Brad, I am confused as to why that you are even here again posting on a subject in which you have no interest?
Am I not allowed to comment or agree when I wish to or should I seek your prior written consent first? Rob expressed my views as to how this is "amusing" and I was merely agreeing with him. I hope that is ok with you 
I am merely observing that you post a lot on something you said you have no interest in mate. Consistency is a hobgoblin I suppose.Bill,
I'm sure you are hardly confused
BTW, Rob has clarified his "amusing" comment so since you seem to be taking it up, I have the same comment for you. Making light of the interest of others that you do not share could be considered somewhat less than polite, no?
You didn't answer my question which was "Are you asserting that the figures whose eyes are at or above the top of the Tiger hull, 1.8 m (5' 11") are accurately scaled representations of mid-twentieth century Europeans?"
In resposnse to your points:
1) Photos can help affirm or refute assertions but they have obvious limitations. One of these is perspective. Take a look at the following picture that was taken from a crouched position with people at varying distance from the tank. Since the angles to objects in the foreground and background vary considerably a distorted view is created. I don't think even you would argue the Germans were this tall. Conversely if a picture is taken from above the opposite applies and the people would look shorter than expected. I made an effort in the pictures I selected to ensure the camera was at head height close to the top of the Tiger hull thus reducing the perspective problem. Ideally the picture should be on level ground as well.
2) I already acknowledged the Photoshopped photos were not scientific in any way. They rely on my eye to place the feet and since the placement of the head is fixed based on the original photos this can affect the final result, Foreshortening also comes into play as objects further away appear smaller. This was a fun experiment that I thought I would share.
3) Even if their average was 1.8 m (which is tall) they would still not account for what we are seeing in the original photoset. The height restrictions for the Waffen SS were relaxed as the war progressed due to lack of manpower.
First, of all I have not posted a lot on it. I make occasional comments about it. Regarding Rob's clarification, again, I agree with him. Although I have said that I find this subject less than scintillating that is my own view only and doesn't mean that others may not find it interesting or fascinating and so, no, I would not consider it impolite.
I hope the preceding meets with your approval
If that makes sense to you, so be it. As to my approval, it is neither necessary or relevant.First, of all I have not posted a lot on it. I make occasional comments about it. Regarding Rob's clarification, again, I agree with him. Although I have said that I find this subject less than scintillating that is my own view only and doesn't mean that others may not find it interesting or fascinating and so, no, I would not consider it impolite.
I hope the preceding meets with your approval
It's not only a 'height' problem but more one of 'beef'
Let me explain : yes people do come in every 'size' possible, some are 5' some are 6' some are lean some are fat.
Now if we take the 'average' germain soldier during WWII, he was most probable between 5'6 and 6,2' and he was lean ...
which brings me to the 'beef' point..
Yes you can have soldiers that are taller than others, so this could and should be reprensented in our toy soldiers now that's with the 'beef' point I've a problem.. What looks weird to the eye is when you place one way too beef guy near a 60mm AFV.... which brings me to another point which I won't discuss since I'll get flamed
Cheers
ALex
If that makes sense to you, so be it. As to my approval, it is neither necessary or relevant.
You didn't answer my question which was "Are you asserting that the figures whose eyes are at or above the top of the Tiger hull, 1.8 m (5' 11") are accurately scaled representations of mid-twentieth century Europeans?"
In resposnse to your points:
1) Photos can help affirm or refute assertions but they have obvious limitations. One of these is perspective. Take a look at the following picture that was taken from a crouched position with people at varying distance from the tank. Since the angles to objects in the foreground and background vary considerably a distorted view is created. I don't think even you would argue the Germans were this tall. Conversely if a picture is taken from above the opposite applies and the people would look shorter than expected. I made an effort in the pictures I selected to ensure the camera was at head height close to the top of the Tiger hull thus reducing the perspective problem. Ideally the picture should be on level ground as well.
2) I already acknowledged the Photoshopped photos were not scientific in any way. They rely on my eye to place the feet and since the placement of the head is fixed based on the original photos this can affect the final result, Foreshortening also comes into play as objects further away appear smaller. This was a fun experiment that I thought I would share.
3) Even if their average was 1.8 m (which is tall) they would still not account for what we are seeing in the original photoset. The height restrictions for the Waffen SS were relaxed as the war progressed due to lack of manpower.
Frank, I considered your specific question regarding the height of mid-twentietieth century Europeans to be irrelavant because were are discussing the height of German soldiers. Germans are the Fourth tallest people in the world by country/region and will obviously be taller than the average 'European' height.
Frank, you should know by now that the forum moderators regard scale as being far from a fun issue as it usually causes them to actually do some moderating
As for toy soldiers, for the record I feel that the K & C figures are generally speaking, a bit to high and stocky, but imo the First Legion WWII figures have gone to far the other way. Although scales would seem to be a strictly scientific issue I have found that most collectors still base their buying decision on their own personal preference and that won't change no matter what is said.
Well said Frank. If we say this often enough it may even eventually be appreciated.
The issue of scale is an empirical, not an emotional subject. Like most subjects, it is a discussion that may be advanced by reason, explanation and example, not hyperbole or dismissive innuendo.
Well said Frank. If we say this often enough it may even eventually be appreciated.
