NEW PRODUCT: POPTOYS: 1/6 EX22 King Henry V of England, double head sculptures & horse

Delanie wrote:with regard to plate and shield were there not shields with cut outs to allow lances and swords to be used in conjunction?

Only in tournaments. The shield was an integral part of the game.

I get what you are saying with regard to the weapons though as many weapons could not penetrate full plate unless they found a joint

How do you do this with a one handed weapon? You can't fight someone in full plate if you have a shield because both hands are needed for armour-compromising weapons. Even lower ranked soldiers with little armour did away with shields and adopted two handed weapons.

and even the 2 handed great sword was in effect a bludgeoning weapon either incapacitating the wearer by decreasing mobility or inflicting damage on the person beneath by concussion or restricting breathing or blood flow.

Two-handed swords were used like polearms to penetrate armour gaps. Thrusting attacks were prevalent.

lurpdog101 wrote:Hauberk – a long mail shirt

He probably didn't wear a hauberk. Arming doublets with mail voiders start to appear at the end of the 14th century. His armour would have been pointed to the doublet rather than strapped over a hauberk.

Pairs of plates – cloth armour with riveted plates inside

By this time, uncovered solid cuirasses were being worn (hence the term "all white"); pairs of plates were being phased out. The king would definitely not have worn something so old-fashioned; he was on the cutting edge of armour development. So, in this regard, the above figure is accurate.


Trivia sidebar: At the time, the word "pair" did not refer to two items. It referred to a group of related items. The closest modern translation would be "set of plates". Most armour researchers refer to this armour as a "coat of plates" to avoid confusion.

Probably wouldn't have sold if they'd done a historically accurate figure. They wanted to ride on the coat tails of HT's success without copying Loki.

CHEERS!

shazzdan wrote:

lurpdog101 wrote:Hauberk – a long mail shirt

He probably didn't wear a hauberk. Arming doublets with mail voiders start to appear at the end of the 14th century. His armour would have been pointed to the doublet rather than strapped over a hauberk.

Pairs of plates – cloth armour with riveted plates inside

By this time, uncovered solid cuirasses were being worn (hence the term "all white"); pairs of plates were being phased out. The king would definitely not have worn something so old-fashioned; he was on the cutting edge of armour development. So, in this regard, the above figure is accurate.


Trivia sidebar: At the time, the word "pair" did not refer to two items. It referred to a group of related items. The closest modern translation would be "set of plates". Most armour researchers refer to this armour as a "coat of plates" to avoid confusion.

The info I had wasn't directly for the King, as said, was taken from a historical website for Agincourt and seems to be general soldier.

lurpdog101 wrote:The info I had wasn't directly for the King, as said, was taken from a historical website for Agincourt and seems to be general soldier.

Less wealthy or provincial men at arms would still be wearing the older kit but the wealthy or ambitious nobles and everyone who attended court regularly would have been wearing modern armour.

Probably the only really accurate thing about this figure is the sword, which looks very much like the one purported to be Henry V's and appears to be an Oakshott type XVIII  as these things are classified. This being said, I see no reason not to buy this figure if you happen to really like it.

The love of this figure has led me back to look into history, as it's admittedly been a long time since I studied Henry V, both the historical figure and the Shakespearean one.

I was fascinated to (re)learn that in Henry's youth, he gained battle experience fighting against Owain Glyndŵr, leading army against him when he was only 15/16 years old! Owain Glyndŵr was the last native Welshman to hold the title Prince of Wales (the title of which was bestowed on Henry)

Owain Glyndŵr has a lot of history where I live, and I recall in my youth, our home on Anglesey, well, my parents cottage we went to on holidays (but as my dad was a minister, it was actually their own home) had graffiti on, and lucky not to have been firebombed like others in the village, by the "Sons of Glyndŵr" and within 50 miles I could reach either Owain Glyndŵr court in Macynlleth or where he held court in Harlech!

So my talk of wanting to photograph the figure in a local castle, would be amazing to have it done in Harlech Castle, where I am sure he must have fought. He was also given a title of Earl of Chester, which again, is within 30 minute drive.

Sorry for the ramble, but I do love history and am ashamed I forget a lot of it...so really pleased this figure has reignited my interest to read into it.

ThePhotogsBlog wrote:Probably the only really accurate thing about this figure is the sword, which looks very much like the one purported to be Henry V's and appears to be an Oakshott type XVIII  as these things are classified.  This being said, I see no reason not to buy this figure if you happen to really like it.  

