It's all a question of scale my good man!

[simon1969]

This might have been better in another section but I'm here now!
In the (admittedly few) articles I've managed to find on figure sculpting I've come across two different schools of thought concerning scale.
One states that the measurements should be made from the soles of the feet to the top of the head, while another says it should be from the soles to the eye.
This means that, for example, that a "54mm" scale figure could be anywhere between 54mm tall to maybe 60mm (with all the corresponding enlargement of features) or, in the case of a Benieto figure I've recently bought, 64mm ??
While this is not really an issue if the sculptor is making all associated equipment & trappings for the figure, what happens when commercially available pieces are used in conjuction? (i.e Weapons, gear etc.)
I'm just wondering what side of the fence everybody here is on?
(or some of the major manufacturers for that matter!? I'm thinking of some of Verlinden's 1/35th figures being reportedly closer to 1/32nd?)

Cheers

Simon

 

[Richard E]

Simon.

here is something I learn't in the army.

"if it looks right it probably is"

To explain, when you're scultping, physically stand back every so often and look at it, everybody in the world is a different shape, height etc ... so weapons and kit look different on everybody. The only rule of thumb that I folllow is that the body from the neck downwards is about seven times as long as the head, the elbows are around about the waist when the arms hang down, and an outstretched hand will be be about as big as the head (learn't that one off Johhny Ball when I was a kid)

and if you need a reference look in the mirror.

Richard

 

[Guy]

Hello Simon,
The recent Benito figure I bought, Conquiestador 54mm measured 64mm to the eys.........hard to pair with a 54mm, huh? especially with the same equipment.

Guy

 

[LCoote]

This is a question that is raised quite a bit. My thoughts are that 54mm is 1/32 scale and nothing else. There is nothing wrong with differences in height of figures provided they are true to scale. Therefore all measurements should be taken from the soles of the feet to the top of the head. The average height of a man is 5'9" which is 54.6mm in 1/32 scale, a 6' man would be 57mm but the proportions must still be in scale.
I have some EMI figures which also measure 60 mm to the top of the head, I see no need for manufacturers to label a 60mm figure as 54mm because 1/32 scale they are not, the proportions are way to big.

By the way while we're on the subject of scale, the new Micheal Roberts mounted figure, the rider looks about 3 sizes too big for the horse. What do you think?

 

[simon1969]

Leigh,
Don't you think life would be that much easier if manufacturers could all express scales as a fraction? These "millimetre" scales (or whatever they're called) seem to be too ambiguous
Just my thoughts
Simon

 

[LCoote]

Simon, it would be a lot more accurate that's for sure, though I think for a lot of manufacturers , especially those who commission a lot of different sculpters to do their work, it would be a dog's breakfast . Each figure would be in a different scale because I think different sculpters have a different feel for the size of the figures they do rather than saying this is 1/32 scale and this is the size it should be.

 

[John Long]

[By the way while we're on the subject of scale, the new Micheal Roberts mounted figure, the rider looks about 3 sizes too big for the horse. What do you think? ]

I saw it in the flesh at the Chicago show. It looked okay to me. Sometimes it's hard to judge from photos. It's very well sculpted and animated.

 

[RobH]

Looking at the photo of the MR piece, it does seem slightly too big (rider, that is).
Am I right thinking rider and horse were sculpted by different people?

Only got the photo to go on.

Rob

 

[Guy]

you are right Rob,

Alan Ball did the rider and Julian Hullis sculpted the horse

Guy