What Scale is any figure line really? (1 Viewer)

[Spitfrnd]

In a recent, now closed, comparison thread there were some comments made about the relative scale of First Legion and other Napoleonic figures that caused me to revisit my old nemesis, figure scales. As as has been discussed on various scale threads before, various manufactures advertise various scales or sizes in manners that are hardly consistent and all to frequently confusing. Also in those threads, the problem of using figure height to convert to scale was noted since this requires a knowledge of the actual average real height a company is using, which is rarely, if ever, disclosed. In the last K&C thread on this, Ken made a good theoretical point that if you use the size of a item that does not change, as in a vehicle or weapon, then you can Divine the scale from that.
http://www.treefrogtreasures.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11858&page=2
For Napoleonic, he used the example of a Brown Bess, which should be 58.25 inches (1479.55mm) in real life. So I thought I would get out the calipers and metal ruler and see how what I could find from what I have on hand.

Almost all my figures have tallish hats, so the most accurate consistent measurement I could take was a sole to eye height. Some experts suggest that that is how all figures should be measured anyway but that is also not consistent for what it is worth.

For sole to eye, I can up with the following average full standing sole to eye heights for my Napoleonic figures across 4 companies (in increasing size.

First Legion 55 mm
Britains 55 mm
C Showcase 56 mm
K&C 59 mm

Since I have British for each I also measured their brown bess muskets and got the following:

First Legion 48.75 mm
Britains 51.5 mm
C Showcase 47.5 mm
K&C 48.75 mm

Now while I only have one bareheaded figure, it is sufficient to give me a rough average measurement of 4mm to 4.3mm (implied for K&C)

If the Brown Bess is really 58.25 inches ((1479.55mm) then this implies the following scales:

First Legion 1/30.3
Britains 1/28.75
C Showcase 1/31.2
K&C 1/30.3

Now while I only have one bareheaded figure, it is sufficient to give me a rough average measurement of 4mm to 4.3mm (implied for K&C)

This would give figure sole to head heights of

First Legion 59 mm
Britains 59 mm
C Showcase 60 mm
K&C 63.3 mm

Using the Brown Bess indicated scales, this would suggest a proxy real human height for these figures of

First Legion 5ft, 9in (1770mm)
Britains 6ft, 4in (1696mm)
C Showcase 6ft, 2in (1872mm)
K&C 6ft, 3.5in (1918mm)

Well these are possible assumptions but except for First Legion, these seem unlikely, which either means that the Brown Bess sizes are not accurate. So what if we used assumed real person heights of 68 to 72in (5ft, 8in - 6 ft)? This would suggest the following scales:

First Legion 1/29.3, 1/29.9, 1/31
Britains 1/29, 1/30, 1/31
C Showcase 1/28.75, 1/29.5, 1/30.5
K&C 1/27.3, 1/27.9, 1/28.9

So what does all this mean? I have no idea other than what I knew when I started. First Legion and Britain are about the same scale and CS and K&C are respectively larger scales under the same assumptions. What scale, well your guess is as good as mine but it would appear that First Legion and Britains are 1/30, CS 1/29 and K&C 1/28, if you ignore the weapons. Have a headache yet, I did? I also confirmed that for me scale statements are largely unhelpful and of all size statements, the sole to eye one is likely the best. However, this says nothing about bulk which is a lot harder to measure consistently. Thus will consistently stated heights can get you close, the best you can really do is compare figures with your eyes. After all, that is what they have to satisfy in any event.

 

[petebuster1]

Well you have been busy but some interesting finds in all that lot.
I've always questioned the scale issue accuracy and i think you've shown that better than i could have or to be honest would have just confused myself.
Not a lot between them but think it shows K&C as being oversized and bulk another issue as well as their inconsistent hand,head sizes but better not go into that again,dont want another thread shortened
As suspected and no suprise shows FL as the most accurate,and to the eyes most detailed and consistent,well done Spitfrnd all very interesting

 

[FirstLegion]

In a recent, now closed, comparison thread there were some comments made about the relative scale of First Legion and other Napoleonic figures that caused me to revisit my old nemesis, figure scales. As as has been discussed on various scale threads before, various manufactures advertise various scales or sizes in manners that are hardly consistent and all to frequently confusing. Also in those threads, the problem of using figure height to convert to scale was noted since this requires a knowledge of the actual average real height a company is using, which is rarely, if ever, disclosed. In the last K&C thread on this, Ken made a good theoretical point that if you use the size of a item that does not change, as in a vehicle or weapon, then you can Divine the scale from that.
http://www.treefrogtreasures.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11858&page=2
For Napoleonic, he used the example of a Brown Bess, which should be 58.25 inches (1479.55mm) in real life. So I thought I would get out the calipers and metal ruler and see how what I could find from what I have on hand.

