Why does 1/30 scale lead in Toy Soldiers? (1 Viewer)

[thebritfarmer]

This might be the start of the confusion though! Whenever I've been measured it has always been with my boots off, and measured to the top of my head (including the Guards Depots as Fort Stamford said) The other problem is talking about 54mm or 60mm as a scale! Surely that is a size, 1/32 or 1/30 is a scale as in thirty times smaller than the real thing. Would it not help if everyone talked about the actual scale then there would be a point of reference that we could all agree upon.

Martin

I agree Martin, and I have always been measured that way too. Funny how 54mm rears it head in the toy soldier world but in model railorads or farm toys it goes by the scale.

Measuring a figure to eyes may not be the most reliable as you are assuming that the eyes are in the middle of the face. If the sculptor is off bang goes that theory.

 

[thebritfarmer]

Re: Scale Guide I use in Military Modeling

I found that the problem with making horses is that most people want their figures on thorough breds rather than fell ponies, so realistic horses don't sell.

Martin

I'll bow to your expertise on this but I think a realistic horse in an absolute must. One of my peeves at the moment is that I think the William Britains horses are TOO BIG !!

 

[Spitfrnd]

This might be the start of the confusion though! Whenever I've been measured it has always been with my boots off, and measured to the top of my head (including the Guards Depots as Fort Stamford said) The other problem is talking about 54mm or 60mm as a scale! Surely that is a size, 1/32 or 1/30 is a scale as in thirty times smaller than the real thing. Would it not help if everyone talked about the actual scale then there would be a point of reference that we could all agree upon.

Martin

Well it is a good thought but seems to make it worse for figures (and even horses) since they you have to figure out what real person height is being modeled. It would work fine for weapons, aircraft and vehicles but even weapons for many figures in the same line are not consistent.

I found that the problem with making horses is that most people want their figures on thorough breds rather than fell ponies, so realistic horses don't sell.

Martin

As you proabably know by now, I am rather particular about horse modeling, maybe more so than for people. I think realistic horses sell just fine, the problem is finding them.

 

[Spitfrnd]

I agree Martin, and I have always been measured that way too. Funny how 54mm rears it head in the toy soldier world but in model railorads or farm toys it goes by the scale.

Measuring a figure to eyes may not be the most reliable as you are assuming that the eyes are in the middle of the face. If the sculptor is off bang goes that theory.

If the sculptor is off on that he should find another profession.

 

[Ken & Ericka Osen/H&A Studio]

Hi All!
As much as I hate to bring this up again... never use something in the real world that is variable in size when reducing something in scale. Humans are all differnt sizes. Look at an eighteenth century military manual, or suggestions to young officers and one of the first things you do with your men is to 'size' them from left to right, and to also take this into consideration for two rank firing. So we have always known that people come in different sizes.

You must use something constant from the real world. That is how we quantify armor and vehicles, and it should be used with the crews.

Use a piece of equipment that is the same size no matter who it gets issued to, like a Long Land Pattern Brown Bess, or a K-98. The reduced scale part will determine the scale and that has little to do with common sizes that we see endless discussions about everywhere in the military miniatures hobby like 54mm or 60mm.

Example: An MP-38/40 with shoulder stock extended measures 33 1/2 inches in length.
1/35 scale....0.95 inches in length
1/32 scale... 1.04 inches in length
1/30 scale... 1.11 inches in length

This is the kind of thing I look for when I am trying to decide on buying a figure. I can accept a common height variance somewhere between 5" 9" and 6' in the real world. Although I usually only consider this for my Matt finished figures. Classic Gloss for my collection are 54mm in height for consistency reasons.

All the Best,
Ken

 

[Martin Tabony]

Well it is a good thought but seems to make it worse for figures (and even horses) since they you have to figure out what real person height is being modeled. It would work fine for weapons, aircraft and vehicles but even weapons for many figures in the same line are not consistent.

If the same rifle is a different size, in that case you can definatly say the scale is wrong. As to people and horses that's slightly more complicated. Even if figures are different heights they aren't always different scales, for instance a Guardsman will be taller than a Gurkha but the rifle they carry will be the same. Generaly speaking shorter people appear wider at the shoulders but whatever the height the head is roughly the same size and so this is a usefull guide to compatibility. The head is a good starting point for horses also. A horses body measured from the ground to the withers and from the breast to the dock is roughly a square measuring two and a half heads.

