A single Historex figure at the turn of the century was -- $14.99. The last reissue of the Airfix 54mm saw them at $9.99 each. That was over ten years ago. If released today they'd easily retail for $15 to $20 each. Yet, looking at other posts $25 is reasonable for a 1/72 armor kit? I'll stick to $14 figures.

Typical Master Box four, or more, figure sets from only 1, or 2, years ago regularly go for $10 - $15 USD. Their recent North American Native figure sets (2 figures) go for $7.46 USD. That's just under $10 CAD - still half the price of these newer releases!

Hey, EVERYONE! There are several new photos of these ACW figures and a Confederate Cavalry set. PLUS, there are several photos of sprue-shots of the ACW figures and of the 1/24 Ming Dynasty figure, over on "THE MODELLING NEWS Official Site"...

Nice idea, but the accoutrements are not 100% accurate. The box drawings are actually more-accurate than the figures. In the case of the "End of War" pair, the Reb is carrying what looks like a wooden Gardner canteen (acceptable), while the Union soldier ALSO has a wooden canteen (totally inaccurate). The Union soldier's cartridge box is early war English issue, not acceptable for 1865 (the correct box appears in the drawing from what I can see). The Johnny Reb has an English box as well, which is POSSIBLE but highly unlikely. The Union soldier's cap box is accurate in the drawing, but inaccurate in the casting. "A Quick Rest" has the soldier leaning on a 2-band rifle, which were rare among the rank & file. The Union out-produced the South in long arms from a string of arsenals such as Springfield, MA (whose museum is outstanding for anyone interested in Civil War-era guns). The Springfield 1861 and 1863 were three-banded rifled muskets, and were the backbone of the Union infantry. Also, his knapsack is a Mexican War hard pack, again, inaccurate for anything but very Early War. By 1863 most Union troops were wearing soft-sided double bag knapsacks made from painted cloth and leather hardware. I did almost 20 years of Civil War reenacting on both sides as both an infantry snuffy, an NCO and an officer, but can't comment on the Union cavalry accoutrements.

Thanks, Bill! Dedicated figure-modelers shouldn't have much trouble in correcting what you've pointed out. Perhaps if said figure-modelers used the box illustrations as their guides, AND your information, better results can be achieved when constructing and painting these figures. If we wanted to split hairs, some Union and Confederate soldiers went to war with their own "home-supplied" accoutrements, especially in the volunteer units. I'm not arguing what you've said; quite ghe contrary... MB has chosen to "model" a couple of these figures as belonging to specific Union units, so I think that your observations are about 99.999% correct! Congrats on being a real "Eagle-eye"!!! PS- I always wanted to get into ACW reenacting. I was on my way to accumulating a Union Field-Grade or General Officer's Uniform. Who knows? We might have met "on the Field of Battle", so to speak... Also, I was going to start going to the Mid Atlantic Air Museum as a reenactor, in their annual "D-Day Weekend" to-do. I own a very nice collection of US, British and German WWII Officers' Uniforms; the amputation of my right leg precluded any such endeavors back in 2010 and also for the foreseeable future...

Thanks, Bill! Dedicated figure-modelers shouldn't have much trouble in correcting what you've pointed out. If we wanted to split hairs, some Union and Confederate soldiers went to war with their own "home-supplied" accoutrements, especially in the volunteer units. I'm not arguing what you've said; MB has chosen to "model" a couple of these figures as belonging to specific Union units, so I think that your observations are about 99.99% correct! Congrats on being a real "Eagle-eye"!!! [/quote] The illustration versus the sculpt is strange. The Yank tunic in the sculpture seems too short for a sack coat but too long for a shell jacket. Actually looks like a chasseur jacket as worn by certain zouave regiments late in the war. The illustration has boots, the sculpture has leggings like a zouave? That would also explain the strange equipment as some regiments maintained their own individual sources of supply? As for the Reb all bets are off. I just have a pile of books and the Yank looks like a plate of a private from a zouave regiment.

