Scales: No lies, just standardize please ! (1 Viewer)

[maloyalo]

Reading the scale post up in K&C reminded me of something I have increasingly disliked, well more then dislike really. Hate.

Why do manufacturers continually change scales ?

Even when advertized as same scale they are often so far off it as to not fit in with other makers. Why bounce around too ? 15mm, 20mm, 25mm, 54mm, 70mm, 80mm, etc. The current action figure makers are all over the place as well. Even the terminology used is baffling. 1/32, 1/6th, 'Heroic' scale wargame, 3.5 inch. And again most are wrong anyway when you measure them.

Is it done purposely so that you have to get only their items, or just out of complete disregard for what it means ?

I do not know about you, but it drives me nuts. Every new thing I hear about, I assume will be be the wrong scale. It is rare for me to find good matches. Perhaps it is not a big problem in metal figures. It has plagued plastics from day one, in my opinion.

I believe a standardization and more accuracy in actually meeting those measurements would be beneficial to collectors, especially dioramists, army builders, set up artists, or even just your displays. Such things are very difficult to establish, although some long time hobbys I believe have done so in some degee.

 

[eborris]

Yeah, that has always been a problem with plastics, often even if they are the same height, they differ drastically in girth. It would be great if they were all the same height and had the same thickness, but I believe it's a problem we're going to have to live with.

 

[maloyalo]

Yes, I think that is likely true, that it is impossible to change. That bugs me too. Not just in this hobby but others, or other collectibles. The collectors and fans who buy the stuff often have little or no say in what is made. And contray to what I often hear said (not here) we should have a say. We are the customer who buys it. But in fact its the retailers that often call the shots. As an example of what I do mean: Say if someone made a scale that doesn't match the current standard, it would be nice to have a means of collectively saying 'Nah', too big. Use that whatcha-ma-callit machine to copy it down 4mm. One or two individuals here and there doesn't get anywhere. I know some have some contact points or might survey the market, but it rarely gets out to any of us. BMC was the only company I remember in recent history that put a questionaire in their sets. What period would you like made next ? I don't know if they read them though.

 

[gk5717]

A few years back when Nick from TSSD started doing his plastic figures, he specificly made them so they would be compatable with Contes plastic.
I would consider Conte to be the premier plastic maker and right there with him now is TSSD.
So it can be done that everything fits together.
Always have trouble with Europian makers. They advertise 1-32, but are always closer to 1-35th.
If Barzo continues to make his figures as he did his new Robin Hood ones, they should fit in with Conte & TSSD.
Gary

 

[jac28]

Yes, I think that is likely true, that it is impossible to change. That bugs me too. Not just in this hobby but others, or other collectibles. The collectors and fans who buy the stuff often have little or no say in what is made. And contray to what I often hear said (not here) we should have a say. We are the customer who buys it. But in fact its the retailers that often call the shots. As an example of what I do mean: Say if someone made a scale that doesn't match the current standard, it would be nice to have a means of collectively saying 'Nah', too big. Use that whatcha-ma-callit machine to copy it down 4mm. One or two individuals here and there doesn't get anywhere. I know some have some contact points or might survey the market, but it rarely gets out to any of us. BMC was the only company I remember in recent history that put a questionaire in their sets. What period would you like made next ? I don't know if they read them though.

We do have a means of collectively saying "Nah" too big.. or whatever... Don't buy it.. As long as makers are selling all the stuff in all sizes - I think there is very little incentive for them to change...

Jim

 

[hhenry]

Maybe this is a good question for a poll (or has it already been done)?

Something like "What's your favourite soldier scale?" with them all listed.

 

[Spitfrnd]

I am new to all this but the scale issue is already bugging me. Silly me, I thought that if a manufacturer listed an item as 54mm, it actually would measure 54mm Of course, very few seem to do that. So I guess you suffer through the frustration of having the potential for great combinations of figures that are advertised in the same scale but really are not. For me at the moment, that is Conte metal Spartans / Romans (at about58mm) vs. EoI Ancients and promised Romans (which I have been told are 54mm at most).

