Talk:Julie Guthrie Boxed Sets

From Lost Minis Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Looks like the Lords of Decay set used proper names, looking at the box insert.
Wonder if Lords of Light is the same

The statement about these figures being recycled from the AD&D line is incorrect. The first two sets were entitled 'Best of Julie Guthrie' and were re-releases of various figures from the 7xx and 8xx Julie Guthrie Fantasy Personalities ranges, with one additional new figure in each of those two sets. The second two sets were all new figures.
The Lords of Light set did name the figures like the Lords of Decay set did, I have an ebay image of the box insert that shows the names though they are not legible enough to actually read.
Grenadier did release figures in the individual blister packs beyond #8157. I'll see if I can dig up some details, but these were figures from the 'Lords of ...' boxed sets. These may have been late in the game and may not have appeared in any catalogs. At least in some cases, these figures were modified form the original box set versions, where the individual pack verions had cast on weapons whereas the Lords-of boxed set had open handed figures and an accompanying weapons sprue. These additional post-8157 figures are the source of the 'extra' figures that showed up in the Emporers Choice and subsequent Mega Miniatures releases.
FWIW, I'm not sure that I would capitalize MEGA in references to Mega Miniatures. Mr. Lauck himself doesn't reference the company name as MEGA miniatures (he wrote the intro blurb on the Mega Miniatures catalog page) ...
I made some updates. Dug out a copy of the Lords of Decay set I had on hand and realized that those figures were marked with G- codes same as the figures from the 7xx series. Annoted those with those codes and sorted them by that order. Would like to do the same for the Lords of Light set, but don't have the source material to do so. Added the post 8157 codes information to the II page, those are confirmed I've seen the blister packs with those codes. Note that the two Lords of sets contained open handed figures, so the Mega miniatures versions are the same as the originals. The catalog/inset scans muddy the issue since they show pre-assembled figures.
The below listing fragment makes me think it would be a good idea to just make a new page oriented around the Mega miniatures codes (i.e. sorted / grouped by the DEAL codes). Just make a new page 'Julie Guthrie Personalities (Mega Miniatures)' or some such and list them all out.


Mysticat: "Just make a new page 'Julie Guthrie Personalities (Mega Miniatures)' or some such and list them all out." That's what I am currently working on... and the Mega-ordered list below is part of it. I will use what filenames I know are in other sets, but perhaps use a mega-named file for those that don't come with the weapons - Like "Death by Strangulation." This will make it very easy for me to just bomb away at uploading pics from Mega. And yes, from now on, I'll un-allcap the word Mega. I'll see if I can't dig up a nameset for the Lords of Light and Decay sets. ~ Mysticat, still learning, but hopefully making a good dent. :) (Hope I'm not making you work too hard running after me with worry. ;))

No worries, those were changes I had intended to make for some time anyway and had forgotten about. Regarding using different images in a Mega miniatures-centric listing for the figures without weapons, I wouldn't do that. The Mega miniatures releases are exactly the same (barring changes in the base markings) as the originals and so it makes sense to me to use the same images, i.e. have the MM page point at the existing grenadier image names. Note that I reset the image names on the Julie Guthrie boxed set page, so the image names referred to below (the G-flbs-... names) are not the ones you want to be using in such a listing.


I agree that the originating company should define the filenames and have the credit for their figs and that subsequent manufacturers pages should reference the originating company's pics - if the figs are EXACTLY the same. Mega's are the same as the Grenadiers, with very few exceptions, like the "Death by Strangulation" fig which comes with no weaponry. In such a case, I would say the words should reflect the original manufacturer as well as list the difference, but the pic should NOT be used on the new manufacturer's page in that case. For instance, the Grenadier version of Mega's "Death by Strangulation" should have the Grenadier pic of the weaponed fig, with a note to say Mega produces it with no weaponry, while the Mega gallery should list the Mega pic w/o weaponry in a mega filename, with the description referencing the Grenadier original with the note that it came with weapons. Are we on the same wavelength? If so, perhaps this point should be put in the Rules and Conventions page so that pics don't get overwritten. I would like to see all figs have all their re-release cross-referencing eventually, and I will be working to show the ownership track as well. ~ Mysticat

To be clear, the original Grenadier version of the figure also does NOT have any weapons as part of the casting, it was open-handed same as the MM release. In other words, the two castings are identical between the original and the MM reissue. If you put the two side by side you would not be able to tell the difference between them. This is why I thought that the two should just share the same picture slot.

The Grenadiers came with the weapon on a sprue, though, and I feel the pic should reflect that fact. The Mega figs may not come with the weapon, and their pics should reflect that, too, don't you think? Otherwise, it's misleading. Grenadier never put any figs in their catalogues that didn't come with the weapons in the pic. Mega wouldn't dream of advertizing a pic with the weapon if it didn't come with it (unless specifically stating that it didn't come with the weapon). I think we should be as diligent about this as the vendors are, otherwise we are misleading those who buy figs off ebay or elsewhere and use this place for a reference. ~ Mysticat

I see. In this particular case, I think it is fine for the Grenadier listing to show the open handed figures, along with a slot to show the weapon sprue alongside in its own slot. I don't think that there is a strictly right way of structuring things regarding assembled vs. unassembled figures. In some cases like this, I think it is just fine to show the open handed figures alongside the loose weapons and let the reader fill in the blanks. The 8801d dwarf photo in that Lords or Light listing for example seems like a great photo to me, and is arguably a plus in that it makes it clear that the figure comes that way vs. the preassembled version that you see in the catalog scan. Also, in this case there isn't a clearly right way to assemble the figure as there is no particular weapon that is 'correct' for a given figure in the set. In other cases, say the Dunwich Detectives Byahkee with the separate wings, showing an assembled figure in the primary list seems more compelling since the multi-partedness of the figure is more fundamental. Though in those cases, it is nice when there is a separate, probably secondary image, showing the pieces and parts. In the case of those Byahkee nothing today makes it very obvious that they are actually multi-part figures. You'll find both forms (unassembled vs. assembled) in various places on the wiki especially for larger things like dragons and whatnot. Neither approach is wrong.
Personal tools