1/6 DID NS80175 U.S. Civil War Union Army Lieutenant – John Dunbar (Kevin Costner, Dances with Wolves) + E60076 1/6 Horse (Cisco)

[Chambea1114]

This is super cheap for a 1/6 warhorse $100 on US retailors.

I wonder what characters DiD would realisticly do to utilize the horse mold again

I'm holding out for QRange to make my French cuirassier but this gives me hope maybe someone at DiD wants to redo their old figure with a horse to go along with him this time.

 

[Asta]

This is super cheap for a 1/6 warhorse $100 on US retailors.

I wonder what characters DiD would realisticly do to utilize the horse mold again

I'm holding out for QRange to make my French cuirassier but this gives me hope maybe someone at DiD wants to redo their old figure with a horse to go along with him this time.

View attachment 704591

I thought Kit's price was cheap (including delivery, which wouldn't have been cheap due to the size of the box), but was surprised when I saw DID's own pricing for the item itself:

MSRP: USD 99.99/pcs (Shipping, VAT and duty are NOT included.)

It doesn't seem possible they could offer it for that considering everything that comes with it:

On BBICN someone claimed it was a Mr. Z horse, which may be true as other companies have also re-used their moulds. I can't imagine DID doing that without authorization, so if it is then Mr. Z likely supply direct to other companies.

The only horses I remember DID making themselves were the hairy ones that resembled the style of those old plaster animal ornaments covered in deer skin.

They made both standing and rearing versions, and I never thought much of them as I preferred sculpted:

 

[Asta]

I haven't found a matching Mr. Z model, nor one from another company.

The closest Mr. Z I saw was labelled 'Thoroughbred', but the head was turned, the musculature sculpt different, and no ribs showing. In fact the ribs on DID's make it quite distinctive.

The Alert Line WWII German horse was also suggested on BBICN as being similar, but again it's not the same.

Searching 1/6 American Quarter Horse didn't provide any candidates either, so it appears Cisco was commissioned by DID.

 

[Mr.NoCredit]

I’ve never known DiD to use anyone’s anything in the past. They are a solid company with more than 20 years behind them. Everything they produce comes from in house. They started back in 2003 and every figure they produce is top tier. They’re serious about the level of quality they produce. InArt has made some good impressions with some of their figures but DiD has been at it longer, is every bit as good and never scrimps on production. You can’t go wrong with Dragon in Dreams. I don’t think there’s another company that does a better job with military figures and accessories. (Just my opinion)

 

[Asta]

I’ve never known DiD to use anyone’s anything in the past.

That would've been surprising if it turned out to be true.

They are a solid company with more than 20 years behind them. Everything they produce comes from in house. They started back in 2003 and every figure they produce is top tier. They’re serious about the level of quality they produce. InArt has made some good impressions with some of their figures but DiD has been at it longer, is every bit as good and never scrimps on production. You can’t go wrong with Dragon in Dreams. I don’t think there’s another company that does a better job with military figures and accessories. (Just my opinion)

DID are probably the most consistent military manufacturer. They have less failures, and those failures are often evident in the promo images and get carried through to production, rather than arising from the production process itself.

Facepool are likely their closest equals.

Alert Line are capable of very good finished product.

Ujindou blow hot and cold, sometimes falling down with their historical research.

Ace was excellent, though I only know them from their Vietnam figures and I don't think they've done anything recently.

Haven't had a DAM (aka VTS) military figure for a while. Their earlier releases had a flimsy quality to weapons and gear, and would tend to fall apart.


QORange is an interesting company. They've delved into more unusual topics, and are the only other making American Civil War at the moment.

 

[Asta]

A little light reading...

https://archive.org/details/regulationsinstr00mccl/page/n3/mode/2up

Regulations and Instructions for the Field Service of the U.S. Cavalry in Time of War by George B. McClellan, Major-General, U.S. Army (1861)


Searchable PDF copy:

https://ia601600.us.archive.org/15/items/regulationsinstr00mccl/regulationsinstr00mccl.pdf

 

[Asta]

A complaint that's surfaced several times is that the horse looks too small.

Judging by photos from the film he looks pretty accurate in terms of height.

I used DID's image with the dimensions to estimate what height the horse would be in real life, and it calculated to about 14.84 hands.

McClellan didn't specify a minimum height in his Regulations. He wrote only:

There should be regulations determining approximately the height, age, conformation, and qualities that the horses should possess...

When I went searching for the answer it eventually turned up in a Wikipedia page, drawn from an 1864 document:

Union army guidelines for cavalry horse selection mandated animals be at least 15 hands (60 inches (150 cm)) high, weighing on average around 950 pounds (430 kg), and aged between 4 and 10 years old, and be well-broken to bridle and saddle. Animals were to be dark colors and free from defects such as shallow breathing, deformed hooves, bone and bog spavin, or ringbone. Geldings were preferred for cavalry horses with the purchase of mares strictly prohibited outside absolute military emergency, while stallions' volatility and aggressiveness made them generally unsuitable for service. In the Confederacy, limited horse numbers did not permit such selectivity in trying to keep their armies horsed.[31]

31. National Archives, RG 92, Quartermaster Department Circular, "Instructions for Inspectors of Cavalry Horses," February 5, 1864; Gerleman, David J. "Warhorse! Union Cavalry Mounts." North and South Magazine (January 1999)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry_in_the_American_Civil_War


The difference between 14.84 and 15 hands is only 2.57 mm in 1/6, so either way (film or history), the horse appears fairly close.

The more prominent variation from the guideline is that the horses playing Cisco were buckskin in colour, rather than "dark".