As you proabably know by now, I am rather particular about horse modeling, maybe more so than for people. I think realistic horses sell just fine, the problem is finding them.

I wish you were right, I tried selling Romans on ponies and Reivers on Gallowas but most(not all) want a standard horse whatever the period. I've made light and heavy cavalry stood them side by side and been told they are wrong because they're different heights. You can't argue if you don't want to lose a sale!

Martin

 

[Fort-Stamford]

Re: Scale Guide I use in Military Modeling

I found that the problem with making horses is that most people want their figures on thorough breds rather than fell ponies, so realistic horses don't sell.

Martin

As a history buff, I would buy if the mount is correct and well presented; but as a collector I would also buy if the mounted figure showed great craftmanship (even if historically incorrect). This artist license is demonstrated time and again in great battle paintings, in order to add needed drama (dramatise heroic acts or events), and to make the sale to the patron who commissioned the piece.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Hi All!
As much as I hate to bring this up again... never use something in the real world that is variable in size when reducing something in scale. Humans are all differnt sizes. Look at an eighteenth century military manual, or suggestions to young officers and one of the first things you do with your men is to 'size' them from left to right, and to also take this into consideration for two rank firing. So we have always known that people come in different sizes.

You must use something constant from the real world. That is how we quantify armor and vehicles, and it should be used with the crews.

Use a piece of equipment that is the same size no matter who it gets issued to, like a Long Land Pattern Brown Bess, or a K-98. The reduced scale part will determine the scale and that has little to do with common sizes that we see endless discussions about everywhere in the military miniatures hobby like 54mm or 60mm.

Example: An MP-38/40 with shoulder stock extended measures 33 1/2 inches in length.
1/35 scale....0.95 inches in length
1/32 scale... 1.04 inches in length
1/30 scale... 1.11 inches in length

This is the kind of thing I look for when I am trying to decide on buying a figure. I can accept a common height variance somewhere between 5" 9" and 6' in the real world. Although I usually only consider this for my Matt finished figures. Classic Gloss for my collection are 54mm in height for consistency reasons.

All the Best,
Ken

Well I basically agree with you again Ken. Except for the real world height variation. Depending on the period, 5' 9" may actually be on the tall side. Even now, it is just a half inch below the average for men. It also seems that rifles and such are not really that consistent for many periods and companies and even where they are, the figures themselves may be different.

 

[FirstLegion]

Martin...

I think thats some of the problem as some use 54mm whilst other use 1/32nd etc. I got a few comments from raising the fact that on the FL website it states figures are 54mm which, I always believed was more associated with 1/32nd scale but, was abruptly and ridiculously berated by them and told they were true 1/30th scale and by some on this thread.

It would be easier if people used scale only as a reference as I grew up with the 1/32nd and 1/35th scales and what they represented.
Mitch

"Abruptly and ridiculously berated"? By me? I certainly don't recall that. Perhaps by "them", which i took to mean as "First Legion", you meant others that are on this thread? Anyway, just wanted to clear that up as I don't recall berating you and, if i did, then my apologies!

Further, pursuant to this conversation, the reason why we labelled them 54mm is that we used conventions typical in Russia and with other high end figure sculpts. Figures such as Aeroart or Metal Models for example are typically classed at 54mm while actually being much closer to 60mm tall. We never dreamed when we first did this that it would cause so much confusion as this is relatively understood in those circles. Of course, we discovered that the audience of those makers and the audience for toy soldiers are more different than we first thought (at least they were!), hence why we created a whole page on our website dedicated to this topic.

And, for what it's worth, 1/30th is a relative misnomer as well, just like 54mm is in our case, as most figures made by companies saying that they are 1/30th are actually bigger than 1/30th anyway.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Re: Scale Guide I use in Military Modeling

I'll bow to your expertise on this but I think a realistic horse in an absolute must. One of my peeves at the moment is that I think the William Britains horses are TOO BIG !!

There certainly is some variation in horse sizes from all manufacturers, most of it (I think) negligible enough to manage, although the occasional "monster" horse does appear from time to time. I do a lot of drop casting, myself, and I challenge you to find a horse mold large enough to accommodate most Napoleonic riders. I cast a squadron of lancers...they look as if they are on polo ponies. A few mallet tips on those lances and I am set to go.