Almost all my figures have tallish hats, so the most accurate consistent measurement I could take was a sole to eye height. Some experts suggest that that is how all figures should be measured anyway but that is also not consistent for what it is worth.

For sole to eye, I can up with the following average full standing sole to eye heights for my Napoleonic figures across 4 companies (in increasing size.

First Legion 55 mm
Britains 55 mm
C Showcase 56 mm
K&C 59 mm

Since I have British for each I also measured their brown bess muskets and got the following:

First Legion 48.75 mm
Britains 51.5 mm
C Showcase 47.5 mm
K&C 48.75 mm

Now while I only have one bareheaded figure, it is sufficient to give me a rough average measurement of 4mm to 4.3mm (implied for K&C)

If the Brown Bess is really 58.25 inches ((1479.55mm) then this implies the following scales:

First Legion 1/30.3
Britains 1/28.75
C Showcase 1/31.2
K&C 1/30.3

Now while I only have one bareheaded figure, it is sufficient to give me a rough average measurement of 4mm to 4.3mm (implied for K&C)

This would give figure sole to head heights of

First Legion 59 mm
Britains 59 mm
C Showcase 60 mm
K&C 63.3 mm

Using the Brown Bess indicated scales, this would suggest a proxy real human height for these figures of

First Legion 5ft, 9in (1770mm)
Britains 6ft, 4in (1696mm)
C Showcase 6ft, 2in (1872mm)
K&C 6ft, 3.5in (1918mm)

Well these are possible assumptions but except for First Legion, these seem unlikely, which either means that the Brown Bess sizes are not accurate. So what if we used assumed real person heights of 68 to 72in (5ft, 8in - 6 ft)? This would suggest the following scales:

First Legion 1/29.3, 1/29.9, 1/31
Britains 1/29, 1/30, 1/31
C Showcase 1/28.75, 1/29.5, 1/30.5
K&C 1/27.3, 1/27.9, 1/28.9

So what does all this mean? I have no idea other than what I knew when I started. First Legion and Britain are about the same scale and CS and K&C are respectively larger scales under the same assumptions. What scale, well your guess is as good as mine but it would appear that First Legion and Britains are 1/30, CS 1/29 and K&C 1/28, if you ignore the weapons. Have a headache yet, I did? I also confirmed that for me scale statements are largely unhelpful and of all size statements, the sole to eye one is likely the best. However, this says nothing about bulk which is a lot harder to measure consistently. Thus will consistently stated heights can get you close, the best you can really do is compare figures with your eyes. After all, that is what they have to satisfy in any event.

Wow, even I have never done such daunting mathematical comparisons. Speaking for First Legion figures, though there are small variations in figure height of a mm here or there, our figures are actually TRUE 1/30th scale. 60mm from the sole of the shoes to the top of the head (head, not hat) is a 6 ft tall man. Thus all of our ranges are actually True 1/30th scale. The reason that we have listed them on our website in a broader (and smaller) category of 54mm is because a) we just wanted to give people the approximate size of the figures so as not to be confused with 40mm, 90mm, etc... and b) so many people seem to think that K&C figures are 1/30th, that we thought this might confuse people, as our figures are a little bit smaller than theirs. The fact of it is, however, is that our figures are true 1/30th scale while K&C figures are a bit larger than this. I don't know about CS or Britains as I've never owned any save for some WWII Britains several years back, which if I recall were smaller than K&C figures.

I'd been wanting to point this out in the other thread where that gentleman from down under kept saying our figures were smaller than this, but I figured it would all be lost on him anyway, so I decided not to get involved.