It has lots of pieces that would be excellent in other builds, just not this one.

shazzdan wrote:

ThePhotogsBlog wrote:Probably the only really accurate thing about this figure is the sword, which looks very much like the one purported to be Henry V's and appears to be an Oakshott type XVIII  as these things are classified.  This being said, I see no reason not to buy this figure if you happen to really like it.  

It has lots of pieces that would be excellent in other builds, just not this one.

An interesting observation.

Let's not forget that ultimately they are recreating the imagery seen in a particular film. Historical accuracy would have been nice (and for me far preferable), but screen accuracy was their objective.

Ignoring all the obvious historical inaccuracies, I still think this is a damn good figure. The likeness to Hiddleston is very good, (although I’m getting a real Christian Bale vibe from the clean shaven head for some reason!) and I absolutely adore that red doublet! The shading on the armour is a little crude and the less said about the horse the better though.

GubernatorFan wrote:Let's not forget that ultimately they are recreating the imagery seen in a particular film. Historical accuracy would have been nice (and for me far preferable), but screen accuracy was their objective.

Exactly. This figure is based on the BBC TV series The Hollow Crown, which was a take on Shakespeare's plays based on the English kings....the costume is spot on for that and also for most theatrical portrayals...even if not historically accurate it is a great rendition.

It would be easy to turn him into a half decent viking. Get rid of the cuirass and leave the hauberk. He can keep his pants, boots, and belt. Change the sword, shield, and helmet. Give him a seax or hatchet. Done.

Shazzdan, I get what you're saying about kitbash potential, but the boots.....those look nothing like Viking boots to me.

And yes, for all these recent figures -- this Henry V, the Robin Hood, and the Henry VIII -- they are being based on the film/show versions. So while discussions of historical accuracy are fascinating, they are kind of moot in relation to the aim of what the figures based on/trying to convey.

In regards to this figure in particular, if one bears in mind that it's based not only on a miniseries, but also on a Shakespeare play at that, the lack of historical accuracy is much more understandable. Even in Shakespeare's day, it's not as if these historical figures were being portrayed with precise accuracy, either. Essentially, it's a contemporary take on what was already, in its time, a piece of historical fiction.  Not to mention that it is common practice in Shakespeare productions for the costumes to be less than 'accurate'. I remember watching the televised production of Coriolanus, also starring Tom Hiddleston, and that was a play set in Rome, shortly after the expulsion of the Tarquin kings, but was written in the early 1600s, and being portrayed in the 21st century. The costumes in that version were what I can only describe as 'modern fantasy'. And yet, it worked. Because ultimately it's about the artistry of the staging and the overall performance, rather than how 'accurate' it is.

skywalkersaga wrote:Shazzdan, I get what you're saying about kitbash potential, but the boots.....those look nothing like Viking boots to me.

And yes, for all these recent figures -- this Henry V, the Robin Hood, and the Henry VIII -- they are being based on the film/show versions. So while discussions of historical accuracy are fascinating, they are kind of moot in relation to the aim of what the figures based on/trying to convey.

In regards to this figure in particular, if one bears in mind that it's based not only on a miniseries, but also on a Shakespeare play at that, the lack of historical accuracy is much more understandable. Even in Shakespeare's day, it's not as if these historical figures were being portrayed with precise accuracy, either. Essentially, it's a contemporary take on what was already, in its time, a piece of historical fiction.  Not to mention that it is common practice in Shakespeare productions for the costumes to be less than 'accurate'. I remember watching the televised production of Coriolanus, also starring Tom Hiddleston, and that was a play set in Rome, shortly after the expulsion of the Tarquin kings, but was written in the early 1600s, and being portrayed in the 21st century. The costumes in that version were what I can only describe as 'modern fantasy'. And yet, it worked. Because ultimately it's about the artistry of the staging and the overall performance, rather than how 'accurate' it is.

You can take this a step farther.  Shakespeare, like the great movie director John Ford, or the frontiersman turned showman William F. Cody (Buffalo Bill) was not particularly interested in giving his audiences a history lesson, and certainly all of their presentations contained inaccuracies or anachronisms in dress, despite also containing story elements that were more or less historically accurate and it worked.  Buffalo Bill is more remembered as a showman than a frontier scout, John Ford won best director Oscars that any director in history, and William Shakespeare who wrote about universal themes that are as relevant today as they were in his day, is considered by most, to be the greatest playwright and author of fiction in the history of the English language.

