"Who invented figure scales?" Topic

Who was the first manufacturer to offer figures in each size? If my memory serves me right, Minifigs was the first to offer miniatures in many of these scales.

6mm?
10mm?
15mm?
20mm?
25mm?
28mm?
40mm?

Who was the first "wargames" miniature company?

Minifigs? Laming? Greenwood & Ball? Hinton Hunt? Connesseur? Essex? Dixon? Scruby? Garrison? Tradition? Willys?

I know many of the early wargamers used traditional toy soldiers, or flats. And then there were the Airfix figures – do these pre-date the metal wargames figures, I wonder?

Those are not figure scales--they are sizes.

Scales are 1/144, 1/56, 1/100, etc., etc. Just ask such notable sculptors as Tom Meier et al.

Jack Scruby, 54mm (for wargaming) in 1952

Thomas Company, 20mm, 1953

Scruby, 30mm, 1957

Hinton Hunt 20mm figures, larger than U.S. 20mm figs, Jack Scruby to make matching figures which he called 25mm. 1964

Peter Laing, U.K., 15mm, 1972

Jack Scruby, 9mm, N gague, 1972

Dick Higgs, (MiniFigs), 5mm, 1972

C-in-C, 1/285 (micro armour), 1974

G H Q 1/1200, 1975

Superior Models, 1/2400, 1975

40mm I am not sure on this one but I think it was Chris Hughes, HLBS, or the Perrys.

28mm was the result of scale creep.

VR
James Mattes

altfritz 28 Dec 2011 5:22 a.m. PST wrote:
Who was the first "wargames" miniature company?

Jack Scruby.

VR
James Mattes

"40mm I am not sure on this one but I think it was Chris Hughes, HLBS, or the Perrys. "

Foundry had 40mm scale figs out way back in the day, although they may have been sculpted by the Perrys.

Yea Scott that is what I was thinking but was not sure when Chris started. He did make it more popular than anyone else. By far my favorite scale.
VR
James Mattes

Who made the figures HG Wells played with? I am just guessing, but it seems to me that they were made well before the 1950s…

Wargame figures were discovered at Neolithic site near Sparta; definite proof that the early Spartans taught warfare to their youth:

Got Scruby and HG Wells beat by a few millennia!

Geez, those sculpts have no detail to them and the poses are so static. Those Spartans really need to up their sculpting chops if they expect to get anywhere.

Are those Prussian cuffs or Swedish cuffs?

Damned Finecast imperfections!

This is great info, thanks to all for this thread!

Rampant speculation in this thread, but the fact of the matter — and this very much qualifies as "little known" — is that Hollywood legend Hedy Lamarr invented all of the common wargaming scale conventions. She did so while working with the government (secretly) during the interwar period on new training methods for the U.S. military. FACT.

Britains Toy Soldiers started production in 1893 using 54mm as the base size. These were used by HG Wells in his 1913 Wargame "Little Wars" . Other companies used 54mm as the standard.

Traditional Tin Soldier "Flats" were scaled at 30 to 40mm depending on manufacturers. When early "round" wargame figures came out figures came out in the 50's 60's they often styled themselves after the older flats so early models by Tradition, Willies, SAS, etc were 30mm. Mignot a French Company dates back to 1785.

For more history on the Toy Soldier see

link

1/300th AFVs were available before 1972 (Leicester Micromodels) here in the UK, not sure when Heroics & Ros started though.

'54mm' started as a description of 1/32 figures the same as model railroad 'I' scale. 54 X 32 = 1728mm or 5'8" average height in the 1890's when these figures were first made.

In fact size descriptions rather than ratio scales began with the era of small manufacturers making figures for wargames. They used them because toy companies of the day were notorious for not keeping to scale. Size description was supposed to regulate scale, talk about irony.

'20mm' began as 1/87 to match US HO railroad scale.

'40mm' matches the scale associated in Europe with 'O' gauge 1/43.5, in the US the associated scale is 1/48.

And we are missing Heritage Figures somewhere in James' list above…. Believe they were early 1970's too?

I also think that GHQ was first with Micro armor as this was used by the U.S. military for their planning and 'wargaming'.
Yep, their website says 1967.

While Britains pioneered the 54mm figures early last century, they also produced a range of 40mm figs called the "B" range I think.

"Scales are 1/144, 1/56, 1/100, etc., etc. "

Those are not scales they are ratios.

Scales are steps on a, literal or not, ladder. The expressions used for them is fairly arbitrary.

Musical scales, for instance, or seldom expressed as ratios.

Map scales are. Train scales, you know, like H0, or N, are not.
Nor are, generally, miniatures scales.

