Question about scales

[RKapuaala]

I am thinking about doing more 1:32 scale figures. Before I started I thought I should buy a few and assemble a few. Now,,, not having a lot of money I bought a cheap 54mm set by Dragon with 4 soldiers in it. I assembled one that is of a soldier posed in a standing position but semi slouched over eating some hard tack. After assembly I measured the figure and found that it was 58mm not 54. Now,,, there were some individuals that actually were about 6'1" (1.856 meters 185.6cm) back then, but very few that were 6'1" slouched over. My question is, is it typical for 1:32 scale figures to be larger than 1:32? Is it also typical for 54mm figures to be 4mm larger than they are suppose to be,,, or are all these anomalies only typical of the cheaper Dragon figures?

 

[Richard61]

Hi there.
This is a strange one to me. Dragon are known for 1/35 figures sold in sets but you say you have 1/32 (54mm).
Dragon are also well known for their figures being on the small side which makes your question even stranger ....... I could understand it more if you had some Verlinden figures sold as 1/35 which were over sized. Verlinden 1/35 are often much closer to 1/32.
Not that I'm an expert, it's just what I've found out over the years from 1/35 armour modelling. Sorry I can't be more help.

Richard.

 

[RKapuaala]

Richard,
Thanks for responding. This is kit 7501 54mm sword and musket series. I tried measuring them again,,, this time with calipers. The figure is most definately 58mm at 1:35 scale that would make him over 6 ft 7 inches tall slouched over like.

 

[mash3d]

Are you talking about the Union Civil War set? I'd take the Dragon measurements with a grain of salt.
As far as I know since they only produced that one set in 1/32. So it may have been more of an off hand experiment with them that never went anywhere.
I remember reading once that for some strange reason older kits (1960's) were measured from the base to the to the level of the eyes.
Go figure. But some people still use that method.
The bigger question is are the figures in the correct proportions? meaning is the figure 7 1/2 heads high.

 

[Einion]

My question is, is it typical for 1:32 scale figures to be larger than 1:32?

Not exactly, because I don't think it's about scale only. There has been a trend towards taller (out-of-scale big, not tall individuals) "54mm" figs over recent years, as a result of scale creep or a conscious decision I don't know.

Typical height seems to be over 56mm (I have one that's well over 70, which is just ridiculous) and it's gotten to the point where if I see a genuine 54 can seem a little undersized

The bigger question is are the figures in the correct proportions? meaning is the figure 7 1/2 heads high.

Proportions are important but head-height is far from uniform among people, it's not uncommon for shorter men to be closer to 6 heads tall than over 7. I saw an analysis done by a realist sculptor one time showing that 7 was more common than 7 1/2, although the sample size was too small to be conclusive.

The determinant of scale is a kit or equipment item of fixed dimensions, the most useful being something like a rifle.

Einion

 

[RKapuaala]

I agree with Einion on the head proportions. I don't go by the vetruvian standard because I have found that very few people are proportioned correctly, and I want my figures bodies to belong to their heads and the subjects likeness. But to answer mash3d no, they are not really well proportioned. One thing I noticed in looking over civil war photos is that most and I mean so many it seems like all the soldiers shoulders were very narrow compared with the shoulders of these figures that look too big even by Vitruvian standards.
I also didn't care for the drapping and the general lack of definition on the details like buttons and straps and belts. They all seemed sort of muted to me. I was going to paint the figure, but decided against it for those reason.
Einion, thanks for pointing out the rifle as it is they are using muskets and them seem to be fairly miniture replicas of a Springfield 1864 rifle, which I just happen to have. So I will measure that and see how far it is off.
But my questions is this, are figures ok if they freakish large like this in 54mm scale,,, or should I stick to scaleing the figure to its real 1:1 scale height?

 

[Einion]

But my questions is this, are figures ok if they freakish large like this in 54mm scale,,, or should I stick to scaleing the figure to its real 1:1 scale height?

I think it depends on the context - if all figs in a given range are 'overscale' then that becomes the actual scale (regardless of what it's listed as). It would be better if it were the listed scale naturally, but consistency is maybe as important... until you get to trying to mix figures from different sources of course.

One thing I wish we saw a lot more of is figures deliberately shorter and taller within a given scale, given how much height can vary within a single group. Even for soldiers where there may be a minimum height requirement that still offers plenty of scope for variation and even minor differences in height, and associated build, could bring a lot of much-needed variety.

Einion

 

[mash3d]

"Average Height of Union Army Soldiers
The American Army loves measuring its soldiers and hanging on to this data forever. Union Army records reveal that the average Union soldier during the American Civil War was 5'8.25" and weight 143.5 pounds. That's some pretty precise measuring! For more data about both armies during this war, read E.B. Long's The Civil War Day by Day"
http://natashalh.hubpages.com/hub/M...s-about-history-people-were-shorter-back-then

I can understand some of the issues with height. While doing research for a German WW1 Storm trooper I came across these photo's.
I'm not sure if it's a camera/lens problem but they don't look all that fearsome. Especially with flowers in place of the Spike.

 

[Richard61]

I think that equipment size is more important that actual figure size (OMG I can't believe I just typed that) ...... As long as any standard sized equipment, such as the rifle example given earlier, remains constant for all figures in a given scene, then a slight difference in actual figure size would be realistic providing it was kept within reasonable limits.
I have a book with some photo's of Hitler Youth kids who look to be swamped inside adult greatcoats which have been cut off at the bottom, along with their trousers to stop them dragging on the floor, their rifles and panzerfaust look to be almost as tall as them and their steel helmets appear huge.
Now that raises another question. I know that head gear such as caps and berets come in different sizes but was a steel helmet just made to one size with the liner adjusted to fit by the wearer and what about the kevlar helmets worn by today's troops?