Thanks, Bill! Dedicated figure-modelers shouldn't have much trouble in correcting what you've pointed out. If we wanted to split hairs, some Union and Confederate soldiers went to war with their own "home-supplied" accoutrements, especially in the volunteer units. I'm not arguing what you've said; MB has chosen to "model" a couple of these figures as belonging to specific Union units, so I think that your observations are about 99.99% correct! Congrats on being a real "Eagle-eye"!!! [/quote] The illustration versus the sculpt is strange. The Yank tunic in the sculpture seems too short for a sack coat but too long for a shell jacket. Actually looks like a chasseur jacket as worn by certain zouave regiments late in the war. The illustration has boots, the sculpture has leggings like a zouave? That would also explain the strange equipment as some regiments maintained their own individual sources of supply? As for the Reb all bets are off. I just have a pile of books and the Yank looks like a plate of a private from a zouave regiment. [/quote] Hi, Steve & Everyone Else! To add to what Steve and Bill have already mentioned, consider this: While it's true that Billy Yanks were better-supplied than Johnny Rebs, I mentioned earlier that there were Union Volunteer Units (Regiments) that supplied their own accoutrements, and I should have mentioned that some of these Volunteer Regiments supplied their own Uniforms, sometimes even at the Regiments' Commander's own expense. There were times when the men of BOTH Union and Rebel armies were forced into long, protracted campaigns which took a mighty toll in not only their Uniforms, but their shoes, weapons and EVERYTHING ELSE that one could think of. Soldiers from BOTH sides scavenged among their enemies' and their OWN dead and wounded, just to survive. And then, there was looting the surrounding civilian populace. There were even Rebel Units that fought garbed in "Union Blue" and Union Units that fought in "Rebel Gray", not to be confused with the Rebels' "Butternut Gray", which wasn't GRAY at all. WHO KNOWS WHAT MAY have transpired which wasn't recorded for posterity..? Zouave articles of clothing? Of COURSE they were worn, even if the "Snuffies" weren't Zouaves! All manner of headgear was worn as well- How many different styles and designs of ACW Kepis were there, even within Squad-sized units of BOTH sides? Wow many "Slouch" hats, Derbies/Bowlers, straw Boaters or Skimmers, hard Kossuth Hats or even cut-up womens' Bonnets. Trousers? The possibilities are nearly endless when one considers the hardships that ACW Soldiers had to endure while on campaign. Leggings were also worn on both sides, whether they were the "lace-up" or the "button-up" kind. Shoes wore out so quickly that Commanders on both sides complained to their superiors and Quartermaster-Generals in Washington and in Richmond on an almost daily basis... The short answer is, "We'll Never Know WHAT EXACTLY the Men of the American Civil War Wore At Any Given Time", except when these details were meticulously recorded. Naturally, there is photographic, hand-drawn and painted evidence, but the latter two were created "on-the-spot", and more accurately, "from memory". And of course, there are actual surviving articles of clothing, weapons, accoutrements, printed and written documentation to go by. Even as recently as TODAY, Soldiers around the world STILL manage to show even the slightest bits of individuality in their dress and equipments... I'm ready and willing to "correct" any outright falsifications or mistakes when it concerns my modeling needs. I'm lucky enough to have gained the experience in being able to do so. Making any changes or corrections on these figures will pose NO problems for yours truly...

Masterbox...thank you, more dismounted cavalry, more mounted cavalry engaging, and gun crews please..! Thank goodness we have the Civil War in 1/35 growing. LOVE IT..! Hope detail is improved though...ie cavalry boots with the higher top (as per box art, figure render is lacking), muskets in the earlier kits lack the cocking lever height which makes them look like a normal rifle (why I used the Dragon muskets on my figures instead). Carbines produced by MB are nice, just the muskets need some work.

Technically all the units of the CW were volunteers raised by the States and "mustered-in" to the army. If you are talking 1861, then some variation would be OK for these things you describe, but very quickly, at least in the North, a certain amount of uniformity was introduced by the depot system. That meant that when the US arsenals like in Watervliet or Springfield could not supply all the accoutrements needed, contractors were tasked with doing so. There were variations: for example, the union tin canteens were smoothsided and some had "bulls eye" raised rings on them. And there was a certain amount of variability in the long arms (everything from War of 1812 muskets converted to percussion all the way up to Enfield rifles imported from England). But the notion that "anything goes" is one we had to fight in Civil War reenacting. By 1862-63 all Union Army units were being supplied by the Army; I don't know of any evidence that Zouaves were being supplied by anyone else. They dressed for the most part in regular Army-issue clothes with the exception of things like leggings. Their flaming-red pantaloons and fezes were too tempting for sharpshooters.