glitch wrote:lol "Shipping date: 2021 fourth quarter"
With SW, it'll be more like 4th quarter of 2022.
The figure does look pretty good though!
Kit was a
bit more optimistic. lol
Available in Q4 2021 ***Swtoys delay half year in average so pls expect Q2 2022***
I ordered the regular from him.
It would be nice to have another horse to use with various figures - Jeanne d'Arc isn't giving up her ride, even if it were appropriate! It's a secondary consideration because a mounted figure changes the height requirements for everyone else I'll be displaying with it.
I'll hold out and see if Mr. Z come up with a specifically western themed mount to tempt me - you'd think it'd only be a matter of time.
RDR means very little to me, but it has made possible some very good looking western characters in 1/6.
Prior to Sadie Adler, the only other female character was Asmus' Daisy Domergue, and she wasn't a very attractive looking option.
Going back about twenty years there was the Twilight Magic Works Yamato 'Kelly', which I once owned along with 'George'. She was quite doll like, yet remarkably detailed down below for a doll of that vintage and type!
Michael Crawford's review is a real blast from the past.
http://www.mwctoys.com/REVIEW_101600.htm
I offloaded the figures cheap to a toy dealer when I was clearing out a lot of dated 1/6, mainly Dragon which I regret now because there was a lot of useful clothing, weapons and equipment on the Dragons that would still stand up today.
At least I had the foresight to keep the revolvers and rifle from Kelly and George before getting rid of them.
The Colt .45s and Winchester, which I think is a Model 1873 Octagon Sporter, ended up on my second BBK Jonah Hex:
Anyway, back to the topic. SW's Sadie looks to be a useful offering, the classic movie feisty woman of the west. I often wonder, when watching westerns, how prevalent it would've been to see women dressed like this, such as Calamity Jane who was known dress as a man.
This is an interesting snippet from a Wikipedia article about how the issue was viewed in more 'civilised' districts:
Various US cities, in the 19th and 20th centuries, passed legislation barring women from wearing trousers. Representative among these was an 1863 law passed by San Francisco's Board of Supervisors criminalizing appearing in public in "a dress not belonging to his or her sex", although similar laws existed in Columbus, Ohio (passed 1848); Chicago, Illinois (passed 1851); Houston, Texas (passed 1864); Orlando, Florida (passed 1907), and approximately two dozen other US cities.[5] (Anti-crossdressing laws continued to pass well into the 20th century, with Detroit, Michigan, and Miami, Florida, passing laws as late as the 1950s, and Cincinnati, Ohio, passing one in 1974.[5])
Additionally, existing laws such as anti-vagrancy statutes were pressed into service to ensure that women would dress in accord with the gender norms of the time. One such instance would be New York's anti-vagrancy statute of 1845, which stated that "Every person who, having his face painted, discolored, covered or concealed, or being otherwise disguised, in a manner calculated to prevent him from being identified, shall appear in any road or public highway, or in any field, lot, wood or inclosure, may be pursued and arrested”.[6] This law was used to prosecute women for cross-dressing, on the grounds that their dressing outside of gender norms constituted a "disguise".[2] Boston used similar anti-vagrancy laws to arrest Emma Snodgrass and Harriet French in 1852. (Snodgrass would be arrested again in Cleveland in 1853, and French would be arrested again in New York in 1856.) French reportedly broke with convention in order to pursue job opportunities open only to men: she claimed to the New York Daily Times that she could "get more wages" dressed as a man.[7]
Anti-vagrancy laws were also used to arrest Jennie Westbrook in New York, in 1882 and 1883. Westbrook's case was said at the time to have "awakened deep interest" among the public, as it was understood that she was attempting to "escape from that bondage [to] which social laws have subjected the sex". Like Harriet French in Boston, Westbrook identified work opportunities as her reason for cross-dressing: "Her excuse was that she could make $20 a week in her disguise, while as a 'saleslady' in a fashionable store the pay would be only one-third that amount."[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trousers_as_women%27s_clothing#Changing_norms
