Why does 1/30 scale lead in Toy Soldiers? (1 Viewer)

[katana]

1/30 scale has more companies making finished soldiers and armor than the more traditional 1/32 scale. Britains and Unimax produce AFV's in 1/32; while Collectors Showcase, Figarti, First Legion and King and Country produce 1/30 scale AFV's. Honor bound used to make 1/30 AFV's in the recent past and Thomas Gunn looks as if it may in future. All but one of these manufacturers have begun 1/30 scale production in just the last 5 years. The trend seems clear and expansion of the 1/30 scale market will probably continue with more and better quality products.

Larger scales offer more detail in the model and the detail is more easily seen and appreciated. 1/30 scale evolved from traditional 1/32 scale. !/30 scale parallels the evolution of the European standard of 1/25 scale (70MM) developed in Germany by Hausser and Lineol. More detailed Artillery and Vehicles were desired and these two companies produced wonderful tinplate models that ran on clockwork motors and the Artillery actually fired caps and projectiles. Modern 1/30 scale manufacturers have exceeded the quality of these antique Toy Soldiers and continue to innovate new features.

 

[trooper]

1/30 scale has more companies making finished soldiers and armor than the more traditional 1/32 scale. Britains and Unimax produce AFV's in 1/32; while Collectors Showcase, Figarti, First Legion and King and Country produce 1/30 scale AFV's. Honor bound used to make 1/30 AFV's in the recent past and Thomas Gunn looks as if it may in future. All but one of these manufacturers have begun 1/30 scale production in just the last 5 years. The trend seems clear and expansion of the 1/30 scale market will probably continue with more and better quality products.

Larger scales offer more detail in the model and the detail is more easily seen and appreciated. 1/30 scale evolved from traditional 1/32 scale. !/30 scale parallels the evolution of the European standard of 1/25 scale (70MM) developed in Germany by Hausser and Lineol. More detailed Artillery and Vehicles were desired and these two companies produced wonderful tinplate models that ran on clockwork motors and the Artillery actually fired caps and projectiles. Modern 1/30 scale manufacturers have exceeded the quality of these antique Toy Soldiers and continue to innovate new features.

Must disagree with your opening statement. There is well over a hundred companies producing figures world wide, and the few you have mentioned are the only ones producing 1/30th scale. The remainder are producing the more conventional scales, therefore they contradict your comment. You are most likely correct in saying that the 1/30th scale will expand, but I would think that it will only be new companies. Those makers who already have large ranges of 1/32nd scale are unlikely to suddenly change.

 

[DMNamiot]

I'm with Trooper here as well, there are a lot of other companies out there producing excellently sculpted and detailed figures in the more standard size. Not that there is anything wrong with the 1/30th scale(I do own some) but its isnt my scale of choice. I would say it probably depends upon the eras you collect and the style of figures you prefer for WWII you certainly have mentioned the current big guns. However dont limit youself check out other makers and see what other possibilities exsist.

Dave

 

[lancer]

The whole beautiful glossy side of this hobby hasn't been touched by the 1/30 scale movement. -- Al

 

[katana]

I'm with Trooper here as well, there are a lot of other companies out there producing excellently sculpted and detailed figures in the more standard size. Not that there is anything wrong with the 1/30th scale(I do own some) but its isnt my scale of choice. I would say it probably depends upon the eras you collect and the style of figures you prefer for WWII you certainly have mentioned the current big guns. However dont limit youself check out other makers and see what other possibilities exsist.

Dave

Dave; Acknowledged that 1/32 predominates presently in soldiers, but not in Armor. Granted also that Armor infers WWI & WWII. Tooling to manufacture Armor is a major expense and the companies making the investment and innovations in Armor today are 1/30 scale manufacturers. The increase in product quality also favors 1/30 scale as exemplified by First Legion; who has adapted the high quality painting style of the Russian Artists to their Stalingrad line. The trend seems to favor 1/30 while 1/32 seems static in terms of innovation. A repeat of the history of Toy Soldiers in the 1930,s

 

[binder001]

It seems that 1/30th became more popular as King & Country has grown. As the K&C brand has gained more desireability" and has sparked interest from many collectors, then more manufacturers have gone to "K&C scale" which happens to be somewhere in the 1/30 range.

