The old question of scale (1 Viewer)

[trooper]

I was dismayed on looking at a new makers website to see that his very nice range was described as being 54mm 1/32nd scale measured from the feet to the eyeline. When, oh when, is this hoary old belief going to be consigned to the rubbish bin where it belongs? I have never had a medical where my height was calculated to my eyes. I have never seen a police description of a suspect describing him as 5foot 8inches to his eyes. I have never seen a warning notice saying Eye room instead of Head room. If a figure is described as being 54mm to his eyes the true size is at least 58mm. All it achieves is endless discussion as to whether this figure is compatible with other makers products. This concept was first introduced back in the early 1960s when one well known maker started producing a somewhat heavier and chunky figure to improve detail and when questioned as to the difference in size came back with this swift response. Please, for the sake of my blood pressure, desist from this anachronism. Trooper

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Don't fire 'till you can see the top of their eyes.

This concept was first introduced back in the early 1960s when one well known maker started producing a somewhat heavier and chunky figure to improve detail and when questioned as to the difference in size came back with this swift response



Who was the well known maker who gave that swift (sic: flippant response, the "patient zero" responsible for starting the never ending scale wars that torment the hobby to this day with no end in sight.

Terry

 

[Artillery_crazy]

Fantastic Trooper,
From the wealth of all your expertise and years in the trenches, your statement should be replicated in at least some 3 other threads here in the forum so as to settle certain other vague statements related to scale...:salute::
Cheers
Artillery_Crazy

I was dismayed on looking at a new makers website to see that his very nice range was described as being 54mm 1/32nd scale measured from the feet to the eyeline. When, oh when, is this hoary old belief going to be consigned to the rubbish bin where it belongs? I have never had a medical where my height was calculated to my eyes. I have never seen a police description of a suspect describing him as 5foot 8inches to his eyes. I have never seen a warning notice saying Eye room instead of Head room. If a figure is described as being 54mm to his eyes the true size is at least 58mm. All it achieves is endless discussion as to whether this figure is compatible with other makers products. This concept was first introduced back in the early 1960s when one well known maker started producing a somewhat heavier and chunky figure to improve detail and when questioned as to the difference in size came back with this swift response. Please, for the sake of my blood pressure, desist from this anachronism. Trooper

 

[Martin Tabony]

I've also seen comments about such things as "54mm scale". 54mm, 65mm etc. is a size. Proportions such as 1:32, 1/32nd, 1/30th are scales.

Martin

 

[Empire MM]

I was dismayed on looking at a new makers website to see that his very nice range was described as being 54mm 1/32nd scale measured from the feet to the eyeline. When, oh when, is this hoary old belief going to be consigned to the rubbish bin where it belongs? I have never had a medical where my height was calculated to my eyes. I have never seen a police description of a suspect describing him as 5foot 8inches to his eyes. I have never seen a warning notice saying Eye room instead of Head room. If a figure is described as being 54mm to his eyes the true size is at least 58mm. All it achieves is endless discussion as to whether this figure is compatible with other makers products. This concept was first introduced back in the early 1960s when one well known maker started producing a somewhat heavier and chunky figure to improve detail and when questioned as to the difference in size came back with this swift response. Please, for the sake of my blood pressure, desist from this anachronism. Trooper

Hi Trooper,

I believe that the new maker you are dismayed with is myself, Malcolm from Empire Military Miniatures.

When I established the new company I did so by marking all my products as 58mm / 1/32 scale as this was the measurement from foot to head. The 1/32 came from my sculptors vast years of experience, as well as other advisers and the fact that these figures sit with my older W britians collections and JJD figures, both of which are sold as 1/32 scale.

It was not long before someone was telling me I could not be 58mm and 1/32 scale. I had others telling me 1/32 scale was 54mm, the list goes on. As a COMPROMISE to try and please MOST of the people SOME of the time, we changed our pages to read 54mm foot to eye, 1/32 scale, leaving the fact that they are 58mm base to head for people to work out for themselves.

To aid this discussion (which has raised its head so many times now), I have supplied countless photo's of our products against items from my own personal collection to enable collectors to see where we fit in. I am honestly at a total loss as to know what more I can do as a genuine and caring supplier / business owner.

I guess I am ****ed if I do and ****ed if I don't on this one. I, like you, find this all very silly and annoying and, for the sake of my blood pressure please can I be cut some slack? Was every member of every army in WW1 or WW2 5ft 8 inches? {sm4} no, we have skinny, fat, chunky, tall, medium and short soldiers ^&grin

The figures we produce are good quality, genuinely researched and produced with a passion and enthusiasm you can only get from a manufacturer who is also a collector, historian and a pain in the backside to his sculptor {sm4}

The website will be amended today to reflect your comments (how many manufacturers would go to this length I wonder?) and to try and be (if I can be) clearer about our scale. My focus will be, as it has always been, to produce figures that are anatomically correct, researched properly and good value for money, something I feel is far more important, I hope you agree

I am sorry that you were dismayed but equally pleased that you made comment about our issue. I offer people an e-mail address to contact me on and also clearly state that I welcome dialogue with collectors. Maybe it would have been nice had you e-mailed me about this rather than making a big public thing about it but, as I also welcome criticism (constructive) and will ALWAYS do my best to appease people I suppose I only have myself to blame. Maybe that is what some people are finding annoying about me? I do feel that since we started we have come under fire a little, I will take that as a compliment though {sm4}

Now, to try and put right the raise in blood pressure I have caused. I see that you are in Leicestershire, much like myself. We do not have retail or visitor premises currently but, should you wish to view the ranges,I would be more than happy to meet up with you to show you our figures. Maybe you will be coming to our open day at Magpie in Evesham on Sept 12th? Either way, please do feel free to e-mail or PM me via the forum if I can help any further. (or indeed add to the comments here)

Many thanks for your input and help, and best wishes for a good (non rainy) weekend.

