Plastic Figure Showcase: Peter Evans Conversions Treasure Plus Marx Arabs this we look at some conversions. First Peter Evans sent me some Marx conversions he had done. He also sent me some photos on Roman figure conversion he is working on. Also in the package were some interesting figures. Then I will show a Marx 60mm Arab conversion. Finally I will answer a question why I am sell a Marx 60mm Arab standing firing in Chocolate Brown for only $15.00.
Plastic Figure Showcase: Peter Evans Conversions Treasure Plus Marx Arabs Conversions
Peter sent me four Marx figures he converted. The first figure is the Marx 60mm Mexican War. Peter changed the position of the head. To its right is the Marx WWI grenade thrower. Peter changed the right arm from grenade to rifle. He also has a pack across the chest. The third figure 54mm knight with sword. Peter changed the sword to a halberd. The final figure he took a mounted cavalry upper body and put it on a foot pose.
Plastic Figure Showcase: Peter Evans Conversions Treasure Plus Marx Arabs Roman Conversions
Peter has been working on project of converting two Romans. Here is what he said on the project.
Plastic Figure Showcase: Peter Evans Conversions Treasure Plus Marx Arabs Treasures
With the conversions that Peter send me, he sent me some interesting items. The cowboy on the left was made in China. It reminds me of John Wayne. The knight is early English plastic. It is either Cherilea or Johillco.
The two above figures are Supergirl and Bumblebee. They are two of the figures from DC Super Hero Girls series done by Kinder Egg. Kinder Egg has made many interesting figures over the years, but they have been ban from the U.S. That is changing as Kinder is coming into U.S. with Kinder surprise. The toys are in a separate container.
Fina treasures are these four inch figures. I wish they were 544mm or 60mm.
Plastic Figure Showcase: Peter Evans Conversions Treasure Plus Marx Arabs Marx Arabs
This is an interesting conversion I picked up recently. The party took a Marx 60mm Arab mounted with sword and converted it to spear. I figure the sword had been damaged.
Finally I asked the question why would I put a price of $15.00 on Marx Arab standing firing rifle. The answer is a previous owner took of the base! That’s right they took off the base. The next owner put a base back on it. He used a Timpo swoppet base. I think it turn out nice. What do you think?
I can see -The Marx knight original with sword(or possible a copy) with cloth painted over armor also has the head helmet swap by timpo or timpo solid copy .
The WW1 american has original molded bag made x it just painted over.
Axes were used by romans often and in cavalry more as well since republic till 5 AC century least not by auxiliaries/allied only.Plenty engraved conserved shows it ,two well conserved in triumphal arches ruins in spain had then .It was inspired Jecsan and others artist/brands replicate romans figures with it .Not a mistake ,great observation.
Two magazines in spain about toys showed it years ago with photos of historical places next to figures.
Arrian mentions Roman cavalry armed with axes, certainly in the Order of Battle against the Alans.
The Dolabra was used as roman infantry carve and excavating tool for fortification,cut trees wood and trenching ,it was used in combat at Alesia as throwing weapons by Cesar accounts.
Because several greeks cities armies ,included macedonia late period also used then (included some heavy two handed axes in units at battles) the romans also copied and try use it it x some time .At second roman punic wars one naval battle is described as roman using it in navy forces on hand to hand combat as well .
So was well spread used during centuries of ancient to late roman period .
my thoughts.
best .
The Romans fought in a strict formation. Each man only had a small area to fight in, allowing their comrades to support them, and making those famed tower shields (scutum) that much more effective. With that small area, their weapons were incredibly well-suited to the situation. Their javelins (the pilum) would be used to disorganize and demoralize their enemies, or even as a conventional spear to fight off enemy cavalry. When the legions would close, however, their primary weapon was the sword (gladius). The sword, adopted from the Spanish, was the mainstay of the Roman legions, and it was basically perfectly well-rounded for the fighting they did. Close-quarters fighting? Well, the sword was best at stabbing (although, contrary to some modern belief, it was really good at slashing bits off of people, too!). Stabbing is a short motion, allowing the soldier to stay mostly defended by his shield, remain controlled, and not endanger his companions who are all close by. Needless to say, this advantage was not shared by the war axe.
The auxilia used similar equipment to the Romans they fought beside. Not only were most of the auxilia Italians for hundreds of years, but even as they became more diversified, they still used Roman equipment and discipline to their own advantage.