I also agree the use of scale is itself inherently confusing. Since figure scale is person height divided by figure height, it all depends on the reference points and assumed average height. From the short time I have looked at this, some seem to measure to the figures eyes and others to the head; some include the base, some do not. For the average person height, it seems some use 5'9, some 5'10 and others 6' etc. For example, 54mm is frequently listed as equivalent to 1/32 scale. For that to be true using a figure foot to top of head (without base) measurement, you have to assume a person height of 5'8". If you assume 5'10" for the same purposes, a 54mm figure would be about 1/33 scale. I think it is better to just give the figure height, not that it matters since the manufactures will continue to use whatever suits them.

 

[maloyalo]

Measurements are better I agree. But you cannot go by what the company says the measurement is. One company and all forum dialog about a favorite series of mine for years and to this day call it three inch scale. I think they mean around three inches. They come in at 2 1/4 to 2 1/2 tall actually, which is a very big difference! Put them together with a true 3 inch and they look like a troop of boyscouts following the Scout leader.

I often see things on Ebay, that I wonder if they might fit in. I ask the seller for actual measurements and they nearly always reply. Some unfortunately with results like 'around 3 inches'

Those TSSD and Conte figures are nice, thats for sure, but I was flumuxed when I got my first plastic Conte civil War figures (Iron Brigade). And I will probably not get any more of them or TSSD.

I am slowly building a Civil War army and they were supposed to help fill out the 2nd Wisconsin I started with some Call to Arms figures I had painted. They are about 1 head taller. They do not look good together and that is the whole point. To salvage the regiment I will have to add about 4-5 layers of cardboard to each base, which will make them look like chess pieces. In other words stupid, just not as stupid.

The thing is I build my armies slowly, over many years and can't afford to lay it all aside and start over. My Civil War set-up for example began with a few Britains Swoppets ages ago, and nobody is going to tell me they are too short to be soldiers!

So the companies that upped the size, lost my business, which is admittedly small.

Why did they do it ? The first wave of new figure makers stayed closer (like Accurate, Call to Arms, Armies in plastic, etc.). And these are knowledgable makers, so it can not be a case of not knowing.

Why ?

Too bad for they are nice figures.

 

[OzDigger]

I am new to all this but the scale issue is already bugging me. Silly me, I thought that if a manufacturer listed an item as 54mm, it actually would measure 54mm Of course, very few seem to do that. So I guess you suffer through the frustration of having the potential for great combinations of figures that are advertised in the same scale but really are not. For me at the moment, that is Conte metal Spartans / Romans (at about58mm) vs. EoI Ancients and promised Romans (which I have been told are 54mm at most).

I also agree the use of scale is itself inherently confusing. Since figure scale is person height divided by figure height, it all depends on the reference points and assumed average height. From the short time I have looked at this, some seem to measure to the figures eyes and others to the head; some include the base, some do not. For the average person height, it seems some use 5'9, some 5'10 and others 6' etc. For example, 54mm is frequently listed as equivalent to 1/32 scale. For that to be true using a figure foot to top of head (without base) measurement, you have to assume a person height of 5'8". If you assume 5'10" for the same purposes, a 54mm figure would be about 1/33 scale. I think it is better to just give the figure height, not that it matters since the manufactures will continue to use whatever suits them.

I think that most manufacturers use six feet as being the average height.

However it gets even more complicated as some manufacturers base the measurement from foot to top of head, while others base their measurement from the figure's foot to eye level. And no doubt some use foot to top of head-wear etc

 

[39E]

OK.....I believe I have come up with a solution:

As every manufacturer; K & C, Britains, Conte, Collectors Showcase, etc., come out with a new piece...
They will need to send one to 39E at P.O. Box 10952 Costa Mesa, CA 92627.

Once received I will measure each and certify them to be 1/28th, 1/30th, 1/32nd, etc...

Of coarse I would have to keep them for recording purposes only!

 

[maloyalo]

I think that most manufacturers use six feet as being the average height.

However it gets even more complicated as some manufacturers base the measurement from foot to top of head, while others base their measurement from the figure's foot to eye level. And no doubt some use foot to top of head-wear etc

You said it! My regiment of Chefs is a disaster!

 

[maloyalo]

OK.....I believe I have come up with a solution:

Once received I will measure each and certify them to be 1/28th, 1/30th, 1/32nd, etc...

That is quite generous of you to offer, but at that point it is too late!

I want them fined 10,000 Euros for every mm off standard.

What is the standard you say ? Not so fast. I will be back with some tablets in about 40 days.

 

[Spitfrnd]

I think that most manufacturers use six feet as being the average height.