Malcolm. :salute::

 

[Phantom Warrior]

I wouldn't take it to heart so seriously. The problem is that the mm scale (as in 54mm) which is an exact measurement and the ratio scale (as in 1/32) which is an approximation, are not entirely compatible. People come in different sizes but are all 1:1 scale. Where things really went off the track was with AFVs which are an exact ratio scale - not an approximation. Once manufacturers started producing figures and AFVs which were visually incompatible as in a 58mm figure withh a 1:32 tank, things got messy. Add the change in AFV scales from 1:32 to 1:30 to 1:28 and here we are today.

Terry

 

[Empire MM]

I wouldn't take it to heart so seriously. The problem is that the mm scale (as in 54mm) which is an exact measurement and the ratio scale (as in 1/32) which is an approximation, are not entirely compatible. People come in different sizes but are all 1:1 scale. Where things really went off the track was with AFVs which are an exact ratio scale - not an approximation. Once manufacturers started producing figures and AFVs which were visually incompatible as in a 58mm figure withh a 1:32 tank, things got messy. Add the change in AFV scales from 1:32 to 1:30 to 1:28 and here we are today.

Terry

Hi Terry,

Thanks for saying that. I didn't really take it personally other than knowing the unknown manufacturer was myself.

I prefer to "come out" and be crystal clear about our intentions, which are always for the good of the hobby. I also just wanted to set the record straight as to how we arrived where we did scale wise.

Maybe as the new kid on the block I have to expect a little bit of a rough time until we are established {sm4} After all, my Dad and grandfathers all had to put up with their share of "flack" {sm4}

Have a good weekend Sir! :salute::

Malcolm.

 

[theBaron]

Actually, measuring to the eye line goes back farther than that, but to the point of various scales, I was just reminded recently of proportion. That is, you could put figures of the same scale (or size, if that's the measure) from different manufacturers side by side and compare them. The key is the head. The size of our heads varies very little, regardless of our individual heights. And when you look at a group of figures, that's one thing that your eye will catch. If the heads look like they're the same size, the figures ought to look pretty good when used together.

Prost!
Brad

 

[trooper]

Hi Malcolm,
Just to assure you that my rant was not aimed personally at you or your excellent range of figures. Over the past 50 odd years I have had endless arguments with a wide variety of makers, collectors and general semi interested parties on this subject and had thought it had at last been buried. So perhaps you can understand my possible over reaction. Terry put his finger on the problem between measurement and scale and there is one way this can be resolved. Vehicles are built to exact tolerances whereas figures, as you pointed out, are all shapes and sizes. However all armies use rifles, so if they are made to the correct scale it doesn't matter if the figure is a little short or tall. After all there is a considerable difference in height between a Guardsman and a Gurkha but they both carried the same weapon. So, all you have to do is make the weapons 1/32nd and your scale problem is solved. The exact height of the figure is then immaterial. Keep up the good work. Trooper

 

[marco55]

I had heard that the for the measurement being from the eye and not the top of of the head is because of hats/helmets which can be of different heights.
Mark

 

[Empire MM]

Hi Malcolm,
Just to assure you that my rant was not aimed personally at you or your excellent range of figures. Over the past 50 odd years I have had endless arguments with a wide variety of makers, collectors and general semi interested parties on this subject and had thought it had at last been buried. So perhaps you can understand my possible over reaction. Terry put his finger on the problem between measurement and scale and there is one way this can be resolved. Vehicles are built to exact tolerances whereas figures, as you pointed out, are all shapes and sizes. However all armies use rifles, so if they are made to the correct scale it doesn't matter if the figure is a little short or tall. After all there is a considerable difference in height between a Guardsman and a Gurkha but they both carried the same weapon. So, all you have to do is make the weapons 1/32nd and your scale problem is solved. The exact height of the figure is then immaterial. Keep up the good work. Trooper

Hi Trooper,

No worries, I did not take it personally at all and thank you for your kind comment on our figures, we do try The invite is still there for you to view them should you wish.

Scales does bug the almighty out of me too, equally figures being out of scale within themselves (Clumsy looking hand, big hands, out of scale helmets etc) gets to me.

Now, oddly enough, our SMLE, Mausers and Maxims were ALL sculpted to scale from measurements given to our sculptor from items in my and friends collections, same with uniform oddly so, in general, I think we have it "about" right {sm4}

The good work will continue, as will the passion and the input. We are not going anywhere but upwards, despite the challenges thrown at us from time to time.

Thanks for the dialogue, it has been good and, hopefully I explained our position and what scale we are. All I ever want is to be the good guy, help people, be friendly and enjoy our hobby (that has become my job).

Best wishes,

Malcolm.:salute::

 

[Artillery_crazy]

My deepest condolences to the Family, upon Alan´s passing! Trooper ( Alan ) was a great person. Never met him personally but did Exchange many mails and interesting discussions related to the hobby.....
I have a great interest in Victorian Era Armies for the period we tend to call Victorian Little Wars and he was responsible for a great many master sets for soldiers of the period that ended up in a great many manufacturers as mentioned by Obee.....
We will deeply miss his expertise in the historical background of the hobby and the sets as he would be very through on the research before launching a master.....
Cheers
Artillery_Crazy
aka Luiz