I read the editorials in MWAN #131 concerning the subject of "flea markets" at HISTORICON with some interest. My personal feeling about the subject, speaking as a "wargamer," is that flea markets are a very desirable feature of wargaming conventions. They represent an opportunity for us to sell unwanted items and for others to purchase, at a much-reduced cost, those same items unwanted by someone else.
At the recent LITTLE WARS convention last spring, I managed to pick up a number of historical books on the Peninsular War and Seven Years War from several flea marketers, one of whom was a good friend, Kevin Killian, who promptly took my money over to the dealer area and spent every last penny. This, I feel, is what happens to most of the money made by flea marketers. It is put back into the hobby by spending it with dealers. The same is true, I think, with venues such as "Bartertown."
If the money earned in such a fashion is not put back within the hobby, I wonder where it goes? Might it go toward family expenses? I suspect so. Is this a bad thing? Hardly. Doing so might be said to be the "right thing to do." I don't know how many times MWANer's have written to me relating how they used the income gained from sale of their figures to repair the family car, take the family on a vacation, use it toward college tuition, etc. When I sold my first wargames project - 15mm ACW - the money went toward new kitchen cabinets and my wife was very happy. When I recently sold two-thirds of my 25mm SYW collection, some of the money went toward purchasing new figures, but the vast majority went toward Kate's college tuition. Was my wife happy again? Does she view my hobby in a somewhat different way than if I had thrown it all back into the hobby?
On the same subject, I would have serious problems with "professional dealers" being allowed to set up a table in a flea market. I don't think this is right, as table costs are much greater in the dealer area than they are in a flea market. I personally would not want the job of confronting professional dealers in a flea market and informing them they have to leave, however, I don't run conventions and they shouldn't be there in the first place.
As to limiting flea markets to one day, Sunday, as suggested in this case, I don't think this is a good idea. There are many convention attendees who do not attend all days of a convention (personally, I can take one day and that's enough for me). In this country, it seems to me that historical wargaming conventions began as a means for historical wargamers to get together, not as a venue for dealers. I have nothing against dealers being present at conventions; I am highly in favor of it as it is probably the main reason why I personally attend a convention. I want to see what is new and there are always certain items on my "want list" which I scour the dealer's area for. It is also great to have the chance to run across something you've never seen before.
However, dealers at a convention, I believe, are "secondary" for most garners whose primary purpose in attending is to game and/or look at the games and gain inspiration for their own efforts.
I've always been a firm believer that the market place determines profit for any business. Produce a highly marketable product and you will generate a profit. Produce a less than marketable product and you won't make as much profit.
As to the claim that we, as a hobby, are "cheap," and, secondly, that we need to "show-case" our hobby, I find this very disturbing personally. We all know individuals within our hobby who consistently put their "hobby needs" ahead of their family. Not a good idea. I firmly believe that (1) we spend what we can afford on our hobby - we'd all like to spend more, but most of us realize that if we do, it has to come from somewhere and that "somewhere" is our family. Again, I go back to the marketplace; just because someone is a "dealer" within our hobby does not mean "we" have an obligation to support him by purchasing his products. If they are quality products within a "mainstream" (or reasonably so) period, they are going to sell. If not, oh well, no one should be surprised. Not all of us feel a need to get rid of an "old" period (we couldn't do this very easily anyway if the flea markets are taken away from us) and replace it with "new armies" for the same period just because some company has released a new line of really nice figures. Some of us (and I can't include myself within this category) have a little more common sense. Not all of us (and again, I am not in this category) feel the need to have large armies, or even small forces, in many different periods and/or scales. Again, I admire those individuals who show a little more self-control (well, actually a lot!) than I have.
As to "show casing" our games at conventions - shortly after this year's HISTORICON, there was a fascinating chain of postings about the fact that someone felt there was a decrease in the number of really good looking games (and I don't remember the exact wording though I know it wasn't done in a negative manner) at HISTORICON. One individual, who had hosted an HISTORICON game, took this personally and was outraged. Although he over-reacted, in my opinion, I could really feel for what he was expressing. Here is a hobbyist who takes the time to put together a game, as best he can, for a convention; develops a scenario, paints his figures, packs up what he needs to run the game, carts the figures and terrain from his car into the gaming area, sets it up, conducts the game thus entertaining the participants, takes everything down and packs it up again, and carries it to his car. What has this person done? They've provided entertainment to a number of participants at some degree of personal sacrifice. They haven't been paid, perhaps some of the players said "Thank you" or "Great game!" but perhaps no one said anything.
Perhaps some of the players helped pick up the game and carry it out to the person's car; perhaps not. Perhaps someone complimented them on the game; perhaps someone made the experience miserable for them by disagreeing with the rules and/or their rulings.
I've long said, within MWAN, that none of us has any responsibility toward this wonderful hobby of ours other than to do what we personally want to do. I foolishly for some time thought that I had that responsibility. I remember driving to Champaign, Illinois (two hours south) in a snowstorm to hold a game on a Friday night, and then driving four hours north the next day to hold another game in Wisconsin because I was stupid enough to think "I had to do it for the good of the hobby." Incredible! What an egotistical, selfish act that was!
