Preffered Scale

[Centaur]

Big Hello again Mike.
In the last 16 years I was done for Preiser mostly sculpting in 75mm scale
for their reduce to 1:48 , 1:72 and HO.
So I need a little holidays two or three month again from this scale.
But I have one on my desk to dance around.
About your optivisior I m like a cat to try a pill.)
The optic is for me like to look to deep in a glass of wine.
All what I can see without glass is good and the other parts,
I controlled by pics or on my big and heavy glass for
grafic - design.
I agree every kind of scale is fine with or without glass of wine :- ))
All the best
Uli

 

[Ferris]

Hey Jon,

Not offended at all. Of course you're right, the XYZ mm are not really 'scales'. But I guess the mm indications are common enough for nerds like us to understand the size of the figure, possibly even better than '1/16' would...
(I recently sculpted a 120mm cat and placed it next to a 120mm german...want to see how that turned out...?? see my vBench!).

Cheers,
Adrian

 

[gothicgeek]

1/16th in figures followed closely by 120mm

1/9th or 200mm in busts

 

[JammyBee]

I have only painted 28mm or 15mm before but completed my first 1/6 bust last month and have a few 120mm and 54mm figures in the lead pile . I think I will use the bigger scales for my display painting and only paint my 28mm to table top std from now on.

Hi BTW been lurking here for a while but started posting now...

Peace James

 

[ryall]

1/16 or 120mm for me please
Ryally

 

[richrock]

First post here, returning to painting after a while (too long).

Last time I painted, I was doing 25/28mm, some 15mm Romans, a few 54mm and was moving up to 90/120mm. I wasn't too bothered about size/scale, just what looked like a good sculpting in that particular size.

However... I tried 120mm and found it a little too.. large I guess. 90mm was a great scale, plenty of detail, nice size to mount, etc - it would have to be my favourite for details, and then 25/28mm for gaming pieces, or some finer work.

I am starting back out on some 28mm mini's. Glad I kept all my brushes/tools, just ordered some new paints and minis to get me back into it.

I noted a comment about a 120mm Chewie and Yoda - If they were made properly, and by the same company, I would expect the Chewie to be slightly taller than 120mm and Yoda to be smaller. AFAIR - a scale like 120mm was to represent an average height human, so Chewie would be sculpted larger. That's why GW Space Marines measured taller (around 28mm) even though they originally classed as 25mm, because the back story was that the armour and genetic engineering made them taller than the average human.

Not sure if I'm stepping on toes here, or even reigniting an age-old debate. If I am - sorry !!

 

[Steve]

54mm is the historical scale of our toy soldier antecedents; before the eighties there were few other "scales" (54mm is obviously a size, not a scale). I think Pat Bird and Series 77 pretty much pioneered the over-54 figures but that is a guess. I am with Senor Bonehead in that 70-75mm is the ideal scale for me. Stu, for planning purposes I don't know that scale is the determining factor in most figure purchases, with quality and subject coming before that in the order of selection.--

 

[theBaron]

I collect, cast and paint only 54mm, but then, I'm more of a toy soldier painter than all of you. For the scale represents an intersection of detail and convenient size for display, since I like to display groups of figures. And I have a wide range of manufacturers from which to choose--Stadden and present-day Tradition, Imrie-Risley, Rose Miniatures, old Phoenix, Tommy Atkins, and several of the German makers, such as Ulrich's figures--the best, for Frederick the Great's army, meiner Meinung nach--Peipp, and Dolp, and probably others I've forgotten.

Prost!
Brad

 

[PhilinYuma]

I rather like the larger scales, !:16 and 1:18, because they allow more detail in some of the accoutrements that interest me, like sabretaches and colours. I am puzzled, though, by the way in which scale is arrived at. I remember reading, decades ago, that scale was gauged for a man who was 72" at a point just below the hat line, making him somewhat over 6' tall. Napoleon's forces, who averaged about 5'6", encountered Russians in 1812, who could be as short as 4'11" tall. That is exactly one inch shorter than the minimum height for males in the U.S. armed forces today, who average about 5'101/2"'. I am even more puzzled by the fact that 120mm is described as being 1:16 scale when, if the subject is 6', it is actually much closer to 1:15, (1:14.9 for our average American) and a 54mm. figure at 1:32 scale represents a 5'8" man.