Regards,

Matt
First Legion Ltd

 

[petebuster1]

Wow, even I have never done such daunting mathematical comparisons. Speaking for First Legion figures, though there are small variations in figure height of a mm here or there, our figures are actually TRUE 1/30th scale. 60mm from the sole of the shoes to the top of the head (head, not hat) is a 6 ft tall man. Thus all of our ranges are actually True 1/30th scale. The reason that we have listed them on our website in a broader (and smaller) category of 54mm is because a) we just wanted to give people the approximate size of the figures so as not to be confused with 40mm, 90mm, etc... and b) so many people seem to think that K&C figures are 1/30th, that we thought this might confuse people, as our figures are a little bit smaller than theirs. The fact of it is, however, is that our figures are true 1/30th scale while K&C figures are a bit larger than this. I don't know about CS or Britains as I've never owned any save for some WWII Britains several years back, which if I recall were smaller than K&C figures.

I'd been wanting to point this out in the other thread where that gentleman from down under kept saying our figures were smaller than this, but I figured it would all be lost on him anyway, so I decided not to get involved.

Regards,

Matt
First Legion Ltd

Matt you should have gone for it and had your say never been certain of kc scale but think you've got it spot on and now we all know what 1/30 scale should be.

 

[FirstLegion]

Matt you should have gone for it and had your say never been certain of kc scale but think you've got it spot on and now we all know what 1/30 scale should be.

If I thought I could have kept my comments to merely figure height, I probably would have, but I had a lot more to say than that. I figured it was a stone best left unturned.

 

[Steven Chong]

One variable between manufacturers is that there is no industry standard on how to measure the height of figures. Some manufacturers use sole of feet to eye while others use sole of feet to top of head. Given most Napoleonic figures have various headgear of varying heights, there is no way to check to accurately check the scale height of the figure if the manufacturer uses top of the head. Other manufacturers then add in the fact that not every soldier was the same height to explain variations in the height of their figures in the same theme or series.

Using 1479.55 mm as the actual length of a full scale Brown Bess, then the musket should be the following scale lengths:

1/32: 46.24 mm
1/31: 47.73 mm
1/30: 49.31 mm

While I might be wrong, I think only K&C's WWII lines are confirmed to be 1/30 scale, with the actual scale of the other K&C lines not mentioned but assumed to be either a "large" 1/32 scale or 1/31 scale.

Using Spitfrnd's measurements for Brown Bess' of various manufacturers:

First Legion 48.75 mm (2.51 mm too long if 1/32, 1.02 mm too long if 1/31, 0.56 mm too short if 1/30)
Britains 51.5 mm (5.26 mm too long if 1/32, 3.77 mm too long if 1/31)
C Showcase 47.5 mm (0.23 mm too long if 1/31, 1.81 mm too short if 1/30)
K&C 48.75 mm (1.02 mm too long if 1/31, 0.56 mm too short if 1/30 scale)

Now if Britains are 1/32 scale as advertised, then their Brown Bess' are the most out of scale. Matt just posted that 1st Legion is supposed to be 1/30 though the website states 54mm (or 1/32). I personally think they are 1/32 but accepting his statement means 1st Legion is slightly out of scale. K&C's Napoleonic figures are all noticeably smaller in scale than the WWII figures, so if they are supposed to be 1/31 scale, then K&C is also out of scale but not as bad as Britains. If C Showcase is supposed to be the same scale as K&C and we assume it is 1/31, then C Showcase is the closest to the scale length of a Brown Bess.

Again assuming that Spitfrnd's measurements are correct, does this make everyone want to get rid of their various figures and get only the figures of the manufacturer with the most actual scale muskets?

Ultimately, it is a subjective decision by each collector on what features are important in the figures they purchase. Forum members need to realize that their subjective reason for buying or rejecting a figure might not be shared by other members and learn to acknowledge there other differing opinions.

 

[FirstLegion]

One variable between manufacturers is that there is no industry standard on how to measure the height of figures. Some manufacturers use sole of feet to eye while others use sole of feet to top of head. Other manufacturers then add in the fact that not every soldier was the same height to explain variations in the height of their figures in the same theme or series.

Yes, but whether you measure to eyes or the top of the head doens't matter. To the eyes, 1/30th is 58mm, to the top of the head, 1/30th is 60mm. So where you measure to has little bearing. The bottom line is that 60mm = 6ft tall in 1/30th scale. Of course, not everyone is the same height, but as a generality that's the way it works.

