T Meier | 30 Apr 2012 5:13 a.m. PST |
It would be an understatement to say here is a disparity of views on how to measure miniature figures. On what exactly it means to say a figure is 28mm for example. My own impression from sculpting figures since 1973 is figures were made with the intention of the millimeter height being the height of the man depicted, or of an average man, just as you'd measure your own height. It seems to me the first I ever heard of measuring a figure to the eyes was in the mid 1980's. My own construction of the history of this question is, initially miniatures or toy soldiers were either made to match model railroad scales or were made to no particular standard. They were toys after all, not scale models. With the advent of the miniature wargaming hobby, enthusiasts needed a way to discuss the compatibility of figures made by different companies so they described the apparent height of the figure, as this was mainly a British hobby, the description was in millimeters. When small enthusiast owned companies began to make figures specifically for the war-gaming hobby they frequently marketed them by their size, as 20mm or 54mm for example, rather than ‘HO', 1/87 or ‘I' 1/32. This is not to say they kept to scale or size, from the very first there were grossly mislabeled figures and mistakes tend to result in a bigger rather than smaller figure, there was also disagreement about what height an average man should be but the intention was to make a figure with an overall height sole to crown, of whatever the millimeter designation was. As I said this is my impression and fits with the small sample of old figures available to me but it occurs to me TMP is a resource which can pretty much settle this question. I'm sure just about every figure ever made is available to somebody here. So I invite you to measure and post on pre-1980 figures. Don't be concerned about contradicting me or other posters with the results you get, no two people measure the same but the average should be about right. |
x42brown | 30 Apr 2012 5:20 a.m. PST |
Just an observation. We were using mm hieghts before British metrication so the origin may not be British. x42 |
Maddaz111 | 30 Apr 2012 5:27 a.m. PST |
I had heard 25mm to the eyes as a collector of lead soldiers in the late seventies – the eyes were always 25mm from the bottom of the 2mm thick base, and therefore the top of the head would be about 25mm from the top of the base. However hats, caps and weird headgear and hairstyles meant that the top of the figure could creep up to 30mm (rarely) When Citadel created pressures for scale creep in the early eighties, and the figures increased in size slowly between 84 and 89.. then the 28mm and then later heroic scales were created. I still have some few 25 mm Citadel and Grenadier models, from that era, with one or two others from a few years later. Grenadier never followed suit, but Citadel – that became GW and others increased in size. I have noticed that even new Foundry figures are rapidly increasing in size.. I do wonder when 35mm will become the new 25mm (what worries me more is the varying sizes within ranges and the horrid proportions of some figures – I have seen some kneeling figures that are two mm shorter than the standing figure from the same manufacturer standing next to them!) |
T Meier | 30 Apr 2012 5:42 a.m. PST |
I think it's best to begin by collecting data, rather than getting bogged down in differing recollections and impressions. We know there is a lot of disagreement, what I'm trying to establish, if we can, is whether there ever was broad agreement and if so what it was. |
T Meier | 30 Apr 2012 6:00 a.m. PST |
We were using mm hieghts before British metrication so the origin may not be British. Perhaps it's from Elastolin plastics then link they were desgnated by the manufacturer in millimeter sizes rather than a scale. According to link Jack Scruby was the first to make figures specifically for wargamers in a size-scale (30mm)in 1957. |
RobH | 30 Apr 2012 6:13 a.m. PST |
Barry Minot "Thane Tostig" range humans: 25mm sole to crown apart from the hero Tostig who is 27 sole to crown. Citadel pre slotta (KC-RAFM series) Chaos Warriors: sole to crown varied, 25, 26,27,27,27,28,28 Taking only upright or near upright poses. Figures were made with the intention of the millimeter height being the height of the man depicted, or of an average man, just as you'd measure your own height. ..seems logical and appropriate somehow. |
IronDuke596 | 30 Apr 2012 6:22 a.m. PST |
