First Legion: Consistent Scale (1 Viewer)

[Vezzolf]

With some of the recent threads regarding size and scale issues concerning WWII AFV's and figures ..Is it oversized???...Is it 1:28??? Is it 1:30?????:rolleyes2:.....It is good to see that First Legion (and Figarti) are still true 1:30th scale.....I recently purchased the FL Winter Tank riders for the First Legion Winter PanzerIII....Totally Compatible{bravo}}....Totally Balanced....All works together like a fine watch...That's a major reason why I have chosen to limit my purchases to First Legion and Figarti....Hopeful that we will see an FL Winter Tiger or a T-34 released soon.

 

[maddadicus]

With some of the recent threads regarding size and scale issues concerning WWII AFV's and figures ..Is it oversized???...Is it 1:28??? Is it 1:30?????:rolleyes2:.....It is good to see that First Legion (and Figarti) are still true 1:30th scale.....I recently purchased the FL Winter Tank riders for the First Legion Winter PanzerIII....Totally Compatible{bravo}}....Totally Balanced....All works together like a fine watch...That's a major reason why I have chosen to limit my purchases to First Legion and Figarti....Hopeful that we will see an FL Winter Tiger or a T-34 released soon.

Frank and I agree on almost nothing, but this. I owe F/L an apology. Like so many other collectors who thought their WW2 figures were undersized compared with everyone else. Because we assumed that when every other mfg. advertised 1/30 scale, that they were. But there was always those giant figures which made the vehicles too small. I refused to admit the figures were 1/28. It was easier to imagine the vehicles as 1/32. It was CS who made me see the F/L light. They were making 1/30 vehicles, but because they were making 1/28 scale figures, it allowed them a sales marketing tool to get more money from collectors by making 1/28 SCALE TANKS, WITHOUT REALLY TELLING ANYONE. So you heard it from me, buy FL 1/30 figures and they will fit with any other 1/30 scale vehicle offered by anyone, except CS, who just says it on the box..Michael

 

[Alex]

moreover, it's not only the fact that fl figures are 1/30 that matters, it's the fact that fl figures are extremely consistant within one given range.

alex

 

[MapleLeaf]

I tought 54mm was 1/32
Why is FL advertising its figures to be 54mm
I'm i missing something
Any explenation , anybody??
Thank u

 

[Fusilier]

moreover, it's not only the fact that fl figures are 1/30 that matters, it's the fact that fl figures are extremely consistant within one given range.

alex

I have noticed the same thing Alex. The figures I have, from two different ranges, are very consistent in their size.

I tought 54mm was 1/32
Why is FL advertising its figures to be 54mm
I'm i missing something
Any explenation , anybody??
Thank u

This issue has been brought up a number of times. I don't want to answer for Matt, but I would say it is worthwhile to take a look at the scale page on his site. Check it out for his explanation:

http://www.firstlegionltd.com/scale.aspx

Hope that helps.

Noah

 

[fmethorst]

I tought 54mm was 1/32
Why is FL advertising its figures to be 54mm
I'm i missing something
Any explenation , anybody??
Thank u

I think the problem is the traditional association between size and scale and that there is equivalency between the poorly defined toy soldier sizes (i.e. 54mm, 60mm etc. measured from bottom of feet to eyes, bottom of feet to top of head etc.) and the precision ratios that make up scale (i.e. 1:35, 1:32, 1:30 etc.). It has been traditional to make this association but in my opinion it is flawed. If size and scale were truly equivalent and interchangeable we should be able to use the size descriptor to define the scale of objects (i.e. the scale of that Tiger I is 60mm). This is clearly nonsensical since one has to take the additional step of determining the 1:30 association prior to being able measure any of the model's dimensions.

 

[Mitch]

Good post
Mitch

I think the problem is the traditional association between size and scale and that there is equivalency between the poorly defined toy soldier sizes (i.e. 54mm, 60mm etc. measured from bottom of feet to eyes, bottom of feet to top of head etc.) and the precision ratios that make up scale (i.e. 1:35, 1:32, 1:30 etc.). It has been traditional to make this association but in my opinion it is flawed. If size and scale were truly equivalent and interchangeable we should be able to use the size descriptor to define the scale of objects (i.e. the scale of that Tiger I is 60mm). This is clearly nonsensical since one has to take the additional step of determining the 1:30 association prior to being able measure any of the model's dimensions.

 

[mestell]

I have often thought that the discussion of "scale" based on the height of the figure was not exactly the right approach since human beings come in a variety of shapes, sizes and heights. However, the size of the equipement used was a constant and known value. For example, it is well known how long a Brown Bess, Enfield, Springfield, M1, et al were. We also have the size and deminsions of other equipment for example a government issued knapsack, canteen, cartridge box, et al. If all of the equipment for a figure range is made to a specified scale (54mm, 1/32, 60 mm, or 1/30) then the actual height of the figure is unimportant. I would like to see more variations in the heigths and shapes of figures. This can certainly be done as long as the equipment they are sculpted with is of the same scale. Just my thoguhts and ramblings . . .
Mike

 

[Andanna]

Emphasizing one aspect of Frank's post, there is no agreed standard of how to measure 54mm or 60mm. Is it from the base or the shoe sole? Is it the height of the eyes or the top of the hat/helmet? In short, the size of 54mm etc. is rather unscientific and not very useful for equipment. For comparing humans, it might work because of the individual differences.