While I might be wrong, I think only K&C's WWII lines are confirmed to be 1/30 scale, with the actual scale of the other K&C lines not mentioned but assumed to be either a "large" 1/32 scale or 1/31 scale.

I would have no idea about this. What I do know is that the K&C figures I've seen are all a good deal larger than true 1/30th scale. Of course, scale is just a label and it matters not whether the individual parts of a figure match with the label you give them, it only matters whether the entire figure and all parts are in proportion (and even this doesn't matter to most).

Using Spitfrnd's measurements for Brown Bess' of various manufacturers:

First Legion 48.75 mm (2.51 mm too long if 1/32, 1.02 mm too long if 1/31)

That's right. Because, as i just said in my response below, they're true 1/30th scale!

Now if 1st Legion and Britains are 1/32 scale as advertised, then their Brown Bess' are the most out of scale.

That's wrong. Because, as i just said in my response below, they're true 1/30th scale!

Ultimately, it is a subjective decision by each collector on what features are important in the figures they purchase. Forum members need to realize that their subjective reason for buying or rejecting a figure might not be shared by other members and learn to acknowledge there other differing opinions.

With this, I fully agree! Everyone should just buy what they like, scale be ****ed!

Regards,

Matt
First Legion Ltd

 

[Steven Chong]

Yes, but whether you measure to eyes or the top of the head doens't matter. To the eyes, 1/30th is 58mm, to the top of the head, 1/30th is 60mm. So where you measure to has little bearing. The bottom line is that 60mm = 6ft tall in 1/30th scale. Of course, not everyone is the same height, but as a generality that's the way it works.



I would have no idea about this. What I do know is that the K&C figures I've seen are all a good deal larger than true 1/30th scale. Of course, scale is just a label and it matters not whether the individual parts of a figure match with the label you give them, it only matters whether the entire figure and all parts are in proportion (and even this doesn't matter to most).



That's right. Because, as i just said, they're true 1/30th scale.



Didn't i just say that our figures are in fact true 1/30th scale?



With this, I fully agree! Everyone should just buy what they like, whether it's in scale or not!

Regards,

Matt
First Legion Ltd

I was writing my post when yours went up. When I saw your comments, I amended my original post.

 

[FirstLegion]

I was writing my post when yours went up. When I saw your comments, I amended my original post.

Hate it when that happens!

Actually, though we list the figures as "54mm" for the reasons I specified, we do have a "scales" page on our website that discusses this issue.

 

[thebritfarmer]

I believe the Britains figures are marketed as glossy 54mm and matte 58mm

 

[Harrytheheid]

I believe the Britains figures are marketed as glossy 54mm and matte 58mm

I have no desire to get too involved in this discussion as it seems to hit some members "Hot Button" and I've seen it deteriorate into petty squabbles too many times on this forum.
However, I distinctly remember my old granddad telling me that way back in the early 1970's Military Modelling Magazine in the UK defined 1/32 scale figures as being 54mm from the top of the base to the eyes. Which suggests that FL figures are spot-on as 1/30 scale.
In addition, although human beings come in all shapes and sizes, as Ken Clarke has stated - the equipment doesn't. So as long as items such as for example, helmets, rifles, swords, etc, are properly proportioned to the advertised scale of any particular manufacturer's products - then I for one can't see why discussion of this issue seems to raise such passions (and blood pressure). It does seem to result in some overly-emotional responses, that's for sure.

Regards
Harry

 

[UKReb]

The scale size of various manufacturers figures really only becomes apparent when you try to mix them in a display-then unfortunately in a lot of cases the differing height/girth/weapon scale becomes very obvious.

Reb

 

[Harrytheheid]

The scale size of various manufacturers figures really only becomes apparent when you try to mix them in a display-then unfortunately in a lot of cases the differing height/girth/weapon scale becomes very obvious.

Reb

Yippee......Three Cheers for some common sense.

That is the one and only time when scales as advertised by manufacturers gets to be a pain in my particular neck. I had a similar conversation over on the ATS thread about mixing ATS Crimea with K&CUK Crimea - it seems it won't work too well.
Personally, I don't actually care too much if there's slight variences in scale - as long as it doesn't look stupid. For example, you can successfully mix some figures that are claimed to be 1/30 scale with some of FoV's 1/32 scale FAV's and it looks okay. Having said that, if you don't pick the right figures and the right FAV to go with them, then yes, it can look daft.
Of course, the camera can be made to lie. Depends on angles, where you place certain figures in a diorama, and so on.