If most 28mm figures were to be defined as a ratio of natural size we would need several different ratios; one for the height, one for the build, another for the head, and yet another for their weapon.

In the UK programme is correctly spelt as programme. In the US it is spelt program. Computer programs got their names in the US, so they decided the correct spelling for a computer program as program – and this has been adopted as the correct spelling for a computer program in the UK.

Likewise, wargamers define/call 20mm and 1/72 as scales. Language changes, so both 20mm and 1/72 are correctly described as scales in the wargames community.

Those are not scales they are ratios.

Scale=ratio:

link

You are confusing the attempt at model railroad standardization of scales by using letter designations. Scale is a ratio.

If most 28mm figures were to be defined as a ratio of natural size we would need several different ratios; one for the height, one for the build, another for the head, and yet another for their weapon.

This does not make sense. Height, width of the figure, the length of his musket would all (presumably) be based on a ratio (scale), right? If you made a soldier figure represent a height of 5.5 feet, holding a musket that was 4.8 feet long, you wouldn't use a different scale or ratio for each element. You'd use the same ratio (e.g., 1/100, etc), so they'd have the proper size in relation to each other.

You're wasting your time, Condo. The majority of wargamers don't seem to understand what the concept of scale is. They won't be told either. God knows, I've tried.

I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a 28mm scale map…

… with a 28mm scale map…

A couple of minor additions to the Jack Scruby history…

>>Scruby, 30mm, 1957<<

These were based on Cox colonials and expanded by Jack into a fairly nice, for the time, colonial line. He also had 30mm ACW & Napoleonic among others.

>>Hinton Hunt 20mm figures, larger than U.S. 20mm figs, Jack Scruby to make matching figures which he called 25mm. 1964<<

Jack had a created a large 20mm line of Napleonics in the mid-late 60s which were based on Greenwood and Ball UK 20mm figures. He also had 20mm G&B WWI in his catalog.

In about 1970 he introduced 25mm Napoleonics but the line never became very large. This had followed the success of his 25mm colonial line which he introduced as "A brand new wargames scale" [sic?] in about 1966-67.

I think most of the dates above are accurate, I'd have dig out (i.e. "find") my old "Table Top Talk" issues to be certain. The one thing (of few it seems lately) I can be certain is that I had armies of about 2,000 of Scruby 20mm Napoleonics and 400 of his 25mm colonials.

All traded away in the 1970s…

Airfix vehicles and figures in the HO – 1/87 and OO – 1/76 (20mm) scales came out starting 1960 or so. Of course these were predicated on the railroad scales that originated in the early 20s (1921 for OO a couple of years later for HO).

As noted above the larger railroad scales originated in the 1890s and early 1900s.

Airfix vehicles and figures in the HO – 1/87 and OO – 1/76 (20mm) scales

Airfix never produced vehicles in 1/87. They were all 1/76.

The traditional Airfix packaging specifies 00 for the tanks and vehicle ranges and 1:72 for the aircraft. The newer packaging changed the specification on the vehicle sets to 1:76. Tim Gow showed some examples of both styles of packaging on his blog ( link )

I think HO/OO was only a scale blanket thrown over the figures boxes (in an attempt to suggest the figures would be suitable for a number of applications) but they quickly outgrew the compromise. I still have some of those early 'British Infantry' that are indeed no bigger than Minitanks 1:87 guys but by the mid 70s Airfix were issuing figures (still labelled HO/OO) which Hat would re-issue with the packaging labelled 1:72. Plastic Soldier Review puts this 'Waterloo' period output in the middle of its figure height range (23mm) … so one thing it isn't is HO!

I sometimes wonder if we wouldn't all have been saved a lot of pain and confusion if Airfix had eschewed the temptations, been honest about scale – stated just one and stuck to it.

Phil
pbeyecandy.wordpress.com

I think HO/OO was only a scale blanket

OO/HO was a "catch all" in the model railway world that arose from the fact that a single track gauge (16.5mm) was (and still is) used for both OO scale (1/76, 4mm to 1ft) British outline model trains and HO scale (1/87, 3.5mm to 1ft) US and European model trains. The difference in scales came from the difference in loading gauge (US and European trains are much bigger than British ones) and also that at the time they could not fit the mechanism into a model of a British outline locomotive if it was 1/87.

Such are the accidents and complications of history!

Oh come on guys even Websters defines scale as:

"A graduated range of values forming a standard system for measuring or grading something".

Here in the States the debate centered around the Courier and an article by Toby Barrett established a uniformed system of measurement. The number of millimeters to to the eye. So an establishment of in fact a "scale" ratio.