As far as WW2, you are right, the newest lines of armor and artillery tend to go 1/30th. Even several of the "54mm" manufacturers have gone to a larger 54mm size (such as Britains WW2, OTNC, Conte). Except for some landing craft and one German AT gun, Conte is purely figures and terrain, TSSD doesn't do vehicles, so tere just isn't much competition in 1/32nd scale. For a selection of tanks and artillery you have to go 1/30th.

This is reminiscent of the plastic armor industry in the latre 1970s. Airfix and Monogram had gone to 1/32nd scale while Tamiya championed 1/35th. Tamiya's quality improved and they produced a flood of 1/35th figures and tanks. Then Italeri started producing an excellent line of tanks in 1/35th and the scales tipped sharply in that direction, never to return. Airfix and Monogram got out of the tank kit business, and the Japanese (now Chinese and Korean) companies have dictated the marketplace.

Right now, in WW2 stuff, we have lost 21st Century and the annual FoV releases can be counted on the fingers of one hand. OTNC produces a few WW1 tanks and very rarely we get a WW2 tank or gun from Britains. Meanwhile we are treated to new WW2 releases at least every other month from K&C plus the releases from Figarti, CS, Gunn, etc. The scales are tipping to 1/30th scale for WW2 collectibles and that has carried into some other historical eras as well. 1/32 (54mm) is far from dead in most areas but it is gravely wounded in the WW2 models. 1/30th sets the terms in the WW2 area, the 54mm guys can only wish they could catch up.

Gary B.

 

[trooper]

The question asked, and the title of this thread, is why does 1/30 scale lead in toy soldiers? The answer is that it doesn't. However, in terms of armour I agree. The main reason is capital. Most small companies cannot afford the time and expense involved in setting up a new assembly process and are content to continue with their own plans rather than trying to jump on the bandwagon, after all WW2 is not the only period of military history to interest collectors.

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi Katana,

Good and valid points on the Armor. I agree that some of the companies out there doing WWII armor are just amazing several vehicles pop to mind, Figarti's Panzer IV with sideskirts, New Model Army before they went under produced a beautiful Tiger 1 in Grey (I have one and really love it) and the Stug and Panzer III done by First Legion appear to be top notch and I am considering getting back in to Armor because of their detail. I am not happy with the details or mistakes I have seen in details like unit markings or mis markings but those sorts of things can be corrected. So I will say that while you are correct about the Armor, there are just too many companies making great sets and figures in the more standard scale to say that 1/30 is the leader. but I like this sort of discussion because it is just that a discussion and not some shrill shouting how great 1/30th is and the rest of you are fools if you dont see it. So tanks for a good discussion topic.

Dave

 

[Currahee Chris]

..... So tanks for a good discussion topic.

Pun intended??

(In a shrill voice) "You are quite foolish to overlook all 1:30th scale armor"

 

[katana]

The question asked, and the title of this thread, is why does 1/30 scale lead in toy soldiers? The answer is that it doesn't. However, in terms of armour I agree. The main reason is capital. Most small companies cannot afford the time and expense involved in setting up a new assembly process and are content to continue with their own plans rather than trying to jump on the bandwagon, after all WW2 is not the only period of military history to interest collectors.

When I stipulated lead I intended it to mean lead in innovation or in setting new standards not in quantity. I should have been more clear in my terms.
New products in the 1/30 scale seem to be attracting new companies that are more innovative than the older established companies. Figarti has done subjects like the V2 series that have only been done in plastic kits. First Legion has adapted 1/32 St. Petersburg Collection quality to 1/30 scale figures. New companies will be attracted to the larger scale.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Hi Katana,

Good and valid points on the Armor. I agree that some of the companies out there doing WWII armor are just amazing several vehicles pop to mind, Figarti's Panzer IV with sideskirts, New Model Army before they went under produced a beautiful Tiger 1 in Grey (I have one and really love it) and the Stug and Panzer III done by First Legion appear to be top notch and I am considering getting back in to Armor because of their detail. I am not happy with the details or mistakes I have seen in details like unit markings or mis markings but those sorts of things can be corrected. So I will say that while you are correct about the Armor, there are just too many companies making great sets and figures in the more standard scale to say that 1/30 is the leader. but I like this sort of discussion because it is just that a discussion and not some shrill shouting how great 1/30th is and the rest of you are fools if you dont see it. So tanks for a good discussion topic.