These are painted metal miniature figurines that we collect, and as such, our hobby is a niche one compared to the 1/35 plastic scale modelling hobby, for instance. And it seems to me that this entire issue of scale is a spillover from the plastic modelling world. Whether we like it or not, until such time as the manufacturers get together and thrash out some STANDARD scale - there will always be some variences between different company's products.
And can you see that happening My Good & Gracious Grey Man..?? Naaaah, neither can I.

Regards
Harry

 

[skeeterbuck]

Before typing this reply, I looked to make sure that this was indeed the "TOY" Soldier Forum and not the "SCALE" Soldier Forum.

I think that for myself, I would rather look at my collection as expertly done toy soldiers than poorly done scale figures. JMHO

 

[Spitfrnd]

One variable between manufacturers is that there is no industry standard on how to measure the height of figures. Some manufacturers use sole of feet to eye while others use sole of feet to top of head. Given most Napoleonic figures have various headgear of varying heights, there is no way to check to accurately check the scale height of the figure if the manufacturer uses top of the head. Other manufacturers then add in the fact that not every soldier was the same height to explain variations in the height of their figures in the same theme or series.

Well yes in part Steven. As I noted, for Napoleonics especially it is best to measure from sole to eyes. Nearly ever line has at least one bear headed figure so you can get, as I did, a pretty fair representation of sole to head by measuring eye to head and sole to eye and adding the two.
Yes, as variations in figure height can be explained in part by differences in person heights but most lines do not vary this very much so we are really talking average person height for these purposes.

Using 1479.55 mm as the actual length of a full scale Brown Bess, then the musket should be the following scale lengths:

1/32: 46.24 mm
1/31: 47.73 mm
1/30: 49.31 mm

While I might be wrong, I think only K&C's WWII lines are confirmed to be 1/30 scale, with the actual scale of the other K&C lines not mentioned but assumed to be either a "large" 1/32 scale or 1/31 scale.

Using Spitfrnd's measurements for Brown Bess' of various manufacturers:

First Legion 48.75 mm (2.51 mm too long if 1/32, 1.02 mm too long if 1/31, 0.56 mm too short if 1/30)
Britains 51.5 mm (5.26 mm too long if 1/32, 3.77 mm too long if 1/31)
C Showcase 47.5 mm (0.23 mm too long if 1/31, 1.81 mm too short if 1/30)
K&C 48.75 mm (1.02 mm too long if 1/31, 0.56 mm too short if 1/30 scale)

If your math is correct, I think you are saying by reference to the musket what I said by reference to the scale implied by the musket.

Now if Britains are 1/32 scale as advertised, then their Brown Bess' are the most out of scale. Matt just posted that 1st Legion is supposed to be 1/30 though the website states 54mm (or 1/32). I personally think they are 1/32 but accepting his statement means 1st Legion is slightly out of scale. K&C's Napoleonic figures are all noticeably smaller in scale than the WWII figures, so if they are supposed to be 1/31 scale, then K&C is also out of scale but not as bad as Britains. If C Showcase is supposed to be the same scale as K&C and we assume it is 1/31, then C Showcase is the closest to the scale length of a Brown Bess.

I don't see how you came up with part of your conclusions. As I noted, the musket indicated scales are
First Legion 1/30.3
Britains 1/28.75
C Showcase 1/31.2
K&C 1/30.3

Thus First Legion and K&C are the closest to 1/30 by that indicator, and CS is closer to 1/29 and Britains 1/28. If these implied scales are applied, all but the First Legion real person heights would be rather tall. If K&C Napoleonics are supposed to be 1/31 (I think they are actually 1/28) then the musket indicator would show that they miss that and if First Legions scale is supposed to be 1/30 then they are closest by themselves. This would be consistent with the height measurement results (1/29.9) for an average person of 5ft, 9 1/2 inches (the middle number in my range of three given under that category).

I would note that I initially said nothing about who was closest to anything. I just noted my measurements and the relative indicated scales. I did not do this to criticize anyone; simply to note that some commonly stated notions do not test out.

