Spartans Size / Availability (1 Viewer)

[Spitfrnd]

Success I think. Thanks to joesgis, I believe I have found one of those sets. Wouldn't rules out getting more but that should do for the immediate future. Many thanks mate.

 

[APACHEJOL]

Although I love AeoArt St. Petes figures I do belive thier line of Spartans is very boring. Conte really did a good job here on there Spartans and Immortals line. Conte figures are getting a little big for my liking but you cant find anyone who makes hand to hand sets like he does. Also his diorama sets are second to none either. I just received the Viking Catapult set and have to say it is very realistic and well done. Just wish in the future his figures shrink a little bit. But the poses are excellent who wants a bunch figures standing around? We want WAR!

 

[eborris]

I just wonder how large the real Spartans were, seems to me people were generally shorter back then and Greeks were never known for being overly tall anyway. I don't suppose that data is available anywhere, but maybe it is and I just don't know where to look.

 

[Spitfrnd]

....Just wish in the future his figures shrink a little bit. But the poses are excellent who wants a bunch figures standing around? We want WAR!

Amend to the last point brother. To me the poses are key.

The size issue is more complicated. I do not have any other versions of his figures so I am not sure how much these differ. As I noted in another thread, that would be good to know for sure.
http://www.treefrogtreasures.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7441
To me it would be great if there were a common size for each historical period by that seems a lost cause. Having obtained several Conte and 1 EoI set for this period, I can now say that that neither one is 54mm. The Conte Spartan/Persians measure 58-60mm head to toe and the EoI Persians measure about 51-52mm for the same. So not sure what scale either was trying to do but it would not seem to be 1/32. Not much we can do about that but certainly if would be helpful in the extreme if we could have some more period by period figure size comparisons comparable to those I referenced in that other thread.

 

[Ken Clarke]

Amend to the last point brother. To me the poses are key.

The size issue is more complicated. I do not have any other versions of his figures so I am not sure how much these differ. As I noted in another thread, that would be good to know for sure.
http://www.treefrogtreasures.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7441
To me it would be great if there were a common size for each historical period by that seems a lost cause. Having obtained several Conte and 1 EoI set for this period, I can now say that that neither one is 54mm. The Conte Spartan/Persians measure 58-60mm head to toe and the EoI Persians measure about 51-52mm for the same. So not sure what scale either was trying to do but it would not seem to be 1/32. Not much we can do about that but certainly if would be helpful in the extreme if we could have some more period by period figure size comparisons comparable to those I referenced in that other thread.

Hello Spitfrnd,

I can’t speak for Richard but to be certain I am creating 1/32 scale for all of my ancient range. This is also known as 54mm as I am sure most are aware of.

The scale represents the height of the figure from the bottom of the feet (not including base) to the top of the figures head (not obviously including hat) and in an "at attention" pose!

I have posted before in other threads but I will again here; apparently the average height of armies throughout the 19C (where figure making first got going in a serious manner) was 5 feet 8 inches tall. Thus the relationship between 1/32 scale and 54mm mathematically is:

5 feet 8 inches = 68 inches.
68 inches multiplied by 254 (inches to mm conversion) = 1727.2 mm
1727.2 mm divided by 32 ( 1/32 scale) = 53.975 mm

and hey presto rounded it comes to 54mm!

In fact they actually should be 53.975mm figures!

I am not certain which figures of my Persian range you have measured but you state that one is 51 to 52mm. That in my humble opinion is perfectly acceptable. It is only about a 4% difference in height therefore this figure in reality is not 5 feet 8 inches tall but 5 feet 5 inches tall. Perfectly acceptable. In fact as we all know the adult human race has almost a 10% deviance either way from the average height between the tallest and shortest and this is taking out from the statistics the 10% top and bottom height ranges. No 8 feet 11 inch giants allowed in these research figures!

I think that a 20% difference in height between the largest figure and the smallest figure, as nature has intended, does look a bit daft on figures of this scale so I have tried and so far succeeded with my ancient range to keep within a 5% tolerance. Most collectors find this acceptable but what they DO NOT find acceptable is that weapons and general equipment changes scale.

I also collect figures from other periods of history and I tell you IMO there is nothing worse than buying 2 figures; one is 10% smaller than the other but his rifle, water bottle etc etc is also 10% smaller. There is no way the British Army tailor made the Lee Enfield Rifle to fit the private soldier! Purdey and Holland & Holland gunsmiths, even at the height of the empire, were too expensive!

Anyway thanks for buying one of our sets and please note that ALL of the weapons are the same size!

 

[maddadicus]

Hello Spitfrnd,

I can’t speak for Richard but to be certain I am creating 1/32 scale for all of my ancient range. This is also known as 54mm as I am sure most are aware of.

The scale represents the height of the figure from the bottom of the feet (not including base) to the top of the figures head (not obviously including hat) and in an "at attention" pose!

I have posted before in other threads but I will again here; apparently the average height of armies throughout the 19C (where figure making first got going in a serious manner) was 5 feet 8 inches tall. Thus the relationship between 1/32 scale and 54mm mathematically is:

5 feet 8 inches = 68 inches.
68 inches multiplied by 254 (inches to mm conversion) = 1727.2 mm
1727.2 mm divided by 32 ( 1/32 scale) = 53.975 mm

and hey presto rounded it comes to 54mm!