If someone wants to host a small game at a convention, fine; they are making a fine contribution to the enjoyment of attendees. If someone wants to host a "showcase game" at a convention and go through everything it requires to do so, fine; but it is their choice. Whose contribution is more meaningful? I would say they both have their place but I would never insult the individual who is putting forth the effort to host his small game.
I think this boils down to putting the hobby in its proper place. If you are making a living from the hobby, I can understand how you view the hobby differently from someone who is not. If when I was publishing MWAN, I was dependent upon the income for a living, I more than likely would have had to take a different approach than I did. Since I wasn't, I could use the approach I choose as long as I didn't lose money. Had I had to make my living on MWAN, I would have found another way of supporting my family as it would not have been a comfortable approach for me personally.
In my opinion, we have the type of hobby, which, because of our "love of toy soldiers," lends itself to the possibility of "overindulgence" at times. I went through it and it makes me blush to think of it. This hobby of ours is a wonderful activity which meets so many of our needs and brings so much enjoyment to us because of that fact. However, it is a "hobby" - an activity that we enjoy to varying degrees dependent upon our personal involvement. It is a hobby in which we spend as much as we personally can justify. The only thing we "owe" to anyone or anything is that we owe it to ourselves to have a good time.
Jim French wrote the following in response to my question regarding the availability of 20mm oxen: "In MWAN 129, you mentioned that you were looking for 20mm oxen. Check Qualiticast 20mm civilian miscellaneous # 0103, 6 draught oxen with one yoke per pair. Their # 0101 is a colonial ox wagon with driver and oxen. I have a couple and they are usable as American west reminiscent of Russell's painting of the Bullwhacker' train. The animals are very nicely cast. Go to the Brookhurst Hobbies Website, gaming, historical miniatures." Thanks, Jim, for the information. Qualiticast does have an excellent 20mm line for ACW and Napoleonics and has a "Wild West" listing containing items, which would be very helpful. Appreciate it!
I've made considerable progress on my 25mm SYW Project the last few months. I managed to downsize it to Prussia, Russia, and Austria whereas previously I was haphazardly adding units for all major combatants without a "plan." Over the last two months I repainted nine battalions of Russian line infantry with 36 figures to a battalion. I found this extremely satisfying as (1) 1 hadn't done any serious painting in over five years, (2) I'd been wanting to repaint them historically for many years, and (3) I did a reasonably good job with them. My next project is to repaint the coats of eleven Prussian battalions (again 36 figures per battalion) and ten batteries of Prussian artillery (50 crew, ten guns and limbers). I used the "stain method" to paint them many years ago and, as a result, they have light blue coats instead of Prussian dark blue. I painted the guns and limbers in a wood color rather than the historical Prussian blue. At the time, I didn't know better, and it has bothered me ever since. We'll see what kind of progress I make with the Prussians. They won't require as much painting as the Russians did; however, I am not looking forward to repainting cross-belts and straps!
I also decided to decrease the size of my units. Foot battalions will go from 36 to 24 figures while horse regiments will decrease from 24 to 16. I'm going to introduce "national characteristics" by making German Fusilier battalions 32 figures and having six battalions per brigade (instead of the usual four) for my Russian Observation Corps Musketeers and Hungarian Fusiliers.
My current horse regiments of 24 figures will remain at that level, however, all of my current foot battalions will be decreased to 24. This means that I'll have 12 "extra" figures from each of my current foot battalions. This won't matter for my Russians because they all had the same facings, however, I'll have to change some of the facings of my "extra" Prussian foot units. I'm not looking forward to this.
I'm also switching over to four-man stands for foot battalions (down from six) and from three to two-man stands for horse. I'm looking forward to seeing how they look when I am finished with revising this project.
It was my intention to sell off my 25mm SYW collection in its entirety when I started. However, I realized how much I enjoyed it and was pleased that I was able to make the changes I did so as to satisfy my goals - selling most of it off and revising what was left.
It was during this process that I started thinking about how I approach a new period. It is rarely based upon logic (no surprise there, huh!), rather, it has been determined by the number of figure manufacturers out there making figures for the period. It may start out with me purchasing figures for the period from one manufacturer whose line I am impressed with, but it always expands beyond that to include figures from each and every manufacturer making figures for the period which fit size-wise (I don't mix 25mm with 28mm, for example). I was discussing my SYW Project with Ken Bunger this summer when he stated that he bases his projects upon historical orders of battle for a specific battle. Umm there's an idea that's so simple - why didn't I think of it? Seriously, I'd love to hear from MWANer's as to how you approach a new period. Is it haphazardly done or do you go with orders of battle from an historical battle? Sounds simple but I'd be interested in what approach you have used.
Thanks for reading my column; hope to hear from you!
Back to MWAN # 132 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 2004 Legio X
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com