In the article, Cavalrymen and their Horses during the American Indian Wars, Lee Farren highlights that the guidelines were only preferences, and that circumstances dictated that they couldn't always be followed:

Each trooper was assigned a horse, and the trooper often kept the same animal throughout his enlistment. Officers purchased their own mounts, preferring well-bred stock from Virginia or Kentucky. Each might have a charger, trotter and an all-around riding horse.

Army-purchasing boards, comprised of a quartermaster and one or two regimental officers, bought horses from ranchers and civilian breeders. The Civil War depleted the country’s supply of quality horses, so the boards often accepted mustangs or stock bred from Morgan or Thoroughbred stallions and mustang mares. Though the horses’ quality was often unequal, the military generally obtained good horses at fairly reasonable prices… Sometimes the selection was limited. At one point, General George Crook, after losing hundreds of horses, mounted fifty troopers on captured American Indian ponies.

The cavalry preferred solid-colored horses, and assigned them by color so that a regiment would have a bay company, a sorrel company, a chestnut company, etc.

M company, the last in the military alphabet, received the leftover roans, piebalds and pintos, along with the nickname the “Calico Troop” or the “Brindles.”

The 3-inch letters “US” were hot-branded on new horses’ left shoulders. Additional hoof brands identified each animal’s unit.

https://newprairiepress.org/cgi/vie... preferred solid-colored,” or the “Brindles.”

 

[Ombudsman]

Excellent research! Yes, the horse looks pretty accurate to me as well. Especially considering it’s an Army issue horse. You got what you got. Now if it matches the Hollywood horse and modern expectations of what a horse should look like, dunno. Up to the individual.
I live in Arizona, am an amateur historian on the side and a former reenactor, if that helps give my thought any value.

 

[Asta]

This figure put me in the mood for some US Cavalry movies, so I decided to start with the four John Ford/John Wayne classics:

Fort Apache (1948)​

She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949)​

Rio Grande (1950)​

The Horse Soldiers (1959)


Watching Fort Apache immediately got me thinking about the yellow cavalry stripes on the trousers. In Ford's movies they're wide and prominent on all NCOs and officers. On Dunbar they're very narrow.

The regulations from 1861 are found in this Wikipedia entry:​

Trousers​

• These were sky blue with tin buttons. NCOs had a dark blue (infantry), red (artillery), crimson (ordnance and medical) or yellow (cavalry and engineers) stripe down the leg. The stripes were a half inch wide for corporals, and an inch and a half wide for sergeants and higher rank.[8]
• Regimental officers wore sky blue trousers with an eighth inch welt in the color of the arm of service. Staff officers wore dark blue with a gold welt.[9] Generals and all officers of the Ordnance Department wore plain dark blue trousers.

8. US Army General Order No. 6, March 13, 1861, Paragraph 28 and 29
9. US Army General Order No. 6, March 13, 1861, Paragraph 26

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniforms_of_the_Union_Army#cite_ref-8

Privates had no stripes at all, which John Ford got correct.


DID have it correct on Dunbar as a pinstripe - I don't know why the regulations referred to it as a "welt", as the modern definition of a "welt" with regards to trousers "is a strip of fabric used to cover or bind one or both edges of a pocket opening."


EDIT:

After I hit post something else turned up, referring to M1876/84 NCO & Officer Cavalry Trousers. The regulations were apparently reversed some time after the Civil War:
​

Corporal 1/2 inch

Sergeant 1 inch

Officer 1 1/2 inch

It would make sense as I'd previously been reading this:
​

JOHN FORD'S CAVALRY TRILOGY: MYTH OR REALITY?

A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE

by JEFFREY C. PRATER, MAJ, USAF

B.S., United States Air Force Academy, 1975

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 1989
​

The popular image of the frontier cavalry is also tied to the prominent yellow-striped campaign trousers. The striped cavalry fatigue pants in the 1870s were full-length, light blue trousers worn stuffed into the boots. Uniform tailoring on the frontier was available, but was an expensive luxury. This could explain why so many photographs of the period show full cut trousers instead of the film's nicely tailored pants. The width of the stripe indicated, in general terms, one's rank as well as pattern. Privates in the film are correctly depicted without stripes on their trousers. Ford also correctly uses double stripes on the bugler's trousers. He might have gotten this idea from artist Charles Schreyvogel's double-striped bugler. All the evidence indicates the campaign pants in the film belong to the 1872 pattern.​

The only fault they picked up on was that the stripes were the same width for all NCOs and officers:

As in Fort Apache, however, the troopers still wear shirts and suspenders not authorized nor generally observed until the eighties. Some men did wear suspenders prior to the army issues in 1883, but not throughout the ranks as depicted. As mentioned previously, officers did not wear suspenders or shoulder straps affixed to their shirts during this period. Also, the stripes on the trousers are all incorrectly the same width.​

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA211796.pdf

(That's a fully searchable pdf).


1872 may have been the year the regulations changed, as that was the year the US Army changed to a new uniform:

http://www.buffalosoldiers-washington.com/1872GeneralOrders92.pdf
​

TROUSERS.

For General Officers, Officers of the General Staff, and Staff Corps. Dark blue cloth, plain, without stripe, welt, or cord.

For all Regimental Officers of Cavalry, Artillery, and Infantry: Light blue cloth, same shade of color as prescribed for enlisted men, with stripe one and one-half inches wide, welted at the edges; color, that of facings of their respective arms, except infantry, which will be dark blue.

...

For Enlisted Men of all Arms and of the Ordnance Department: Sky blue mixture, pattern now worn; waistband three and a half inches wide, to button with two buttons in front; pockets in front, opening at top.

Sergeants to wear a stripe one inch Wide, color of facings ; and Corporals to wear a stripe one-half inch wide, color of facings, except Infantry, which will be dark blue.​

​