In fact they actually should be 53.975mm figures!

I am not certain which figures of my Persian range you have measured but you state that one is 51 to 52mm. That in my humble opinion is perfectly acceptable. It is only about a 4% difference in height therefore this figure in reality is not 5 feet 8 inches tall but 5 feet 5 inches tall. Perfectly acceptable. In fact as we all know the adult human race has almost a 10% deviance either way from the average height between the tallest and shortest and this is taking out from the statistics the 10% top and bottom height ranges. No 8 feet 11 inch giants allowed in these research figures!

I think that a 20% difference in height between the largest figure and the smallest figure, as nature has intended, does look a bit daft on figures of this scale so I have tried and so far succeeded with my ancient range to keep within a 5% tolerance. Most collectors find this acceptable but what they DO NOT find acceptable is that weapons and general equipment changes scale.

I also collect figures from other periods of history and I tell you IMO there is nothing worse than buying 2 figures; one is 10% smaller than the other but his rifle, water bottle etc etc is also 10% smaller. There is no way the British Army tailor made the Lee Enfield Rifle to fit the private soldier! Purdey and Holland & Holland gunsmiths, even at the height of the empire, were too expensive!

Anyway thanks for buying one of our sets and please note that ALL of the weapons are the same size!

I do not believe the different scale issues ought be laid at the doorstep of any one mfg., but to the industry ,as a whole..Check out the offerings of any mfg. figures, for any lenghth of time and you will find giants and pigmies within the same range, separated by a few years and different sculptors...Unless the industry will design a standard scale formula and all stick by it, we will always have these discussions...I have taken the collection strategy of ,see the figure, measure the figure, buy the figure only if it will fit in to my army, as a whole..No longer am I a completist, because I cannot depend on any one company, to be consistent with figure size..Not a gripe, because you have so many different hands, outside the owner's control, that can affect Ken or anybody's best laid plans..Thanks,Michael

 

[eborris]

Well it's certainly fortuitous that we're not talking about fantasy figures, I mean how tall should a dwarf be in 54mm scale?

 

[The Lt.]

Thank you Ken for taking the time and effort on the subject of scale and your efforts to maintain it along with the quality of your figures that you provide to your collectors...The Lt.

 

[Currahee Chris]

Well it's certainly fortuitous that we're not talking about fantasy figures, I mean how tall should a dwarf be in 54mm scale?

Probably the size of a barrell or a 55 gallon drum )

How about a hobbitt??

 

[Spitfrnd]

Hello Spitfrnd,

I can’t speak for Richard but to be certain I am creating 1/32 scale for all of my ancient range. This is also known as 54mm as I am sure most are aware of.

The scale represents the height of the figure from the bottom of the feet (not including base) to the top of the figures head (not obviously including hat) and in an "at attention" pose!

I have posted before in other threads but I will again here; apparently the average height of armies throughout the 19C (where figure making first got going in a serious manner) was 5 feet 8 inches tall. Thus the relationship between 1/32 scale and 54mm mathematically is:

5 feet 8 inches = 68 inches.
68 inches multiplied by 254 (inches to mm conversion) = 1727.2 mm
1727.2 mm divided by 32 ( 1/32 scale) = 53.975 mm

and hey presto rounded it comes to 54mm!

In fact they actually should be 53.975mm figures!

I am not certain which figures of my Persian range you have measured but you state that one is 51 to 52mm. That in my humble opinion is perfectly acceptable. It is only about a 4% difference in height therefore this figure in reality is not 5 feet 8 inches tall but 5 feet 5 inches tall. ...
Anyway thanks for buying one of our sets and please note that ALL of the weapons are the same size!

Thanks for your reply Ken. Based on your Persians, I am extremely happy with the quality of your figures and would hope to acquire more.

I was of course not picking on your line but merely offering the examples I have so far. It is interesting to understand your rationale for the 54mm label, which as I noted in that other thread I referenced, is indeed a function of assumed real height. Whether it should be 5'8" or some other number is of course a variable. The 4% variation is understandable as well.

What I was hoping to incourage really, mostly in the other thread, was a full and complete illustration, by manufacturer and by historical or war period, of the size of these figures so that it could be discerned by those of us that do not have ready access to fully stocked stores, which wil fit with each other and which will not. Of course it is frustrating when your favorites do not match your next favorite for the same period but at least the knowledge would avoid an additional frustration of ordering the wrong items.

Please keep up the good work on your figures and if I may respectfully make a request, please remember those of us that really appreciate good action poses. Certainly your Persians have some of that, as do some of the Greeks but a little more drama even in the phalanx would be much appreciated by many I am sure.

Again thanks for your attention and thoughtful response.

 

[joesgis]

Anytime Spitfrnd. I'm glad to have helped! Those Spartans are awesome. I'm about to make me 1st Perian purchase now....it's hard deciding on which set to begin with....it;s probably safe to start with the single officer figure and then build from there.