New Fallshrimjager (2 Viewers)

To be honest I have never had a problem with scale size as long as each series work with each other. To date I have not been disappointed.


I think going back to the initial release of the matte Zulu range it was known that figures were 1:30.
 
Figure size is more important when figures are used with objects of known dimensions. Vehicles, artillery, forifications etc. The figure size placed adjacent to these objects is unrealistic if significantly out of scale. A tank with a 60mm high deck looks unrealistic if the figures chin can rest on the deck! I have 1/30 scale tanks and figures from the same manufacturer where this is the case. A 60mm figure and a 1/32 scale tank are an example. I recently purchased a W. Britains FallschirmJager that was marked 54mm to be used with a 1/32 scale Panzer. The figure measures 60mm high; it is featured in the Figure Comparative Size Chart I posted on the General Matte Discussion thread. I had the same type of Panzer in 1/30 scale, so I was able to use the figure in a realistic display despite the advertising error. Collectors that have purchased W. Britains figures for many years may be aware of the size change; but new collectors may not and rely on the information printed on the box, resulting in dissapointment.
 
I think Ken has done a good job of explaining how the problem evolved at W. Britains and it can only be corrected going forward by informing customers of the new figure size; which Ken has made an effort to do by posting it on the W. Britains website. Distributors need to do the same!

I would not have persued this problem as aggressivly had I not been the recipient of a mislabeled product. I was unaware that W. Britains had changed scale and did not realize it until I actually measured the figure. New collectors are continually entering the hobby and are not privy to insider knowledge. Discussions such as this are valuable in educating new collectors and hopefully resolving these issues with other manufacturers and distributors.
 
katana said:
I would not have persued this problem as aggressivly had I not been the recipient of a mislabeled product. I was unaware that W. Britains had changed scale and did not realize it until I actually measured the figure. New collectors are continually entering the hobby and are not privy to insider knowledge. Discussions such as this are valuable in educating new collectors and hopefully resolving these issues with other manufacturers and distributors.
Click to expand...

Hi Katana,

I wouldn't be too concerned about the feedback that you've received over your desire to discuss scale inconsistencies. If any of the locals seems turned off by the subject, its because the discussions tend to devolve into a "brand A is perfect" kind of deal, while, alternately, "brand X sucks." Invariably, what's hot and what's not is a function of what the poster collects, BTW.:rolleyes:

For myself, strict adherence to scale isn't a big bugaboo. Rather, it's differences in style, proportion, and color palette. Height doesn't become a big issue until I set two figures side-by-side, "flying in formation," if you will. However, style, in particular, can be a big issue in a setup, so much so that it can have an onlooker questioning whether or not the figures are renderings of the same species!:wink2:

The thing that I enjoy so much about the new WB figures is that they are so lifelike. It's as if the sculptor made a conscious decision to throw the whole "artsy" concept out the window, and just render realistic looking figures. In particular, many of the newer sets have a youthful countenance to them, a quality that I for one tend to associate with enlisted personnel and junior officers.

Just some thoughts,:)

-Moe
 
ivanmoe said:
Hi Katana,

I wouldn't be too concerned about the feedback that you've received over your desire to discuss scale inconsistencies. If any of the locals seems turned off by the subject, its because the discussions tend to devolve into a "brand A is perfect" kind of deal, while, alternately, "brand X sucks." Invariably, what's hot and what's not is a function of what the poster collects, BTW.:rolleyes:

For myself, strict adherence to scale isn't a big bugaboo. Rather, it's differences in style, proportion, and color palette. Height doesn't become a big issue until I set two figures side-by-side, "flying in formation," if you will. However, style, in particular, can be a big issue in a setup, so much so that it can have an onlooker questioning whether or not the figures are renderings of the same species!:wink2:

The thing that I enjoy so much about the new WB figures is that they are so lifelike. It's as if the sculptor made a conscious decision to throw the whole "artsy" concept out the window, and just render realistic looking figures. In particular, many of the newer sets have a youthful countenance to them, a quality that I for one tend to associate with enlisted personnel and junior officers.

Just some thoughts,:)

-Moe
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response Moe! I always consider constructive criticism a good thing; if well intensioned. Mislabled products cause unhappy customers and lost sales. A happy customer is your best salesperson. WB has great products under the management of Ken Osen and I hope to purchase a lot more now that I know that they are compatable with my Figarti and Thomas Gunn Armor. Regards
 
katana said:
I think Ken has done a good job of explaining how the problem evolved at W. Britains and it can only be corrected going forward by informing customers of the new figure size; which Ken has made an effort to do by posting it on the W. Britains website. Distributors need to do the same!

I would not have persued this problem as aggressivly had I not been the recipient of a mislabeled product. I was unaware that W. Britains had changed scale and did not realize it until I actually measured the figure. New collectors are continually entering the hobby and are not privy to insider knowledge. Discussions such as this are valuable in educating new collectors and hopefully resolving these issues with other manufacturers and distributors.
Click to expand...
Aside for my desire to see proportional, detailed and realistic figures the word consistency comes to mind. It beats me why toy soldier makers can not perceive the mid and long term value of consistency. In the modelling word 1/32, 1/35, 1/48 etc have pretty much meant the same thing from inception to present. And if you bought 1/32 scale item 40 years ago it is still compatible with any 1/32 scale item today.
 
I agree RPZ that consistency is essential. 1/30 is a new scale that has evolved over the last 10 years; as figure size grew from 54mm to 60mm and now to 68mm for some makers. 1/30 is no longer even one scale but two; 1/30-60mm and 1/28-68mm. TCS was first with the 1/28-68mm followed by TG and now K&C with their latest M4A3E8 and figures. First Legion, W. Britains and Figarti Armor are 1/30/60mm. Figarti's new ownership has stated their intension to standardize their figures to 1/30-60mm to be consistant with the Armor. Consistency is coming; but to two different scales where before their was one and no one can explain why this has happend over the last decade. The historical figure scales/sizes are 1/72, 1/56, 1/48, 1/32, 1/24, 1/18 and 1/6. 1/30 and 1/28 fall out side of this progression and are inexplicable. 1/24 would have been the logical choice for a larger scale than 1/32; assuming the goal was to show greater detail than the smaller scales. I contend the creation of an entirely new scale/size was to reduce competition from 1/32 Toy Soldier makers i.e. FOV, Conte and W. Britains and Figarti before they moved to 1/30 from 1/32.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top