 

[Don Johnson]

Phil,
You have voiced the everlasting issue in our hobby - "size" versus "scale". There are, I believe, several threads on this subject in the archives, if you wish to explore the issue further.
In brief, 1:16 is a SCALE, allowing accurate miniature representation of a specific thing - cannon, musket or man. In your example, two of Napoleon's infantrymen would be different heights in this SCALE, but their muskets and hats would be the same dimensions.
On the other hand, 120mm is a SIZE, probably based on some SCALE, but more likely determined by a sculptor or manufacturer for various reasons, some understandable and some not so much. You reference the proverbial hat line / eye-level "measurement" as if it were some holy writ, handed down from . . . well, we're really not sure who.
In truth, unless a sculptor states his/her SCALE, you and I have no idea whether a particular new sculpt represents a man 5-foot tall or 7-foot tall, regardless of the SIZE - 28mm, 40mm, 54mm, 75mm, 90mm or 120mm, to name a few - that may be printed on the box!
(Yes, if the sculpted man is holding a sword of known dimensions, we can deduce the SCALE - no argument there. But I can hand you several figures, each marketed as 54mm, that may be significantly different SIZES, with perhaps a head's difference between smallest and largest!)
The smaller sized figure fans are constantly dealing with "big" 28mm, or "true" 15mm, or foot-to-eye vs foot-to-top-of-head. Each sculptor/producer is free to market whatever they wish - there is no "standard" to which all must abide, notwithstanding many attempts to define or impose same.
Confusing - definitely.
I don't doubt you are already well aware of these matters, so please forgive my summary. If you use SIZE and SCALE when appropriate, the confusion may diminish!
Best regards,
Don

 

[snake plissken]

Personally, I prefer from the 75mm. to up even to the 300mm. or more (1/4 scale), but if the model have a good sculpting I like also the 54mm. or less...

Snake

 

[Tecumsea]

Just happened on this thread, interesting discussion. My view is take it out of the box and compare if you are considering even 2 figures on a base. In my collection there is a huge discrepancy in 54mm sizes in particular-try Elite Scots Fusilier Guard vs Andrea Robert E.Lee vs any Pegaso 54 as a comparison.
On the question of scale in my opinion only a handful of painters are able to handle acrylics in 90mm or above and lose the transitions, I've even seen magazine articles with what I consider to be poorly executed figures (particularly mounted) in acrylic although this is a very subjective area and merely my personal opinion. This is exacerbated when there are large areas of plain colour. (I think my case is perhaps illustrated by looking at the difference in painting quality between the figures in the Andrea catalogue and the Pegaso catalogue, the Andrea catalogue does them no favours)
In summary I think acrylics are better suited to the smaller scales up to 75mm, above this Oils are probably better or even a combination of the two mediums.
Keith

 

[IIICorps]

As I get older, my eyesight gets a little worse. I can no longer see 54mm very well and used to love them. These days, the larger the figure, the better I can see it.

 

[Einion]

In summary I think acrylics are better suited to the smaller scales up to 75mm, above this Oils are probably better or even a combination of the two mediums.

When it comes to hand-brushed transitions it's certainly hard to work with acrylics or vinyl paints (and it begins to be more and more time-consuming the bigger the area) but there's no reason that large scale work can't be done to a high or even exceptional standard using them - just look at garage kits.

The difference is that they're mostly executed with an airbrush, which is the key to practically using acrylics/vinyls over larger areas.

Einion

 

[Tecumsea]

HI Einion, I agree entirely, I was trying to avoid getting into airbrushing which seems to be quite an emotive subject with some modellers. There are a number of UK modellers (One notable example) getting great results on figures of all scales using an air brush to create light and shade and then finishing off the figure with brush work. While it has always been common practice to airbrush horses and ground work, to be able to use an airbush on 54 and 75mm figures requires a high level of skill.
Keith

 

[Einion]

While it has always been common practice to airbrush horses and ground work, to be able to use an airbush on 54 and 75mm figures requires a high level of skill.

Honestly, it doesn't really - the masking takes more finesse!

32mm fantasy minis or 1/35 historicals are a little more tedious to work on but they're basically just as easy to spray as something larger, maybe actually easier overall, assuming the user already has a good gasp of the basics of airbrushing.

Einion