Size Matters.... (1 Viewer)

jazzeum · Aug 14, 2010

lancer said:
Mantle

The Say Hey Kid!

gk5717 · Aug 14, 2010

Brad we agree again, Mays. And this is coming from a guy who's all time favorite ballplayer was Stan Musial.
Gary

Warrior · Aug 15, 2010

Mays is the greatest of all time, Mantle and DiMaggio, close but no cigar.

We're talking all around athletic ability, Mays was a freak of nature.

End of discussion.

Take off your Yankee blinders.

Vezzolf · Aug 15, 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZhj2XZw7DY&feature=fvw....Guys....Guys check this out on youtube...Mantle vs. Mays

Mitch · Aug 15, 2010

Guys

This post was about toy soldiers and not baseball. would it not be better to take this to the chat room and not go on about this on CC section? Thank you but, the size issue was more interesting than this
Thank you
Mitch

Vezzolf said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZhj2XZw7DY&feature=fvw....Guys....Guys check this out on youtube...Mantle vs. Mays

maddadicus · Aug 15, 2010

Mitch said:
Guys

This post was about toy soldiers and not baseball. would it not be better to take this to the chat room and not go on about this on CC section? Thank you but, the size issue was more interesting than this
Thank you
Mitch

I agree. I want some consistency in at least the relative size of one vehicle to the next. Is the CS Panther actually much larger than the Panzer 4? Is the Stuart variant reasonably smaller than the Panzer 4? Are the larger K/C models appropriately sized now to match true 1/30 scale of CS? No answers yet..Michael

Mitch · Aug 15, 2010

I believe the panther (as it should be) is bigger than the panzerIV. I have not seen the stuart so cannot comment on that one. Perhaps brian could let us know the approx or exact would be better, the sizes of the AFV's
Mitch

maddadicus said:
I agree. I want some consistency in at least the relative size of one vehicle to the next. Is the CS Panther actually much larger than the Panzer 4? Is the Stuart variant reasonably smaller than the Panzer 4? Are the larger K/C models appropriately sized now to match true 1/30 scale of CS? No answers yet..Michael

jazzeum · Aug 15, 2010

Mitch said:
Guys

This post was about toy soldiers and not baseball. would it not be better to take this to the chat room and not go on about this on CC section? Thank you but, the size issue was more interesting than this
Thank you
Mitch

More interesting than baseball? Oh, I doubt that

Seriously, this has to be one of the most oft debated subjects on this Forum and it's like the weather: no one agrees about it.

If you don't wanr to talk baseball, how about Blackpool's win yesterday?

Phantom Warrior · Aug 15, 2010

jazzeum said:
More interesting than baseball? Oh, I doubt that

Seriously, this has to be one of the most oft debated subjects on this Forum and it's like the weather: no one agrees about it.

If you don't wanr to talk baseball, how about Blackpool's win yesterday?

smart ***.

I agree with Mitch.

Terry

Spitfrnd · Aug 15, 2010

jazzeum said:
More interesting than baseball? Oh, I doubt that

Seriously, this has to be one of the most oft debated subjects on this Forum and it's like the weather: no one agrees about it.

If you don't wanr to talk baseball, how about Blackpool's win yesterday?

I don't know about more popular than baseball but I don't think "debate" is the right word here. People may debate what matters to them but what is in scale and what is not is an empirical question. I think there can be agreement on which items are in a particular scale so long as there is an appropriate measurement and point of comparison. What is less interesting for sure is the unsupported observation that something looks funny or not. I have been following this one with interest since it is an area that matters to me and coming from a scale modeling background, I was rather shocked initially at how much variance and inaccuracy in scale labeling there was for the so called 1/30ish range.

Now I have adjusted my expectations and determined it is what it is for each manufacturer but it is still useful to see what "it is" means for items you have not seen in person.

Mitch · Aug 15, 2010

Jazzeum...

I think you and I have been down this road previously and, I again, respectfully request that you appreciate that it may be 'old hat' for you but, it is not for a considerable amount, including myself, that come on here. I again, must respectfully request that either you allow this conversation to progress without derailing it by importing 'glorified rounders' into the subject. I am very interested in this issue and, so are a few others.

It will all be old hat to people with 13,000 odd posts but, I do not see Rob et al doing this kind of thing.

I asked a polite request and that was it and, should I have wished to talk about Blackpool then I would have gone to the correct part of the forum to do so.
Respectfully
Mitch

Jürgen_Keuppe · Aug 15, 2010

I took a few comparison pictures. Again, it only serves to confuse things, but it is interesting to see the variation from line to line.

These are TCS models

1:32 scale Forces of Valor models

These are 1:76 scale Cromwell Ready models.

Mitch · Aug 15, 2010

Jurgen...
Thanks for the pics. The Panther as we know was a huge AFV and now Brian has explained about the tiger we can appreciate the scale. The FOV I always like them and they are normally quite good on the scale front.
Mitch

Jürgen_Keuppe said:
I took a few comparison pictures. Again, it only serves to confuse things, but it is interesting to see the variation from line to line.

These are TCS models

1:32 scale Forces of Valor models

These are 1:76 scale Cromwell Ready models.

jazzeum · Aug 15, 2010

Phantom Warrior said:
smart ***. I agree with Mitch.