However it gets even more complicated as some manufacturers base the measurement from foot to top of head, while others base their measurement from the figure's foot to eye level. And no doubt some use foot to top of head-wear etc

Indeed, as I noted earlier, the variation of point of measurement is apparently a variable, although why is beyond me.

It is not clear to me that 6ft is (or should be) used as an average height. Today's average us male height is around 5 ft, 10 inches. Less than 25% of us males are 6ft or more. It seems settled that earlier period heights were smaller, maybe 5ft, 7+ inches for ancient Greece, with athletes and warriors averaging 1-2 inches more. At 1/32 scale, that would mean Greek warrior figures would be about 55-56 mm using a true height measurement. If you were assuming a 6ft height, 1/32 would equate to 57mm. Of course it seems rare to have someone state their figure assumptions and even more rare to have them followed. An example to follow.

 

[Spitfrnd]

I have found one site addressing this issue that I found very interesting. The second photo in particular shows a comparision of various figures from the same period (WW2).

http://www.toysoldiersclub.com/TOY-SOLDIERS-CLUB-Scale.aspx

It would be really nice to have more of those to cover at least the most common manufactuers for each period (Ancient Greeks, Romans, Napoleon, AWI, ACW etc.) It would be even more helpful if the comparison photos were shown with a mm scale ruler or grid background. Dealers could be most helpful here.

 

[thebritfarmer]

Still seems a bit off though. If you look at the first pic of the Indians The K&C and Frontline don't really look out of place displayed together. Now look at the second pic of the frontline soldier and the K&C one. There definately seems to be a difference.

Or is it just my eyes


Thought I would add this pic to show differences with the same manufacturer. (Britains)

 

[thebritfarmer]

I measured the above horses and scaled the out to be

From left to right

1. 16 hands
2. 13 hands
3. 14 hands
4. 15 hands

I would therefore have to say that No. 1 is probably the most accurate. Although horses do vary in size, I think for HM the Queen, the horses would all be a near standard size.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Still seems a bit off though. If you look at the first pic of the Indians The K&C and Frontline don't really look out of place displayed together. Now look at the second pic of the frontline soldier and the K&C one. There definately seems to be a difference.

Or is it just my eyes


Thought I would add this pic to show differences with the same manufacturer. (Britains)

...[/IMG]

I agree completely with you on the relative greater difference in the WWII comparison. That was what I meant that a period or war specific comparison is really needed to even hope to judge possible compatibility between manufacturers.

The differences you show here are maybe something more. If they are the same period, they may reveal inconsistencies for the same manufacturer / period, not a good thing. More on the horses in a moment.

 

[Spitfrnd]

I measured the above horses and scaled the out to be

From left to right

1. 16 hands
2. 13 hands
3. 14 hands
4. 15 hands

I would therefore have to say that No. 1 is probably the most accurate. Although horses do vary in size, I think for HM the Queen, the horses would all be a near standard size.

That is a pretty big difference. What are you assuming as the scale to convert it to hands? Of course, technically, number 2 and 3 are not horses but ponies, given that conversion, not likely for a Queen's guard. There could be variations from 15 to 18 hands, less likely for a military unit admittedly. How do the soldiers compare, are they proportionately smaller as well?

 

[maloyalo]

Those photos are interesting, the WWII comparison and Britain's cavalry. I tended to think of Britian's as being the oldest and keeping close to the 54mm standard, but seeing is believing and they vary as well.

Why the constant drifting ? Is it sometimes just the lack of strict measurements in the sculpting and mold making stages ? I experience some of that myself when sculpting. I could swear I started with a 54mm wire armature (that I made myself using a 54mm figure as model) but I always end up with a 60 or 65mm or even 70mm figure. Unintentionally.

Rut-Row...Hands... Another measurement! But I think I see the point. The other figures are on things closer to ponies.

But wait, I am starting to get some of the guidelines in.

'54mm shall be thy size and no other size will ye manufacture'
'Ye shall make it 1/8th of a cubit'

 

[thebritfarmer]

I used a 1:32 scale converter as generally that is what scale Britains is noted for.

The period of manufacture varies (I am approximate with these dates)

1. 1984
2. This is a new issue 2002 from the hollow cast series (Originally it was a cloaked lifeguard from the 1930 ish era) Britains had never made a cloaked Royal Scots Grey.
3. This a Herald lifeguard 1960's
4. This is marked 2000