 

[trooper]

Ken is absolutely correct in his *****sment of scale. What we could really do with would be a listing of the true scale measurements of all the common arms, ie musket or rifle, for each nation and period. This would be a real labour of love for someone to undertake but it would be of great use to makers as well as collectors. Any volunteers?

 

[Martin Tabony]

Ken is absolutely correct in his *****sment of scale. What we could really do with would be a listing of the true scale measurements of all the common arms, ie musket or rifle, for each nation and period. This would be a real labour of love for someone to undertake but it would be of great use to makers as well as collectors. Any volunteers?

I don't think it's that difficult to find measurements of weapons. You, Ken and I had to buy books with this information but now a quick google search, on the Martini Henry gives everything you could need. Pictures, exploded views and even video of one being fired. I generaly find that most 1/32 scale figures match up (most of the masters made by one person) were as the newer 1/30 scale? figures show more variation. Is that because most of the older manufacturers produce their own figures, or is it a distance/language problem with China? Or is it intentional so that a maker just wants their figures to be collected? Or is it even that it just didn't occur to some manufactureers that collectors would like to mix and match their figures.

 

[Spitfrnd]

If providing a correction, with examples, of a demonstrably incorrect statement constitutes abrupt and ridiculous beratement than there would seem to be a language barrier that is more significant than any difference is scale we have yet observed. But then, I know I have been wrong before and will be again.

 

[Mitch]

Matt...

No it was not you but, some of the dogs of war that patrol threads for any hint of critique. As I say the mix between model world and this hobby causes some confusion especially if you view 54mm as smaller than 1/30th which, as a new poster I did on the FL thread. As long as the figures are roughly compatible in size then the issue is not important whether 54mm or 1/30th or 1/32nd IMO

Cheers for replying and apologies if it seemed I was insinuating it was you
Mitch

"Abruptly and ridiculously berated"? By me? I certainly don't recall that. Perhaps by "them", which i took to mean as "First Legion", you meant others that are on this thread? Anyway, just wanted to clear that up as I don't recall berating you and, if i did, then my apologies!

Further, pursuant to this conversation, the reason why we labelled them 54mm is that we used conventions typical in Russia and with other high end figure sculpts. Figures such as Aeroart or Metal Models for example are typically classed at 54mm while actually being much closer to 60mm tall. We never dreamed when we first did this that it would cause so much confusion as this is relatively understood in those circles. Of course, we discovered that the audience of those makers and the audience for toy soldiers are more different than we first thought (at least they were!), hence why we created a whole page on our website dedicated to this topic.

And, for what it's worth, 1/30th is a relative misnomer as well, just like 54mm is in our case, as most figures made by companies saying that they are 1/30th are actually bigger than 1/30th anyway.

 

[Spitfrnd]

I don't think it's that difficult to find measurements of weapons. You, Ken and I had to buy books with this information but now a quick google search, on the Martini Henry gives everything you could need. Pictures, exploded views and even video of one being fired. I generaly find that most 1/32 scale figures match up (most of the masters made by one person) were as the newer 1/30 scale? figures show more variation. Is that because most of the older manufacturers produce their own figures, or is it a distance/language problem with China? Or is it intentional so that a maker just wants their figures to be collected? Or is it even that it just didn't occur to some manufactureers that collectors would like to mix and match their figures.

I agree that weapon sizes can generally be reasonably discovered but that is still only one part of the problem. Even if all weapons were perfectly in scale, there are still wide variations in human and animal sizes to deal with. Some manufacturers seem to use real person sizes well above the average, especially for the period and the same is true for horses. But we have had all these scale discussions before so I digress.

 

[Martin Tabony]

I agree that weapon sizes can generally be reasonably discovered but that is still only one part of the problem. Even if all weapons were perfectly in scale, there are still wide variations in human and animal sizes to deal with. Some manufacturers seem to use real person sizes well above the average, especially for the period and the same is true for horses. But we have had all these scale discussions before so I digress.

Yes there are wide variations and that's where "artistic licence" comes to play! You're dead right about this being discused before, the 54mm versus 1/32nd argument has been going on as long as I can remember. Although I am very young

Martin

 

[Ken & Ericka Osen/H&A Studio]

Hi again,
Here is some more info from the dusty archives that I have been told through the years, along with some personal thoughts.