Terry

Definitely, I am a smart you know what. As McKenna says, let's keep it silly. Not enough around that here I feel. Discussing size/scale issues as the we discuss/debate national issues

jazzeum · Aug 15, 2010

Mitch said:
Jazzeum...

I think you and I have been down this road previously and, I again, respectfully request that you appreciate that it may be 'old hat' for you but, it is not for a considerable amount, including myself, that come on here. I again, must respectfully request that either you allow this conversation to progress without derailing it by importing 'glorified rounders' into the subject. I am very interested in this issue and, so are a few others.

It will all be old hat to people with 13,000 odd posts but, I do not see Rob et al doing this kind of thing.

I asked a polite request and that was it and, should I have wished to talk about Blackpool then I would have gone to the correct part of the forum to do so.
Respectfully
Mitch

No sense of humor, oh, well

Rob is a gentleman. Me, sorry not in the same class. Just an unrepentant Yank

BTW, there is something called the search function, works quite well

Rounders, well that's fighting words, m'lord

Did play it myself when I lived in your former colony of Trinidad & Tobago

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.........................................

Mitch · Aug 16, 2010

Jazzeum....

Thanks for posting a reply. I had already sorted out what Rob was. I think through many posts I have shown I can have a 'crack' with anyone it was my intention only to state my point which, is that new members should be able to discuss whatever issue we should wish even if its been heard a million times by members without their repeated negative contribution demeaning it as old hat or been done to death or, introducing a totally different subject matter.

I would have thought it would have been better for an established member to have had a substantial contribution knowing all the different contributions over the years but, maybe not in some cases.

I did say the last time that subjects you find uninteresting would crop up again and they will again so, if it infuriates members then (and never one to have any form of censorship) they should refrain from posting restrictive comments or similar. All it does is make new members have an unwillingness to post for fear of curt replies.

Keeping it silly is a great mantra but, keeping it quiet in case its sounds repetitive just won't do
Mitch

jazzeum · Aug 16, 2010

Spitfrnd · Aug 16, 2010

Mitch said:
Jurgen...
Thanks for the pics. The Panther as we know was a huge AFV and now Brian has explained about the tiger we can appreciate the scale. The FOV I always like them and they are normally quite good on the scale front.
Mitch

Now I am confursed. Can some one tell me what those comparative photos are saying. To me, they show a different row of tanks, each from a different manufacturer. Are both of the smallest ones a Stewart body of the same size? In any event, it would be better to line them up all rigorously tails to the same point. What does that tell you about their relative scales. For starters, it is not even noted whether the photos are from the same distance with the same zoom? Are both of the smallest ones a Stewart body of the same size? In any event, it would be better to line them up all rigorously tails to the same point. When you discuss scale, the details become all the more important, even to an old member.

octavedoctor · Aug 16, 2010

Mitch said:
Jazzeum....

Thanks for posting a reply. I had already sorted out what Rob was. I think through many posts I have shown I can have a 'crack' with anyone it was my intention only to state my point which, is that new members should be able to discuss whatever issue we should wish even if its been heard a million times by members without their repeated negative contribution demeaning it as old hat or been done to death or, introducing a totally different subject matter.

I would have thought it would have been better for an established member to have had a substantial contribution knowing all the different contributions over the years but, maybe not in some cases.

I did say the last time that subjects you find uninteresting would crop up again and they will again so, if it infuriates members then (and never one to have any form of censorship) they should refrain from posting restrictive comments or similar. All it does is make new members have an unwillingness to post for fear of curt replies.

Keeping it silly is a great mantra but, keeping it quiet in case its sounds repetitive just won't do
Mitch

Well said, as with life in general - it's all much too serious to be serious about.

Warrior · Aug 16, 2010

Mitch said:
Jazzeum....

Thanks for posting a reply. I had already sorted out what Rob was. I think through many posts I have shown I can have a 'crack' with anyone it was my intention only to state my point which, is that new members should be able to discuss whatever issue we should wish even if its been heard a million times by members without their repeated negative contribution demeaning it as old hat or been done to death or, introducing a totally different subject matter.

I would have thought it would have been better for an established member to have had a substantial contribution knowing all the different contributions over the years but, maybe not in some cases.

I did say the last time that subjects you find uninteresting would crop up again and they will again so, if it infuriates members then (and never one to have any form of censorship) they should refrain from posting restrictive comments or similar. All it does is make new members have an unwillingness to post for fear of curt replies.

Keeping it silly is a great mantra but, keeping it quiet in case its sounds repetitive just won't do
Mitch

Ok Mitch, you made your point.

Really.

Brad tried to interject a bit of humor which put you off, so you read him the riot act instead.

Twice.

He's a long standing and well respected member of this forum.

Try not to forget that.

Ok, now back to your issues with scale......................

Size Matters.... (1 Viewer)

Four Star General

2nd Lieutenant

Lieutenant General

2nd Lieutenant

Major General

2nd Lieutenant

Major General

Four Star General

Major

Banned

Major General

Specialist

Major General

Four Star General

Four Star General

Major General

Four Star General

Banned

Private

Lieutenant General

Users who are viewing this thread