Hey! I was wondering what Lynheart would say about the horses they kind of strike me as a bit like the disney rapunzel horse what ever he was called, there just seems to be something not quite right about them in my book but cant put my finger on it.

Delanie wrote:Hey! I was wondering what Lynheart would say about the horses they kind of strike me as a bit like the disney rapunzel horse what ever he was called, there just seems to be something not quite right about them in my book but cant put my finger on it.

Knights of this era typically had two horses. A riding horse for getting from place to place, and a larger, heavier war horse, which would have also been heavily armored. Maybe that's what's striking you as not quite right?

Delanie wrote:Hey! I was wondering what Lynheart would say about the horses they kind of strike me as a bit like the disney rapunzel horse what ever he was called, there just seems to be something not quite right about them in my book but cant put my finger on it.

In my opinion, there are several things 'off' about these PopToys horses, including the sort of awkward pose (walking? standing? who knows, lol) along with the position/shape of the legs and hooves. There are other conformation flaws, but those definitely stand out.

But the most egregious thing from my perspective is the shape of the head. The head on this horse is entirely unrealistic and looks more like a child's toy horse or even a fantastical creature altogether, rather than a truly realistic 1/6 scale version of an actual horse's head.

I think as Skywalkersaga pointed out it's the general conformation and the shape of the head that's off. the muzzle is just too pointed

Delanie wrote:I think as Skywalkersaga pointed out it's the general conformation and the shape of the head that's off. the muzzle is just too pointed

I think that may be because the head seems (to me) to be a bit on the short side and should be more elongated.

The only way to describe it is to compare photos...

Here's the PopToys horse's head:



And here are some images of grey Andalusian horses from similar angle:










Obviously, the precise size and shape of a horse's head varies a bit depending on the breed -- I used Andalusians simply because they seemed the closest to the 'fairytale' vibe that this PopToys horse is trying to evoke.

skywalkersaga wrote:The only way to describe it is to compare photos...

Here's the PopToys horse's head:



And here are some images of grey Andalusian horses from similar angle:












Obviously, the precise size and shape of a horse's head varies a bit depending on the breed -- I used Andalusians simply because they seemed the closest to the 'fairytale' vibe that this PopToys horse is trying to evoke.

It seems to me the Andalusians have noticeably longer heads.

Yeah.... note also the size, shape, and placement of the eyes on the PopToys model in comparison to the photos of real horses.

skywalkersaga wrote:Yeah.... note also the size, shape, and placement of the eyes on the PopToys model in comparison to the photos of real horses.

good point

They’re just off! I can’t really pinpoint the exact issue which probably means there’s more wrong with it than right! The head looks too small, the ears are weird, the feet and legs look very odd indeed and the general pose just looks awkward and uncomfortable.

My main hobby other than 1/6th figs is model horses, and if this were to be marketed to that hobby it’d  be an utter failure as there’s absolutely no comparison to the limited run artist resins and even the mass produced factory made models we collect and customise.

9Lynkhart wrote:They’re just off! I can’t really pinpoint the exact issue which probably means there’s more wrong with it than right! The head looks too small, the ears are weird, the feet and legs look very odd indeed and the general pose just looks awkward and uncomfortable.

My main hobby other than 1/6th figs is model horses, and if this were to be marketed to that hobby it’d  be an utter failure as there’s absolutely no comparison to the limited run artist resins and even the mass produced factory made models we collect and customise.

Yes, agreed. It is indeed too difficult to explain, unless one simply...knows. Hence me resorting to pics to attempt to illustrate. ;p

And yess, I greatly admire your work on model horses!  Model horses have always been my first and best love in terms of collectibles. While I never ventured into customizing or into the super higher end side of it, I did love my Breyers growing up -- and, imo, even the least impressive Breyer model is still miles more believable as an equine sculpture than the above 1/6 'horse'.

I'm glad it wasn't just me Ladies!

I think I kind of want this figure but will get another horse for the Scene I have in mind.


As an aside I have the brown / red IIL horse hopefully on its way from machinegun

Delanie wrote:I'm glad it wasn't just me Ladies!

I think I kind of want this figure but will get another horse for the Scene I have in mind.


As an aside I have the brown / red IIL horse hopefully on its way from machinegun

 
Oh, I'm envious.... I missed out on the Ili horses.