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.