This issue was constantly popping up in issues of Military Modelling since the early 70s. It was generally agreed/by consensus by manufacturers and gamers that for military figures MMs (easier to measure vice fractions and converting) be used and the size was from the bottom of the feet (becasue bases were of varying thickness depending on the manufacturer). At the top/height scale was the level of the eyes vice the top of the head or hat. The rationale is that one could not accurately measure the top of the head because the headgear masked the top of the head and the not the top of the headgear because of the vast variance of headgear height. As to the scale creep from 25mm to 28mm, I suspect is has to do with manufactuers trying to get better detail for the same scale market. For example; in the 70s and early 80s Minifigs and Hinchliffe were arguably the largest retailers of 25mm historical figures. Hinchliffe figures were slightly taller than Minifigs and with their Foremeost range (by Peter Gilder I believe) became taller and slightly chunkier but full of detail and character. Because of the size discepancy I tended to use MFs for line troops and H for Grenadiers and Guards units. The latter para is subjective and based on my firsthand experiece but I would be interested in other views. |
T Meier | 30 Apr 2012 6:52 a.m. PST |
It was generally agreed/by consensus by manufacturers and gamers that for military figures MMs (easier to measure vice fractions and converting) be used and the size was from the bottom of the feet (becasue bases were of varying thickness depending on the manufacturer). At the top/height scale was the level of the eyes vice the top of the head or hat. That's an assertion from memory unless you can back it up with contemporary documentation. I recall when I began making figures in 1973 25mm was the height of an average man, sole to crown and the originals I have from that time back this up, though it was hard for me to stay in scale at first. What I'm trying to establish is some hard data on how big figures from before 1980 actually were, rather than just compare memories and impressions. Barry Minot "Thane Tostig" range humans Do you know how they were marketed, e.g. '25mm'? Are the Citadel figures post 1980? One of the big changes in figure manufacture was the introduction of modeling in epoxy (about 1970) rather than carving in solder or wax. There is a slight predisposition to make a figure bigger than you intended in wax or solder but it's much worse in epoxy. The popularity of fantasy figures from about 1975 also had an effect as the wide disparity in size of various types of people tended to throw off scale. |
Ashurman | 30 Apr 2012 7:05 a.m. PST |
Have to wonder if mm came both from Elastolin or perhaps even German flats
as I do not remember how they were packaged, but they were certainly measured/stated that way for height
I also distinctly remember looking at some of the newer Hinchliffe and Heritage medievals around 1980-81 and thinking how big they were, with the bulk of minifigs but taller and "lumpier" with detail. Certainly my older Ral Partha, Grenadier, Minifig, Citadel were/are around 21-23mm sole-to-eye, and I remember the sizing convention as "25mm to about where the top of the head would be" excluding the base. I do think it was pretty standard until the scale creep wars that accelerated throughout the 80's
|
bridget midget the return | 30 Apr 2012 7:14 a.m. PST |
25mm sole to crown has always made the most sense to me as it more or less equates to 1/72, 1" figure represents 72"/6' person, 1" is more or less 25mm. This is why 20mm really confuses me as people use 1/72 vehicles and buildings with them. but that's just me. |
T Meier | 30 Apr 2012 7:28 a.m. PST |
25mm sole to crown has always made the most sense to me And me as well but there is obviously a difference of opinion and a disparity in memory. What I'm trying to establish is first if there was ever a consensus and if there was, what it was and when it changed to the current disagreement. Comparing memory and impressions won't get to the bottom of it, if there is a bottom. What we need is hard data. |
Extra Crispy | 30 Apr 2012 7:35 a.m. PST |
The reason for 20mm = 1/72 is that 6" is really darned tall! In 1/72 a figure 20mm tall is 5' 9" which is much closer to your average height historically. In fact, that was the average height of a male in the US in 2006. |
Doug em4miniatures | 30 Apr 2012 7:57 a.m. PST |
I've just measured a Minifigs 25mm Bavarian Infantry figure which dates from mid-seventies. It is 27mm from top of base to top of helmet crest. Top of base to approximate eye-level is 23mm. Any help? I can dig out some Minifigs and Hinton Hunt 20mm from 1969/70 if you like. Doug EDIT – just measured a Minifigs 20mm Austrian Grenadier. Top of base to eye level – 20mm. To top of bearskin cap – 28mm. Doug |
T Meier | 30 Apr 2012 8:52 a.m. PST |
