Some ramblings on size versus scale.

[T50]

Think the horse is the wrong size..

I thought it was a big dog...

 

[je_touche]

As for the mm system, you generally don't end up diplaying
a 200mm figure next to a vehicle. So why worry about the size?[/QUOTE]

Because you might want to use different figurines in a diorama.

 

[T50]

As for the mm system, you generally don't end up diplaying
a 200mm figure next to a vehicle. So why worry about the size?

Because you might want to use different figurines in a diorama.[/QUOTE]

In that case, why not use figures from the same company and same artist?

Figures are hand-sculpted by different individuals, and they will vary in size slightly
even if they are in same size category or scale. I find it very difficult to sculpt 1/35 scale
figures in the same size over and over.

I think the real problem is that some figures are mislabeled: for instance, 1/32 figures in
a box that say 1/35, 120mm figure in a box that's says 1/16, etc.

BTW, I just found out that a modeler was complaining about the quality of Alpine
figures because he was not able to use Alpine head on a Verlinden figure.
Let me guess:
the head was too small! Or was the Verlinden body too big? I didn't bother to leave
a reply.

 

[Einion]

If it is stated at 1/16 you have to rely on the sculpters decision as to what the original height might be that they decided to sculpt the figure on,in some cases you could recieve a figure that stands at 90mm or even less...

That is actually the way it should be Steve.

You can see how if you're sculpting a range of figures from a single 'type' - caucasian male soldiers, having them all the same height will work okay. If one steps outside of this type though (where of course even then there'd be plenty of natural variation) and the subject is, say, a VC or NVA, North Korean or Chinese soldier then they pretty much have to be shorter, otherwise things'll seem pretty silly when you come down to it.

There are in fact many existing figures that are just like this - no allowance for era, race, nutrition or anything like that; just the same basic height, build and proportions again and again.

Good point to bring up Jonathon,i myself sculpt a figure to 120mm but all equipment,weapons etc are scaled at 1/16,this is a personal choice.

Just as an aside a man scaling to 120mm at this ratio would be pretty tall: 1.92m (over six-three for those that don't think in metric).

But the key is to give them the gears and weapons in correct 1/35 scale. The problem is that the over-scaled figures usually come with over-scaled gears and weapons.

I think the real problem is that some figures are mislabeled: for instance, 1/32 figures in a box that say 1/35, 120mm figure in a box that's says 1/16, etc.

Agreed. I'm sick of '54mm' models that are really 60mm (or even taller!) Just admit they're sculpted to 1/30 scale, or whatever, and be done with it, but failing that just sell the damned things as 60s

BTW, I just found out that a modeler was complaining about the quality of Alpine figures because he was not able to use Alpine head on a Verlinden figure.
Let me guess: the head was too small! Or was the Verlinden body too big? I didn't bother to leave a reply.

Oi vey That's the very type of person who this kind of thread would benefit.

Einion

 

[T50]

...I'm sick of '54mm' models that are really 60mm (or even taller!)
Just admit they're sculpted to 1/30 scale, or whatever, and be done with it, but failing that
just sell the damned things as 60s

Yup! I had the same experience with so called "54mm" metal figures from a certain
European company. It should have been labeled as 70mm. But labeling it as 54mm will
probably make it sell better than 70mm... I think this type of mislabeling is done on purpose.

 

[1969]

That is actually the way it should be Steve.

You can see how if you're sculpting a range of figures from a single 'type' - caucasian male soldiers, having them all the same height will work okay. If one steps outside of this type though (where of course even then there'd be plenty of natural variation) and the subject is, say, a VC or NVA, North Korean or Chinese soldier then they pretty much have to be shorter, otherwise things'll seem pretty silly when you come down to it.

There are in fact many existing figures that are just like this - no allowance for era, race, nutrition or anything like that; just the same basic height, build and proportions again and again.


Just as an aside a man scaling to 120mm at this ratio would be pretty tall: 1.92m (over six-three for those that don't think in metric).

I totally agree with what you have said but the problem is having two discriptions of the figure on the market ie; scale and mm.
What i am trying to say is if someone is used to the mm method and sends of for a 1/16 figure that arrives at 90mm tall or less they are going to feel ripped off.If all manufacturers would adopt the scale method then life would be easier but people who collect figures as single stand alone displays probably want a consistent size of figure for their display.
I for one am all for everyone adopting the scale size for figure sculpting,at least people will have the option to have the figure as a stand alone or grouped into a dio/vignette,and your point of varying height build etc is very relevent for this purpose.

Steve

 

[Barke02]

There are a few interesting little proportion bits-n-bobs over on Tom Meier's blog site at the mo....

take a look..

http://thunderboltmountain.com/serendipity/