The Anatomy of a Review

How Reveiws Are Done

by Jay Hadley

The Courier figure review system is now three years old, and as is the case with any program it deserves a re-evaluation. This system is an emperical attempt to match the quality of various figure lines by analyzing those characteristics that separate a good figure line from a bad figure line. Although it is arbitrary it is an attempt to have consistency in the reviewing process.

The five categories examined are worth up to one point each and are added together to obtain a rating of .5 to 5.0. Here is what the numerical breakdown means:

    .5 - 1.9 = poor, figures in this range have obvious problems and do not measure up to the current state of the art.

    2.0 - 2.9 = fair, this means average. These figures are acceptable but do have some problems coupled with the fact that they do not stand out by comparison.

    3.0 - 3.9 = good, these figures have some minor flaws but are generally well executed. As a group they lack the imagination and crispness of the excellent figures.

    4.0 - 5.0 = excellent, a can't miss proposition, clean castings, good detail and that special touch that separate these figures from all rest.

Previously the five categories reviewed were anatomy, animation, detail, paintability, and quality of casting. The next set of reviews will replace "paintability" with the category "variety of line". Paintability is too subjective for even an admittedly subjective system and if a figure does well in the other categories it should be paintable.

Variety of line offers the opportunity to explore the extent of a product line and aids the reader in deciding to invest in that line or wait for further product.

Finally, a definition of the other four categories:

Anatomy: the two tests used in this category are (1) does the figure being reviewed look like the average human, animal or vehicle it is supposed to be and (2) are the various parts of the figure's anatomy complimentary to one another.

Animation: is examined from both a historical and a practical perspective. Historically, there may be a significant difference between a Napoleonic Fusilier and an Aztec Eagle Warrior in its posing and it still may be correct. I also have real trouble with kneeling or firing figures for practical purposes on a table top. Neither the oddly positioned figure nor the mundane are ever well received.

Detail: examines the amount, proportion and quality of detail. One of the finer lines of distinction is whether the detail is integrated into the figure or added on resulting in a "Christmas Tree" effect.

Casting Quality: there are two main casting problems that can effect a figure. One is the question of whether the entire figure is cast properly (cavalry swords and infantry bayonets are usually two weak areas) and the other is mold deterioration resulting in an unreasonable amount of flash build-up. The latter problem is a matter of simple neglect and should not be tolerated as it can be controlled by the manufacturer.

More Reviews

Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. V #1
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1984 by The Courier Publishing Company.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com