dozen of you. Some simply passed on their encouragement, which was very nice in itself. Others did provide thoughtful suggestions for improvements. I want to walk through those suggestions now, and let you know how I intend to respond.

Suggestions about topics covered:

Alex K and jmodule both asked for more World War Two comparisons. An anonymous poster was also interested in more 1870-1945 postings.

On TMP, Chortle said: “I would like to see Cavalry & artillery developed at the same pace as the infantry. Throwing in the odd artillery caisson or ambulance is also good for people looking for bits to complete their armies.”

I am sympathetic to these requests, and will do the best to address them. However, while I have a fairly extensive collection of plastic samples, my comparisons are limited by the number of metal samples on hand. I have had a couple of manufacturers send me samples, but most of the ones found on the site were purchased. Since getting this feedback, I have written to some of the best-known 20mm WW2 manufacturers, but have not received any reply.

So unless I can find someone willing to trade me some metal figures to expand the samples, I can only move forward at the rate that I am willing to spend to support this blog.

The same thing applies to artillery, but I do have a number of mounted metal samples that I have not used in comparisons. I will try to increase the mounted component in the near future. That will also allow me to follow up on a suggestion by Marc the plastic fan, to use horse swaps as another way of illustrating comparisons.

Suggestions about the information in the comparisons:

An anonymous reader suggested that I include an URL for the manufacturers or main distributors of the figures reviewed. In a similar vein, Marc the plastics fan said: “It would be really helpful if it was clearly indicated what ranges are still available and from whom.” EY suggested that I list the number of poses which come in sets of metal figures (those that are not sold individually.)

Actually, I used to have a practice of introducing a metal range with an initial post which included all this information; then I would start posting the actual comparisons. I have lately skipped the initial post, which means this information is being overlooked. Starting in the last couple of posts though, I have included information on availability, and referred to websites (which are actually listed in the sidebar section of the blog). I will also take up EY’s suggestion in future comparisons.

Suggestions on other content:

Katzbalger suggested: “it might be nice to have one shot of figs from several plastic and metal ranges placed next to each other.” He notes that I have done this for some of the colonial ranges. Again, this is an older practice that I had discarded. The main reason that I did abandon it, was that the pictures never remained comprehensive (as soon as I posted a picture with 5 ranges illustrated, I obtained samples from a 6th). However I will resurrect this kind of post.

EY pointed out: “a comparison shot of the five different types of body build that you use in your reviews would be useful.” I agree with him, and will put one together shortly.

Again, thanks to all who commented. Please feel free to carry on the conversation, and provide more feedback, at any time.

Looking for Feedback

This post is the 100th post in this blog, and I decided this was an opportunity to reflect, and ask for feedback from readers. First though, I would like to make a request for more participation. When I post the comparisons between plastic and metal ranges, I do so from only two dimensions: height and sculpting style. However, there are other ways to compare figures, such as whether they are uniformed and equipped for the same time period. I don’t have the expertise to make such comments, but I would be very happy if knowledgeable readers would. So if you see two figures compared which are clearly for very different campaigns, let me know (either by posting a response on the blog, or by emailing me.) I will add in these comments to the main postings as appropriate, and credit the authors.

Other than that, I would really like to get feedback on this site, as it is shaping up after 100 posts. Here are some questions, but feel free to comment on anything else that you wish:

Do you find the site useful as a resource (specifically, do you “look things up” here, or just check to see what’s new)?
Is there information missing from the comparison postings which you think should be there?
The blog also includes news about 20mm ranges, provided by manufacturers. Is that a good idea, or does it detract from the main point of the blog?
There are many gaps still in the coverage of this site. Which do you want to see addressed first?
I have made the choice to focus on foot figures first, and leave cavalry and artillery comparisons until later. Does this work for you?
Given the confines of the Blogger template, could the site be made more user-friendly?

I welcome your comments as responses to this post, or by email to plastic.hussar (at) yahoo (dot) com.

I will also start a thread on the “Blogs of War” board at TMP, here:

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=177350