This scale or size 'conversation' has been here since the German toy makers tried to decide what size to make their wonderful clock mechanism tin plate trains early in the twentieth century.

I have been told that one of the factors was, that they felt the most common toy figures. animals and accessories in the world market at the time were being made by a British company... William Britain.

These figures were roughly 52 to 54 mm in height, so I am sure some German toymaker over thought the whole thing and decided that based on what he /or she felt was the common height of a man at the time. This should be 1/32 scale!

This is why the early 'Standard Gauge' or 'Number 1 gauge' trains were made in 1/32 scale. The distance between the rails were 4' 8 1/2" from inside rail to inside rail... the generally agreed spacing in most of the industrialized world at the time.
This is still the distance between the rails for most 'G Gauge' and 'Number 1 Gauge' trains on the market today.

Did W. Britain ever intentionally decide on a figure scale? I am guessing that it was an accident of size, perceived value and real cost. Remember that they captured the market by bringing the cost per piece down with hollow casting. This allowed them to offer metal figures at lower costs than their French and German competitors.

It seems that the labeling of 1/30th scale was also an accident for the metal market that has stuck.

The only figure company that I can recall through the early 1970s that really scaled out at 1/30 was Historex. These fine kits were a fresh new face to the model figure market with unrivaled selection, detail and relatively low cost. They were the basic figure armature of a whole new school of young modelers. I often think these kits were one of the driving factors of the larger 58 to 60mm in height figures that we see in the military miniatures market, and the work from some of the former Eastern Block Studios.

Many of the figure companies producing Matt finished metal figures are in scale ranging from 1/32 to 1/28th scale. A few in recent years have been even larger, closer to 1/25th scale.

The attempt to use the weapons and equipment to scale the figures is even more frustrating because some design houses have decided that 'bigger weapons look better'. Although I understand the aesthetic concept and the possible marketing advantage... I really have a hard time accepting a 1/24 to 1/25 scale MP-40 being carried by a soldier that if you scaled him would be 5' 2" in height or less.

It seems like a large part of the discussions that we are seeing today is a result of the readily available technical information that twenty years ago only a small group of die hards cared about.

We can now easily find out what the Rayon to Wool content of the German M-43 tunic was, and how that effected the dye lots and coloring.

We can go on-line and find out the dimensional variance between the various production runs of US M1795 Springfield Muskets.

All of this is great in my opinion, but not everyone that cares about either Toy Soldiers or even Historical Miniatures wants to be an amateur historian.
The conclusion I came to a long time ago was that if you really tried to do it right historically and to a real scale, then you could probably make many of the folks that collected miniatures happy most of the time.

Just some thoughts.
Ken

 

[Spitfrnd]

Hi again,
Here is some more info from the dusty archives that I have been told through the years, along with some personal thoughts.

This scale or size 'conversation' has been here since the German toy makers tried to decide what size to make their wonderful clock mechanism tin plate trains early in the twentieth century.

I have been told that one of the factors was, that they felt the most common toy figures. animals and accessories in the world market at the time were being made by a British company... William Britain.

These figures were roughly 52 to 54 mm in height, so I am sure some German toymaker over thought the whole thing and decided that based on what he /or she felt was the common height of a man at the time. This should be 1/32 scale!

This is why the early 'Standard Gauge' or 'Number 1 gauge' trains were made in 1/32 scale. The distance between the rails were 4' 8 1/2" from inside rail to inside rail... the generally agreed spacing in most of the industrialized world at the time.
This is still the distance between the rails for most 'G Gauge' and 'Number 1 Gauge' trains on the market today.

Did W. Britain ever intentionally decide on a figure scale? I am guessing that it was an accident of size, perceived value and real cost. Remember that they captured the market by bringing the cost per piece down with hollow casting. This allowed them to offer metal figures at lower costs than their French and German competitors.

It seems that the labeling of 1/30th scale was also an accident for the metal market that has stuck.

The only figure company that I can recall through the early 1970s that really scaled out at 1/30 was Historex. These fine kits were a fresh new face to the model figure market with unrivaled selection, detail and relatively low cost. They were the basic figure armature of a whole new school of young modelers. I often think these kits were one of the driving factors of the larger 58 to 60mm in height figures that we see in the military miniatures market, and the work from some of the former Eastern Block Studios.