I am sure when model railroaders started they all would have have the same debate if the internet had been around at that time. What does HO or N really mean? Sure they call it gauge. Wargamers had no common terminology for size of figure, scale became common terminology around the 1970 rather than size. How many new terms do we have every year as a result of mass means of commmunication? What is a tweet? I always thought it was a sound a bird made. Now it is a short message of 140 charaters or less. Etymology experts should be consulted.

VR
James Mattes

"1/300th AFVs were available before 1972 (Leicester Micromodels) here in the UK, not sure when Heroics & Ros started though."

My first 1/300th scale stuff was Skytrex, along with Leicester micro-blobs. Very early 70s indeed and horrible models the lot of them, pins for gun barrels etc. H&R infantry were definately a bit later, 1974, maybe 1975??

Oh come on guys even Websters defines scale as:

"A graduated range of values forming a standard system for measuring or grading something"

Sorry, that's not the definition that applies here. You want this one:
"A proportion used in determining the dimensional relationship of a representation to that which it represents."
thefreedictionary.com/scale

The number of millimeters to to the eye. So an establishment of in fact a "scale" ratio.

Problem with that is that the height of a man "to the eye" is not a fixed distance, thus you cannot generate a scale from it.

What does HO or N really mean?

It is the gauge (distance between the rails) of the track. HO is 16.5mm, N is 9mm. It has nothing to do with scale.

What is the difference between toy soldiers and Wargaming? In 1965 my brother and I played with toy soldiers and used rubber bands to shoot each others figures down. Was that a wargame or just play? Toy soldier are older then recorded history. The question is when did wargame figures come into being. I think there are three good lists on the net that address the development of the hobby of wargaming pretty well. I once saw on ebay a game that dated from 1890 that used little blocks and a box with rules and instruments for measurements based on Napoleonics. Was that one of the first wargames?

VR
James Mattes

What is the difference between toy soldiers and Wargaming?

Toy soldiers are those little figurines of military men that we all know and love.
Wargaming is what you do with them.

In 1965 my brother and I played with toy soldiers and used rubber bands to shoot each others figures down. Was that a wargame or just play?

H.G. Wells used spring loaded guns in a similar manner.
gutenberg.org/ebooks/3691

I once saw on ebay a game that dated from 1890 that used little blocks and a box with rules and instruments for measurements based on Napoleonics. Was that one of the first wargames?

Kriegsspiel was (and still is) played with blocks. It dates from the early 19th century.
link
link

production in 1893 using 54mm as the base size

Although I have no alternate information, I do find the combination of metric units and British (especially Victorian) companies surprising. One-inch or two-inch figures would be less so.

Any idea why they would have started with non-imperial measures?

Margard 29 Dec 2011 6:06 a.m. PST wrote:
Kriegsspiel was (and still is) played with blocks. It dates from the early 19th century.

No it was not Kriegspiel, It was older and I wish I could remember the name, it was a game all in one box about 8 by 10 and I have only seen it once. I have never seen anything older and except for that one ebay listing have seen nothing on it since.

VR
James Mattes

"Problem with that is that the height of a man "to the eye" is not a fixed distance, thus you cannot generate a scale from it."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

"It is the gauge (distance between the rails) of the track. HO is 16.5mm, N is 9mm. It has nothing to do with scale."

Exactly, gauge is associated with a scale but the scale of the gauge depends on the gauge of the full size track it represents. You can easily put a 1/48 scale train model on 1/43.5 scale track by varying the span of the axles. This is why the scale associated with a particular gauge varies from one manufacturer to another.

"If most 28mm figures were to be defined as a ratio of natural size we would need several different ratios; one for the height, one for the build, another for the head, and yet another for their weapon."

Yes, emphatically yes, which is why most 28mm figures are not scale models, they are toys, caricatures which have more in common with stuffed animals than precision scale models.

Yes, emphatically yes, which is why most 28mm figures are not scale models, they are toys, caricatures which have more in common with stuffed animals than precision scale models.

I also emphatically agree. The vast majority of figures used in wargaming are not "anatomically correct."

While I accept completely and wholly that the often notional sizes of model soldiers are not, accurately, 'scales', I have decided to (virtually) punch out the next pedant who brings the issue up again on TMP.

Give it a rest, fellas.

Kriegsspiel was (and still is) played with blocks. It dates from the early 19th century.

No it was not Kriegspiel, It was older and I wish I could remember the name, it was a game all in one box about 8 by 10 and I have only seen it once. I have never seen anything older and except for that one ebay listing have seen nothing on it since.

I wasn't suggesting that the game you saw on ebay was Kreigsspiel.
I was however pointing out that Kreisspiel predates your game of 1890 by a significant amount.