Culturally, the Romans were an incredibly traditional people. They had the gladius and it worked well for them for the better part of about 7-800 years. Why would they swap out for a weapon that was untested, less useful, and, in the Roman’s eyes, less Roman? The Romans showed an incredible willingness to adapt to use whatever was necessary to face the threats at hand; the gladius itself was an example of that, as were the various evolutions of the Roman army, the very armour that the Romans themselves used, their navy was – if we are to believe our sources – entirely copied from the Carthaginian navy, etc. If something was more useful, they would absorb it rather quickly, despite their traditional attitude. The war axe was not an innovation on that level.
I think all above is well know ….
Romans used varied weapons from early time as become powerful against their Latins and Etruscan cities states wars as well.
Scutum and pilum are mid-late republic early empire introduction-innovation and varied by centuries in shape as well ,the typical rectangular scutum was Not in use by 3 century already as lighter ovals shield adopted by then ,so the “tower formation” so effective before was not longer implemented …
Before that they used Clipeus as well typical Greeks battle formation tactics else…
“”Culturally, the Romans were an incredibly traditional people”””
in my opinion…
“Traditional” is a problematic word to be give to them as they were more adopters=absorbers of most others,first Greeks ,then Gauls , Africans -Iberians ,Germans,Asians, and so on .They conquer and adapted many weapons,accessories,tools and cultures from others. Their tradition was a MIX in constant variation and adaptation according to political and military reforms by any need .
Again as I mention and can be founds on those facts,books else data .Axes were used and mention in some battles ,meaning they were implemented at some times in some units (of course not in typical court’s battle field formation as may had not work during late republican and empire first two centuries.
I did not say was main weapon at all,just it was implemented at some times and did used as mentioned and showed in historical proof .So figures with them are correct as far single poses or cavalry goes .
In plastic toy soldiers barely any German soldier WW 2 had been made with The ZB vz. 26/30(by the way from where the Bren was developed from ) and yet more than 70 000 used and produced by Germans from 1939-1942 and used in many units ,of course not typical but definitely used.
So the figures with it done are correct if ever …
Also Greeks/Macedonians used axes then in groups of forces/units assisting the phalanx formation and there’s plenty data mention about it as well bases with it depicted on it .
Romans used then in navy-marines corps since Punic wars as I say before ,ironical as mentioned(About in the Battle of Bedriacum-not quite-Cremona battle) in books extracted from old roman writings from Tacitus.
https://books.google.com/books?id=jUERBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT370&lpg=PT370&dq=battle+of+cremona+,use+of+axes&source=bl&ots=yN1O_XiiTy&sig=Z4_UK8qMmqXb7hk1HpaDN7OOBYY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAz52_8onYAhVI7CYKHT8ZDHMQ6AEINTAB#v=onepage&q=battle%20of%20cremona%20%2Cuse%20of%20axes&f=false.
The axe is not a country weapon.First and all was develop out necessity as a cutting/working tool and made as weapon by any… Egyptian used axes in battles and is depicted,Persians and Assyrians too. Sasanians too. Romans fought all then and conquered many of their region adopting and incorporating allied mercenaries forces to their armies as well. Roman barely have large cavalry at all time and used mercenaries x it .Among many the Gauls,Germans and Asian as well Iberian for centuries. Sometimes they dressed typical their own ,others they dress more roman alike to not be confused in action still using lances ,maces ,long swords ,arch and axes as well because their typical own country weapons they knew how use best and Romans need then used those “”innovative”” weapons x some reason otherwise would not use entire forces with it x so long in history.
The axe is not a close tide formation weapon as the arch and maces or others as well are too. So of course the courts-legions tactic will not require it ,yet other Romans forces would /may use it as need if want and did .
The axe was not innovation as weapon because was in use long before many weapons in fact; yet was used and implemented as been by any nation since ancient time.
Roman typical formation do not need them in sometimes as their missile barrage keep away the enemies attacking them with axes/else to pull their shield off.(YET their fear the Gauls,Britons and Germanic axes a lot.
Once cavalry and missiles massive enemies formation start showing in battle on time against then, the shield walls were very easy destroyed and not much implemented ,neither pilum and change over by spears and long lances plus lighter troops with light shields and more cavalry in their armies to adapt. So the scutum and pilum was a innovation x some time as well only.
my thoughts
best..
Thanks for the Very Interesting History lesson Erwin.
Nice conversions Pete, Good imagination, It just shows a little conversion can really change a figure and gives you many more poses. Yeah I wish those skeletons were 54 to 60mm also, Although I must admit there are quite a few 1/32 scale skeletons out there to make a big skeletal army, Plus ive converted some skeletons to make more poses.
It is always a pleasure to see such interesting conversions.