Many of the figure companies producing Matt finished metal figures are in scale ranging from 1/32 to 1/28th scale. A few in recent years have been even larger, closer to 1/25th scale.

The attempt to use the weapons and equipment to scale the figures is even more frustrating because some design houses have decided that 'bigger weapons look better'. Although I understand the aesthetic concept and the possible marketing advantage... I really have a hard time accepting a 1/24 to 1/25 scale MP-40 being carried by a soldier that if you scaled him would be 5' 2" in height or less.

It seems like a large part of the discussions that we are seeing today is a result of the readily available technical information that twenty years ago only a small group of die hards cared about.

We can now easily find out what the Rayon to Wool content of the German M-43 tunic was, and how that effected the dye lots and coloring.

We can go on-line and find out the dimensional variance between the various production runs of US M1795 Springfield Muskets.

All of this is great in my opinion, but not everyone that cares about either Toy Soldiers or even Historical Miniatures wants to be an amateur historian.
The conclusion I came to a long time ago was that if you really tried to do it right historically and to a real scale, then you could probably make many of the folks that collected miniatures happy most of the time.

Just some thoughts.
Ken

Those are good thoughts to ponder Ken; thanks as always for your informed observations.

 

[Martin Tabony]

Hi again,
Here is some more info from the dusty archives that I have been told through the years, along with some personal thoughts.

This scale or size 'conversation' has been here since the German toy makers tried to decide what size to make their wonderful clock mechanism tin plate trains early in the twentieth century.

I have been told that one of the factors was, that they felt the most common toy figures. animals and accessories in the world market at the time were being made by a British company... William Britain.

These figures were roughly 52 to 54 mm in height, so I am sure some German toymaker over thought the whole thing and decided that based on what he /or she felt was the common height of a man at the time. This should be 1/32 scale!

This is why the early 'Standard Gauge' or 'Number 1 gauge' trains were made in 1/32 scale. The distance between the rails were 4' 8 1/2" from inside rail to inside rail... the generally agreed spacing in most of the industrialized world at the time.
This is still the distance between the rails for most 'G Gauge' and 'Number 1 Gauge' trains on the market today.

Did W. Britain ever intentionally decide on a figure scale? I am guessing that it was an accident of size, perceived value and real cost. Remember that they captured the market by bringing the cost per piece down with hollow casting. This allowed them to offer metal figures at lower costs than their French and German competitors.

It seems that the labeling of 1/30th scale was also an accident for the metal market that has stuck.

The only figure company that I can recall through the early 1970s that really scaled out at 1/30 was Historex. These fine kits were a fresh new face to the model figure market with unrivaled selection, detail and relatively low cost. They were the basic figure armature of a whole new school of young modelers. I often think these kits were one of the driving factors of the larger 58 to 60mm in height figures that we see in the military miniatures market, and the work from some of the former Eastern Block Studios.

Many of the figure companies producing Matt finished metal figures are in scale ranging from 1/32 to 1/28th scale. A few in recent years have been even larger, closer to 1/25th scale.

The attempt to use the weapons and equipment to scale the figures is even more frustrating because some design houses have decided that 'bigger weapons look better'. Although I understand the aesthetic concept and the possible marketing advantage... I really have a hard time accepting a 1/24 to 1/25 scale MP-40 being carried by a soldier that if you scaled him would be 5' 2" in height or less.

It seems like a large part of the discussions that we are seeing today is a result of the readily available technical information that twenty years ago only a small group of die hards cared about.

We can now easily find out what the Rayon to Wool content of the German M-43 tunic was, and how that effected the dye lots and coloring.

We can go on-line and find out the dimensional variance between the various production runs of US M1795 Springfield Muskets.

All of this is great in my opinion, but not everyone that cares about either Toy Soldiers or even Historical Miniatures wants to be an amateur historian.
The conclusion I came to a long time ago was that if you really tried to do it right historically and to a real scale, then you could probably make many of the folks that collected miniatures happy most of the time.

Just some thoughts.
Ken

I couldn't agree more, as long as we work to the best of our ability and have good reason to make something one way or another then the collector is usually happy.

Martin

 

[arnhem44mad]

Because King and Country #1!Says it all!