Dave

I don't want to digress to the "scale" discussion again but I don't know what is more standard anymore. Britains matt, AeroArt and First Legion figures are the same size from my collection. Britain's glossy are smaller and K&C and CS are larger. So to me, the large guys have more sales at present but the smaller guys are increasing in popularity. I am reluctant to even mention (again) which ones are which scale.

 

[trooper]

I don't want to digress to the "scale" discussion again but I don't know what is more standard anymore. Britains matt, AeroArt and First Legion figures are the same size from my collection. Britain's glossy are smaller and K&C and CS are larger. So to me, the large guys have more sales at present but the smaller guys are increasing in popularity. I am reluctant to even mention (again) which ones are which scale.

Just for a change lets mention some other companies rather than K&C, Figarti, First Legion etc etc which seem to dominate every thread imaginable. Some British companies which have each been going for many years and are well established. Asset, Yeomanry Miniatures and the Lancer range from ATS are all true 54mm ie from the soles of the feet to the top of the head, NOT to the eyes as some misguided people assert. Tradition, ATS, and Little Legion are all slightly larger (58mm). Between them these six companies produce a massive quantity of figures covering almost every conflict the world has seen and yet we scarcely ever see a mention of them. Lets hear it for the little men every now and then.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Just for a change lets mention some other companies rather than K&C, Figarti, First Legion etc etc which seem to dominate every thread imaginable. Some British companies which have each been going for many years and are well established. Asset, Yeomanry Miniatures and the Lancer range from ATS are all true 54mm ie from the soles of the feet to the top of the head, NOT to the eyes as some misguided people assert. Tradition, ATS, and Little Legion are all slightly larger (58mm). Between them these six companies produce a massive quantity of figures covering almost every conflict the world has seen and yet we scarcely ever see a mention of them. Lets hear it for the little men every now and then.

Well Troop you should mention those little guys whenever you can. Except for ATS, I know virtually nothing about any of them so no slight intended. We each have to look to what we know. As to which measurement is misguided I couldn't say. I have heard each used about equally.

I found it interesting that you said ATS was 58mm to the head. That would make them pretty close to Britains mat and FL, which measure 58 to 60 mm to the head or 53-55 mm to the eye. I have always heard they were smaller than that. Can anyone post a size photo comparison of ATS and Britains mat?

 

[Martin Tabony]

What ever size you like your figures, why on earth would you only measure them to the eyes and not the top of the head?

Martin

 

[Spitfrnd]

What ever size you like your figures, why on earth would you only measure them to the eyes and not the top of the head?

Martin

Well I don't care how you measure them Martin but the issue is the accuracy of the measurement. If you have a bare head, it doesn't matter and either would do fine. If not, as is common for soldiers, you have to estimate where the top of the head actually is under whatever head covering you may have. In that case, it is more accurate to measure to the eyes, then from the eyes to the chin and add the two measurements. One constant about human anatomy is that the eyes are dead center in the head. So the only reason for any measurement convention is to be able to accurately perdict which will fit with which if you do not have the luxury of seeing them first side by side. Honestly I gave up some time back and ended up buying one of something I was considering to see how it really fit since the reported measurements more often appear almost meaningless.

 

[glossman]

It would appear that measurement from the soles of the feet to the eyes (rather than to the top of the head) would be an accurate method.

There are many figures with headgear which would preclude determination of the exact position of the top of the head.

The eyes are anatomically constant in position on the face of most figures and present one of two convenient points of measurement.

I am not insisting which is the correct method; rather I am expressing my thoughts on the method of measurement which seems more accurate.

Raymond.

 

[Fort-Stamford]

Scale Guide I use in Military Modeling

6' (From top of Head to bottom of feet) Model Soldier Height guideline

12mm = 0.48" = 1:150 scale
25mm = 1.00" = 1:72 scale
54mm = 2.16" = 1:33 scale
75mm = 3.00" = 1:24 scale
90mm = 3.60" = 1:20 scale