I also question whether 54mm equates to 1/32. That depends on whether you are using the tip of the head or the eyes and once you decide that, what average person height you are assuming. 54mm to the eyes is 58 to 59 mm to the head which would give you an average person height of 1740-1770mm, which as I noted is 5ft, 9 inches in change. That is a reasonable average height for European military males in the 19th century.

Again assuming that Spitfrnd's measurements are correct, does this make everyone want to get rid of their various figures and get only the figures of the manufacturer with the most actual scale muskets?

Ultimately, it is a subjective decision by each collector on what features are important in the figures they purchase. Forum members need to realize that their subjective reason for buying or rejecting a figure might not be shared by other members and learn to acknowledge there other differing opinions.

I am not sure what in my post prompted that remark? I said nothing about my reasons, subjective or otherwise and specifically noted that each persons own eye would be the best guide. As Joe would say, just the facts [sir][ma’am], just the facts.

 

[Spitfrnd]

I have no desire to get too involved in this discussion as it seems to hit some members "Hot Button" and I've seen it deteriorate into petty squabbles too many times on this forum.
However, I distinctly remember my old granddad telling me that way back in the early 1970's Military Modelling Magazine in the UK defined 1/32 scale figures as being 54mm from the top of the base to the eyes. Which suggests that FL figures are spot-on as 1/30 scale.
In addition, although human beings come in all shapes and sizes, as Ken Clarke has stated - the equipment doesn't. So as long as items such as for example, helmets, rifles, swords, etc, are properly proportioned to the advertised scale of any particular manufacturer's products - then I for one can't see why discussion of this issue seems to raise such passions (and blood pressure). ....

Well there is no reason to be emotional about simple observations; on, over or under. Let's see if we can avoid that here.

You may be right about the 1970 UK reference. As I noted, I have seen 54mm (or other mm measurements) to mean those taken from the sole to the eyes. For the reasons I noted, this makes sense to me and it is why I assumed First Legion called their figures 54mm, since that is pretty much what they measure to the eyes.

The scale size of various manufacturers figures really only becomes apparent when you try to mix them in a display-then unfortunately in a lot of cases the differing height/girth/weapon scale becomes very obvious.
....

Absolutely mate, which was one of my conclusions from all this. The eyes definitely have it here. I was thinking that the numbers would be more disparate given what my eyes were telling me. It does seem that while height is significant, body girth is more so.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Before typing this reply, I looked to make sure that this was indeed the "TOY" Soldier Forum and not the "SCALE" Soldier Forum.

I think that for myself, I would rather look at my collection as expertly done toy soldiers than poorly done scale figures. JMHO

As oft said, beauty is in the eye...... I personally dislike the term "toy" (although I appreciate the history) as applied to what these little lads (and lasses) cost and to me part of being expert is being consistent with your representations of reality. Scale is a large part of that I think.

 

[FirstLegion]

Before typing this reply, I looked to make sure that this was indeed the "TOY" Soldier Forum and not the "SCALE" Soldier Forum.

I think that for myself, I would rather look at my collection as expertly done toy soldiers than poorly done scale figures. JMHO

I guess we'd rather try to produce excellent scale figures and sell them at "TOY" soldier prices. No reason you can't have the best of both worlds!

Regards,

Matt
First Legion Ltd

 

[thebritfarmer]

Thought I would add this here.....all Britains all "1:32/ 54mm" and ranging in date from the 60's up to 2000.

What is weird is that the riders all seem to be about the same size, only the horses are different sizes. Take each figure seperatley and they each look ok. It's only when you group them they look out of scale (with each other and themselves)

 

[Spitfrnd]

Thought I would add this here.....all Britains all "1:32/ 54mm" and ranging in date from the 60's up to 2000.

What is weird is that the riders all seem to be about the same size, only the horses are different sizes. Take each figure seperatley and they each look ok. It's only when you group them they look out of scale (with each other and themselves)

That is interesting but to be fair, there is a range of horse size, just as there is for people.
The minimum current official size for horses is 14.2 hands (1480mm) but certainly ponies reasonably ridable by adults can be 14 hands (1422mm) or less. Riding horses can also be 18.2 hands or more (1879mm), which would give more than a 30% range in height. This is much akin to human males which can range from less than 5ft to more than 6ft, 8 inches (also more than 30%). Maybe we should say it is not the height but how you use it.