Richard.

 

[Einion]

Union Army records reveal that the average Union soldier during the American Civil War was 5'8.25" and weight 143.5 pounds.

Taller than I would have expected. Makes you wonder if the same was broadly true for Confederate troops as well.

I can understand some of the issues with height. While doing research for a German WW1 Storm trooper I came across these photo's.

Plenty of short-arses there for sure! I was going to say above how some of the most iconic images of German infantry in WWII include at least one man who is visibly short, not just shorter.

I think that equipment size is more important that actual figure size (OMG I can't believe I just typed that) ......

Now that raises another question. I know that head gear such as caps and berets come in different sizes but was a steel helmet just made to one size with the liner adjusted to fit by the wearer...

Stahlhelm were produced in a range of sizes so I'd think it's likely that other helmets would have been too by necessity.

Einion

 

[mash3d]

I know that 1980's Kevlar helmets did come in different sizes. I know from trying to spend months trying to find one that fit right.
It's seems to be timeless military constant that you will always be issued the wrong size.
The only things that I can think of that are produced to the same size are modern weapons, rifles etc. and general equipment like canteens, knapsacks, gas masks containers etc.

RKapuaala I'm curious to see if your real rifle matches the length listed on Wikipedia and other sites.
They list a model 1863 Springfield rifle at 56" long (with a 40" barrel)which @ 1/32 (54mm) = 4.445 cm or 1 and 3/4 inches.
http://scale-models.nl/scalc.html

 

[RKapuaala]

I know that 1980's Kevlar helmets did come in different sizes. I know from trying to spend months trying to find one that fit right.
It's seems to be timeless military constant that you will always be issued the wrong size.
The only things that I can think of that are produced to the same size are modern weapons, rifles etc. and general equipment like canteens, knapsacks, gas masks containers etc.

RKapuaala I'm curious to see if your real rifle matches the length listed on Wikipedia and other sites.
They list a model 1863 Springfield rifle at 56" long (with a 40" barrel)which @ 1/32 (54mm) = 4.445 cm or 1 and 3/4 inches.
http://scale-models.nl/scalc.html

Mash, it is exactly 1.75 inches, which makes it precisely 1:32 scale.... the figure slouched over is 6'1" freakishly big for that era. I calculate that is he were standing errect he would be 6'4" tall the same height of Abe Lincoln himself. I've seen dozens of civil war images with abe in it and the soldiers standing around him look like children.

 

[Mirofsoft]

remember the rules ; 54mm is measured from sole to the eyes

 

[Einion]

remember the rules ; 54mm is measured from sole to the eyes

Uh-uh, from sole of foot to crown of head.

People will continue to argue about which system is better, or right, because both have been used in the past and some sculptors still measure to the eyeline. But we measure people at 1:1 exclusively to the crown of the head, so why exactly would it be good to adopt a different system for measuring people in miniature?

And anyway most everyone agrees that 54mm = 1/32 scale, which works out neatly for a nominal average height historically of 1.73m.

Post from 2004 on the subject:
http://www.planetfigure.com/threads/martini-henry-rifle.14371/#post-151568

Einion

 

[mash3d]

remember the rules ; 54mm is measured from sole to the eyes

I'm just wondering if I have my history correct. Is the sole to the eyes rule a hold over from the early days of minature wargames? I read some where that was done so that all figures would be the same height no matter what type of head hear they were wearing. Say for example British Red coats with thier tall mitre caps.

 

[RKapuaala]

I think you are right about that. I recall reading that somewhere about wargame figures and that they are only approximations of scales like 1:32.
Just out of curiousity does anyone know of a good supplier of real 54mm figures of the quality of someone like Carl Reid that are in the US? I think I need to buy a better kit. I can't even bring myself to assemble the other 3 figures, they are such gross charicatures. I have to say the Springfield musket is very accurate... I have a real one to compare it with.

 

[MCPWilk]

1/32 (3/8":1'), 1/24 (1/2":1') etc are scales. 54mm, 75mm etc are sizes which approximate to certain scales. Traditionally (as mentioned above) the measurement was from sole to eye level, no doubt to accommodate the different head wear worn by different soldiers at different times.

Mike

 

[Richard61]

[quote="RKapuaala, post: 565403, member: 7143" I think I need to buy a better kit. I can't even bring myself to assemble the other 3 figures, they are such gross charicatures.[/quote]

I have a huge stash of kits and figures, mainly 1/35 and I'd say that a lot of the figures are poor quality except for the later D.M.L Gen-2 sets and the resin ones from Alpine, Evolution and Bravo-6. That said I keep them all, even the old Tamiya horrors that are little better than plastic blobs. I use the body parts as a kind of armature during conversion work and sculpting practice, I just grind off any moulded on detail and try to improve things .........I'll almost always swap out the heads for a Hornet or other quality aftermarket item though and the same goes for hands and feet. I'm no sculptor, more like re-building or re-working but it's all practice, practice and more practice.......And I enjoy it which is what's most important.


Richard.

 

[RKapuaala]

So,,, where is a good supplier of good 54mm figures in the U.S. preferrably or someone who ships overseas for not so much money.

 

[Mirofsoft]

So,,, where is a good supplier of good 54mm figures in the U.S. preferrably or someone who ships overseas for not so much money.

you can try in England www.historexagents.com
or www.squadron.com