Remember that individuals from various parts of the world from various periods of time had average heights ranging from 5'6" (e.g. Romans) to 6'2" (e.g. Zulus), impacted by genetics, diet, etc. Also consider selection process for various military units which had standards that in many cases were closely adhered to; for example Imperial Guard Units / Foot Guards where 6'+ was the ideal height, and remaining military units fell below that mark. So as a collector you can have latitude in your individual scales. Soldiers were also robust and well fed in the beginning of a campaign (fresh troops), and then also thinner or leaner (veteran troops) and sometimes mal-nourished by the end of a campaign. This variation is acceptable among your troops. In a nutshell don't get too hung up on whether one trooper is larger then another. As to mounted troops here again size varies from 14 to 16 hand high heavy shire horses used in the middle ages (mounted knights), for pulling equipment, and for mounted Cuirassier and Heavy Cavalry units; to smaller leaner mounts for faster mounted units like Lancers, mounted Archers, and Hussars. For Cossacks and Mongols, they used small sturdy high endurance mounts from the Stepps. 1:32 scale allows for average troops to be slightly shorter then 6ft. in height which would be the norm for the 17th to 20th Century. Slightly larger scaled (60mm) figures created by AeroArt, and like-in-kind firms are what I classify as Model Soldiers to be displayed in their own right by themselves. Measuring the 54mm scale to the Eyes, is it appears is now being used by Britains, Collectors Showcase, John Jenkins (Sudan series), and Conte in order to facilitate a standard for collectors in their matte painted figure dioramas or mixed displays; while 54mm scale to top of head is being relegated to classic gloss figures.

 

[Martin Tabony]

Well I don't care how you measure them Martin but the issue is the accuracy of the measurement. If you have a bare head, it doesn't matter and either would do fine. If not, as is common for soldiers, you have to estimate where the top of the head actually is under whatever head covering you may have. In that case, it is more accurate to measure to the eyes, then from the eyes to the chin and add the two measurements. One constant about human anatomy is that the eyes are dead center in the head. So the only reason for any measurement convention is to be able to accurately perdict which will fit with which if you do not have the luxury of seeing them first side by side. Honestly I gave up some time back and ended up buying one of something I was considering to see how it really fit since the reported measurements more often appear almost meaningless.

This might be the start of the confusion though! Whenever I've been measured it has always been with my boots off, and measured to the top of my head (including the Guards Depots as Fort Stamford said) The other problem is talking about 54mm or 60mm as a scale! Surely that is a size, 1/32 or 1/30 is a scale as in thirty times smaller than the real thing. Would it not help if everyone talked about the actual scale then there would be a point of reference that we could all agree upon.

Martin

 

[Martin Tabony]

Re: Scale Guide I use in Military Modeling

6' (From top of Head to bottom of feet) Model Soldier Height guideline

12mm = 0.48" = 1:150 scale
25mm = 1.00" = 1:72 scale
54mm = 2.16" = 1:33 scale
75mm = 3.00" = 1:24 scale
90mm = 3.60" = 1:20 scale

Remember that individuals from various parts of the world from various periods of time had average heights ranging from 5'6" (e.g. Romans) to 6'2" (e.g. Zulus), impacted by genetics, diet, etc. Also consider selection process for various military units which had standards that in many cases were closely adhered to; for example Imperial Guard Units / Foot Guards where 6'+ was the ideal height, and remaining military units fell below that mark. So as a collector you can have latitude in your individual scales. Soldiers were also robust and well fed in the beginning of a campaign (fresh troops), and then also thinner or leaner (veteran troops) and sometimes mal-nourished by the end of a campaign. This variation is acceptable among your troops. In a nutshell don't get too hung up on whether one trooper is larger then another. As to mounted troops here again size varies from 14 to 16 hand high heavy shire horses used in the middle ages (mounted knights), for pulling equipment, and for mounted Cuirassier and Heavy Cavalry units; to smaller leaner mounts for faster mounted units like Lancers, mounted Archers, and Hussars. For Cossacks and Mongols, they used small sturdy high endurance mounts from the Stepps. 1:32 scale allows for average troops to be slightly shorter then 6ft. in height which would be the norm for the 17th to 20th Century. Slightly larger scaled (60mm) figures created by AeroArt, and like-in-kind firms are what I classify as Model Soldiers to be displayed in their own right by themselves.

I found that the problem with making horses is that most people want their figures on thorough breds rather than fell ponies, so realistic horses don't sell.

Martin

 

[Mitch]

Martin...

I think thats some of the problem as some use 54mm whilst other use 1/32nd etc. I got a few comments from raising the fact that on the FL website it states figures are 54mm which, I always believed was more associated with 1/32nd scale but, was abruptly and ridiculously berated by them and told they were true 1/30th scale and by some on this thread.

It would be easier if people used scale only as a reference as I grew up with the 1/32nd and 1/35th scales and what they represented.
Mitch