Thank you, all, for your comments. While this is my first figure review, I attempted to bring the same thoroughness and willingness to take a stand to it that I do in my armor reviews, which also rest on consultation with authoritative sources. If I have in any way come up short, it's my mistake and no one else's.
Rudi, I regret if I made it seem as though coat flaps were a breakthrough. I picked them out as an example of how styrene manufacturers have improved their work in recent years. In this particular kit, that includes using separate faces instead of just heads, a separate hand instead of molding it to the arm (though not on all the hands), etc. When I write a review, it's with an aim of reaching the average hobbyist, and not the specialist, so I can never be as up-to-date as yourself. I don't follow all the styrene figure makers, and certainly not other scales!
As to these being "generic" figures, I take exception with that as a license to have vague uniforms. It leaves the consumer in a no-man's-land of "neither this, nor that." Dragon's other recent figure sets have been specifically Waffen SS. If these aren't WSS, then presumably they're Heer, since I don't recall too many units that were designated
artmaessig ("generic"). If Dragon didn't want to be specific to a unit, that's fine. But if the intention was to blur the distinctions and just come up with Winter infantry riding a tank, I still think that my critique holds. The figures can be adapted to WSS, but they also should be good for regular army. Hence my question about the boots!
Quoted Text
For me the lack of PE weapon straps is a non-event as these are hardly ever supplied in figure sets anyway.
An older set of DML "Volkssturm Berlin 1945" I purchased for a small dio included a fret of steel wire-rimmed glasses! It seems Dragon has regressed from that simple, but charming addition. A fret of PE may be unusual, but it's not unrealistic to ask for it. Manufacturers improve their products when consumers (and reviewers) make these kinds of observations. Slings are hard to scratch-build to a proper thickness, and AM PE slings are relatively uncommon. ABER and Verlinden have sets, but they're something your have to hunt around for.
Mark, I will respectfully disagree. While Dragon has really upped its game, styrene simply cannot match
the best resin at this stage, at least the figures I have purchased. Some resin follows the rule "garbage in, garbage out"-- if the sculpting is inferior, then the resin just recreates that inferior sculpting. But when it's done right, resin still offers sharper details and finer molding. But it's not a fair comparison: this styrene kit of four figures retails for around $10-$12. Most resin figures from top makers like Alpine go for AT LEAST $15 PER SINGLE FIGURE. A duo from Tahk, for example, sells for $25-$30. This set is a very good alternative to resin, especially for those who can't afford it. And in terms of poses, I actually prefer these over the "heroes of the Soviet people" poses favored by Alpine. Those static, standing "heroric" sculpts are fine if your figure is the focus of the build, but for many modelers, figures are the supporting cast in a diorama that features an AFV or two.
Finally, Ron-- I realize it might seem annoying to have your decisions questioned, but as a reviewer, it's my job to "call 'em as I see 'em." I carefully looked into the issue of footwear, and even asked Rudi offline for his take on things. Despite his demurring on my conclusion (and saying "if he did it that way, it must be correct), and after much soul-searching, I decided that the footwear issue deserved metioning, though I did not reduce the overall score of the set because of that. There were other factors ("Gen 1" weapons, only bare metal helmets, single painting option). And while felt boots are correct according to you, you did not answer my query of why not ankle boots, which seem to be more common, at least in the photos I consulted? I can presume it was because boots are easier to mold in styrene than laces, but I'm speaking for you, and not hearing what your reasoning was (other than "because I did it that way, it must be correct").
While I respect your position and your research, you remind me of a potential Hall of Fame baseball player who feels "if I don't swing at it, it must be a ball and not a strike." Calling a point into question then prompts discussions like this, which (despite Julien's opinion) are good for the hobby, because they get us thinking about these questions. The resources I consulted (which are far from definitive) told me a different story than yours; it might be helpful if you cited a few of yours so we the ignorant could enlighten ourselves. If my sources are defective (and they very well might be), then please offer some books the rest of us can look at to know where I got it wrong. I'm perfectly willing to admit my failings, but I like to know where they are- and not just "I know better than you."
And very lastly, I really appreciate constructive criticism, and I hope my answers have not appeared defensive or prickly. If so, I assure you that was not my intent.