Staggeringly insulting vendors!

[Speedbird]

other rants

I think the Khaki rant by ATF is quite funny and I have heard that Jerry at WPG is sometimes grumpy, but that in no way is any different to many proprietors of small businesses, especially in our particular niche it seems. We have a few choice examples in the UK. Warhorse springs to mind. It seems to be the nature of the beast - if you care enough to want to make and sell authentic old stuff, you are probably a grumpy old man in the first place!

I think as customers we probaby are quite a challenging bunch too - everyone of us is like the proverbial "opinions are like a$$*****" sometimes. The stitch counters are generally amusing and harmless but sometimes annoying - they have been known to drive gentle placid souls insane with rage at events and meet-ups. If I had a pound for everytime I heard a carefully put together (within the realms of budget and availability of items) impression disparaged by some oversized visually challenged geriatric superdooper paratrooper adorned with every conceivable accessory looking like a walking QM stores (you all know the sort, right?) I would be a rich man; rich enough indeed to buy a LW A-2.

What particularly got my goat with LW is that the man clearly knows a good jacket when he sees one and makes a fine rendition of said jacket. That ought to be enough to stand by. The ranting and raving in his case is not funny - it is rabid and offensive. Everyone I am sure is sick to death of the nanny state and excessive PC-ness and a bit of honest to goodness venting of spleen down the pub with a few mates is a good thing, but I swear this 'Stu' chap could start a fight in an empty room!!!

Anyway, I off to talk to some men (and women) about what other men (and women) are buying, selling, wearing, eating, drinking, driving or working on. If I get lucky I might learn something new......

 

[Tommydean]

I myself find some of those "rants" funny as well. At the Front's "Rant" archive (action dolls) is one that is really good and i had cramps from laughing it was so funny. I am in other hobbys and there is one of these guys in almost every vendors page, some are funny and some are insulting.
Tom

 

[Speedbird]

THANKS for flagging up the other ATF rants...

I really enjoyed reading through some of those! I had only ever read his Khaki rant before and thought it was both funny and informative. I didn't realise he had a whole archive of other 'rants'.

For my money, he is bang on with with his Living History rant - I had touched on this in another post previously (to do with a cav hat). I used to do ACW re-enacting but I moved away from that because it was becoming less and less 'fun'. I made friends with a couple of guys and formed an Indian Wars 7th Cav re-enactment group (my thinking was that, since the only uniform thing about the 7th in 1876 was that there was no uniformity, the stitch nazi's couldn't ruin my day! I was wrong, of course.... [huh] ). We were pretty good but the main man and founding member was absolutely convinced that 'Living History' was something different and better than 're-enactment' and couldn't be convinced otherwise. Anyway, I quite liked the shooty-shooty gun-ny bang-bang (what ATF calls 'bustin' caps') aspects of the hobby as well as the dressing up fetish but my leader didn't think that was authentic enough, so it got binned. And thus it became less fun and less entertaining for everybody concerned.

ATF is right, the 'not dead not historians' are misguided. As a concept, living history is both delusional and flawed. The only people who come close to it in my experience are the seriously hardcare re-enactor types fondly considered in the book 'Confederate in the Attic' by Tony Horwitz. But those guys are just plain nuts. Generally speaking, re-enactment is more honest and accurate as a descriptor than Living History. Just as a good reproduction is more honest and accurate in spirit than something copied to the n-th degree. I am sure that will get a few hackles up, but the only conclusion I have drawn regarding 'History' is that there is no 'History' [capitals deliberate and required] - only perception and interpretation. Archaeology is incontrovertible but only the perceived interpretation of the artefact, its 'history', can inform us of anything - and one thing is for certain, perception and interpretation are fluid.

As for the fat rant, that is genius! It is truthful, it is well informed and is instructional.

 

[scotrace]

Yes, this has been covered before.

And I think we've covered it this time.