Guys,

Other than Ochel, I don't know the manufacturers but German, Swiss and Austrian 30mm flats have been around since the mid-19th Century.

Also, it is my understanding 54mm Britains have been available since the late 19th Century.

The first wargame manufacturer in the US was Jack Scruby. He started with 54s and like topsey just grew, 30s then 20s which were 25s in UK. Angry Jack then upgunned to one inch figures (25s?).

Surprisingly 25s lasted till a few years ago when suddenly they grew to be 28s.

My main collection is 15mm Napoleonics but they too grew to 18s. We I younger I'd go to true 10s which are not 12s masquerading as 10s, though I would most likely us Scruby's 9s which which are 10s and while plain are inexpensive.

I notice as I age I am shrinking. Too bad some of the figure don't too.

This fol-de-rol has been going on for over 60 years. Today there are dozens of scales for wargame figures. What is needed is a Millemeter Summit.

Bob Coggins

28mm figures are not scale models, they are toys,

So are you saying that wargames figures are less accurate than toy soldiers or that toy soldiers and wargames figures are one and the same thing?

I think the comments were about 28mm figures, not about 'wargames figures' in general. Different scales and ranges have different characteristics.

Personally (although I often refer to my own collection as toys), I think 'toy soldiers' and 'wargames figures' are closely related products primarily aimed a different markets.

Toy Soldiers of the 'Tradition' type are generally quite nicely proportioned. As are plastic figures aimed at modellers (e.g. say 'Preiser')

Phil

I think 'toy soldiers' and 'wargames figures' are closely related products primarily aimed a different markets

I think there are three groupings, – toy soldiers, military miniatures and wargames figures. Hat miniatures are obviously both for doing dioramas (see postings on their "ETS" site) and for use in wargames armies. If you look at "Plastic Soldier Review" as wel they mark sets down for lack of poses in boxes of figures such as Napoleonics where you'd want lots of figures looking the same.

I think there are three groupings, – toy soldiers, military miniatures and wargames figures.

How do you classify your three groupings?

I think Howard just threatened me. I guess I should avoid the next game day. Although, I am at least 500mm taller and a bit wider…

"I think the comments were about 28mm figures, not about 'wargames figures' in general."

Yes, '28mm' figures are some of the most egregious examples, but the point does apply to many other gaming 'scales'. The problem of compatibility is not limited to agreeing on a scale, or even a size, you have to agree on a scale for all the parts of the figure and if the figure is to look right next to a scale machine either the machine will have to be a caricature or the figure will have to be the same scale in all it's parts.

This is one of the many reasons why there are so many problems with 'size scales'.

Sorry for the imprecise wording Margard – a number of the older Airfix figure sets were HO. Made it a bit awkward to have them on the table with their newer OO counterparts (particularly when the HO figs were supposed to be the hulking barbarians vs the OO Romans).

And yes, I have never seen any of their vehicle that weren't OO.

a number of the older Airfix figure sets were HO.

Not so. A 1/87 (HO) scale figure would be only 18.5mm tall.
TMP link
One of the earliest Airfix figure sets was the "Infantry Combat Group". According to PSR, these figures were 21mm tall – pretty close to 1/76 (that is British OO scale).
link

Later sets did as you suggest suffer from "scale creep" and were nearer to 1/72 than 1/76.

particularly when the HO figs were supposed to be the hulking barbarians vs the OO Romans).

I don't know what figures you are referring to as barbarians, but again according to PSR, both the Romans and the Ancient Britons released by Airfix in the late 60s were 23mm.
link
link

I had both these sets and they seemed quite compatible in size to me.

Fascinating stuff. I was intrigued by the comment re original Airfix figures which I also thought were significantly smaller.

My handiest rubbish box did't yield any old 'British Infantry', but did yield 'first generation' German Infantry link , HO Minitanks German Infantry and 'second generation' Airfix Afrika Korps link (and a metal Dixon 20mm Russian).

I make the older German just under 20mm, and the newer Arfika Korps 22mm. PSR agree on the latter but I'm genuinely surprised to see they give the former 21.5mm. I think this dubious (though it is an average, and the set has a number of very upright poses). I will certainly say, however, that the difference is way more than 0.5mm.

The old Airfix figure is slightly smaller than the minitank (about the same but with a smaller head) – and both are smaller than the later Airfix (which isn't far off the Dixon except the Dixon has a bigger head … as you might expect from a metal figure).

Old to newer Airfix (on these figures and my calipers) is about 10% different. The former looks closer to HO and the later looks like OO. I think the usually reliable PSR doesn't really reflect this difference at all.

But I agree about the Romans and Brits – same size (although the Brits have baggy trousers, maybe?) …

Phil
pbeyecandy.wordpress.com