Why, oh why, would anyone cut the stand off of a chocolate brown Arab? That’s a crime of epic proportions,
I’m a murder then as i had cut vintage figures before and not damaged one .
Not these one but other marx or else brands ,specially on abundant poses or figures even if they 50 years old…
May be figure above was damaged too in base .I had found many collectors that also take all bases off and glue figures to places ,specially forts or building floors as base may look odd with it.
Is to every body like i think.
my thoughts.
best
I’ve cut vintage figures before, just not expensive rare ones. Usually they have to be damaged, but not if they have one part I need, or they are cheap and abundant.
I wouldn’t say cut up Johnny Ringo or Matt Dillon or Custer even., I don;t care how funny the bases looks in the diorama.
yes i agree with you ,not any rare i will ever do unless destroyed.But other i will .
I know you had done with skillful hands Ed.
best
A few years back, a guy who has since died, bought some guys entire collection and more than half of the figures had their bases cut off. He cut the bases off of Untouchbales , Ben Hur and just about any kind of Marx figure you could think of, I think I cried a little.
That’s SICK and SADISTIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If he cut Johnny Ringo, PLEASE do NOT tell me that.
No, he didn’t have a Johnny Ringo, but he cut the stands of Barzso character figures and Marx too, the lesser character figures. Not the holy trio though. It still made me sad though.
Years ago I bought seven large bags of 54-60mm figures that had belonged to a serious wargamer. Ben Hur, 100’s of Captain Gallant FFL and Arabs, Untouchable gangsters, 60mm Fort Apache Cavalry, old Airfix, old Crescent, old Lonestar and many more potentially expensive original figures. They all had the bases meticulously removed. The bases were replaced by painted attached cardboard bases. Yet he didn’t paint the figures.
I think I paid maybe $30 for the lot. Maybe I got a deal and… maybe not.
Wargamers generally to that to place figures in large trays bases in set to move then easy in tables.At wargamers conventions you can get big deals off .the 1.32 scale had been increassely used resently by them. I had been there before but hard to follow x me now because jobs else
Best
It has taken me years and years (and years) to get up the gumption to take a knife to one of my precious guys and convert; geez, the first time I painted up one of my Marx Ft Apache guys (54mm pioneers and “cavalry”) for my Alamo I couldn’t believe I’d done it to an ORIGINAL, it was enough to do copies or recasts or whatever. Damaged guys no problem, otherwise just newer issue figures and I have to have a LOT of copies to keep pristine.
Right now I’m debating splitting my Marx Germans and painting a portion of them to set up and use and retiring others in their mint conditions. It may be a moot point, at the rate I’m going I might never get to painting 54mm WW2.
The thought of taking stands off – even for a diorama… there HAS to be a better solution, I think.
You could always remove the paint later, even from hard plastic figures. Pour some brake fluid into a sealable glass pickle jar and let the figure soak in it for a week or two. It will soften and dissolve the dried paint without harming the figure.
I’ve seen what brake fluid does to car paint and it ain’t pretty.
Personally, I would NOT paint or convert an original vintage figure that was in mint condition. (One exception was I did buy a bunch of Rubenstein shot falling cowboys for real cheap specifically to convert them, but can’t think of any others.) I will convert damaged regular or character figures. I actually look for damaged figures at good prices specifically to convert, such as a recent damaged Wyatt Earp. There are plenty of damaged figures for conversions to not have to sacrifice good figures. I will buy brand new figures specifically to convert.
Although I do alot of converting and painting I would never do that with a Rare or expensive figure, I wouldn’t be able to forgive myself.
Nice work Peter.
You are an inspiration to all of the converters out there.
I agree that I am hesitant to cut apart a vintage figure but I have no problem with a broken or damaged figure.
Thanks for sharing your ideas & work.
I was at the Indiana Toy Soldier Show a few years back when that hoard of figures with the bases carefully removed was unveiled.
Everybody was puzzeled at what collector would do such a thing. The only answer provided was that some dioramist thought the figures appeared to better effect in his detailed dioramas without the bases.
I remember, to my shock, there were large numbers of Atlantic 60mm Old West figures in the piles and bags of figures where the bases had been artfully cut off. The figures were perfect in every respect — but, no bases. I also remember most collectors were no longer interested in buying them, and the prices were going for about five cents on the dollar of normal market prices.
The missing bases would make the figures less ‘collectable’, but for making conversions they would be a gold mine for sure.
I think you are right.
I buy these damaged figures and sell them to people who are going to use them for conversions. I have been very sucessful with this.
Many are opposed to even painting original Marx figures.