I can dig out some Minifigs and Hinton Hunt 20mm from 1969/70 if you like. That would be great. Again according to link the first figures made for wargaming, as opposed to children's toys were Thomas HO/20mm. 20mm is the height of an average person sole to crown in 1/87 but I don't know how big these figures actually were. Jack Scruby was next with 30mm, I have a few of these and they are 30mm sole to crown. Under 1964 'The Courier' says: U.K. wargames convention sponsored by Hinton Hunt which also enters the figure market with 20mm figures, larger than U.S. 20mm figs and so begins the great "mm (millemeter) Race." The Hinton Hunt figures led Jack Scruby to make matching figures which he called 25mm. If these figures really were the same size but described as 5mm different in height, that's a difference too big be to be accounted for by measuring to the eyes versus the top of the head, which is 1/14 of height at most, 1/15 being average. So I don't know what accounts for it. This is, however confusing, the birth of 25mm which leads directly to the current situation so it's interesting to note, at least according to 'The Courier', that these were meant to be 20mm in some respect. Does anyone have these original Hinton Hunt and Scruby figures? I think it's more important to establish what these early small companies understood 'X-mm' to mean, rather than what later, larger companies did with it. |
Doug em4miniatures | 30 Apr 2012 9:47 a.m. PST |
I can dig out some Minifigs and Hinton Hunt 20mm from 1969/70 if you like.That would be great. If you see my Edit addition to my previous post, you'll see my information on Minifigs 20mm. I'll post the info on Hinton Hunt – later (got to root round in the garage to find some). Doug |
RobH | 30 Apr 2012 9:58 a.m. PST |
Barry Minot "Thane Tostig" range humansDo you know how they were marketed, e.g. '25mm'? Are the Citadel figures post 1980? The Tostig range was not size specified on the original New Model Army/Navwar advertisements in Military Modelling, but the review by them clearly states they are 25mm figures. I can mail you scans if you want. I am not sure the exact release date of the Citadel Chaos Knights/Warriors, they predate the "Citadel Presents" CP boxes. Not all of the sculpts made it into the CP and SS box sets (thankfully as some like Varag Soulstealer are pretty dire models!). I believe they are 1980 but someone els may have a definitive answer. |
T Meier | 30 Apr 2012 10:11 a.m. PST |
I can mail you scans if you want. That's OK I'll trust you. I believe they are 1980 I chose 1980 as a cut off because it was just before that things started to really get out of control. The morph from 25mm to 28mm began with fantasy figures in about 1978. you'll see my information on Minifigs 20mm You don't have any Minifigs non-grenadier figures do you? A figure 20mm to the eyes would be 21.5mm to the top of the head, I wonder if it's the fact he's a grenadier or if they are all that big. |
HistoriFigs | 30 Apr 2012 11:06 a.m. PST |
As far back as the 1940's (possibly even 1930's) we can find miniatures measured in millimeters. 400m were not unheard of at this time. IIRC Greenwood was making 40mm figures before the war and these figures were measured sole to crown and came in at 40mm in height. At some point in the 1940's Greenwood began making 20mm figures (again measured sole to crown
Now here is where things get a little muddy for me. Many of the scribblings I have from Jack Scruby indicate that the 'official' size/scale/what have you for the 20mm figures (produced by John Greenwood) was 3/4" scale. Of course this comes to 19 (ok 19.05) millimeters. This does indeed match the pattern figures I have in hand (Greenwood patterns used by Scruby to make new 20mm figures), finished figures on a base with headgear coming out at or about 20mm (sole to crown)
The above is all from memory – the 20mm & 3/4" scale being used interchangeably is accurate and I should have notes to back that. The actual 40mm and 20mm being used for sizes is less clear. Did Greenwood call his figures 20 and 40mm or were they 3/4"and 1.5" (I know 1.57 is more accurate as far as direct conversion goes, but I have heard of 1 1/2" scale miniatures, but need to look for where that is documented). I'll try and see if I can find some reliable documentation that covers any of this
|
T Meier | 30 Apr 2012 11:31 a.m. PST |
As far back as the 1940's (possibly even 1930's) we can find miniatures measured in millimeters. Yes, as I said Elastolin began making composite figures in 1912 and always referred to them, at least within the company, in millimeter sizes. Of course Elastolin wasn't making figures for wargaming and they weren't really concerned about scale, except perhaps in their figures made to accompany model train sets. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 30 Apr 2012 11:42 a.m. PST |
Rose were producing wargames figures from about 1956-1957. They were originlly described as 20mm. I believe Minifigs were the first to describe figures as 25mm with the 'S' range – and later Rose catalogues have their 20mm ranges described as 25mm! On the other hand, the later Prestige/Elite figures were described as 'inch high'. Garrison 20mm figures are variable in size, the later ones being the same height as their later 25mm ranges. Some comparisons on my site: link Bear in mind that there is a small distance at the bottom of the ruler to take into account! A good site for comparisons is: plasticpelisse.blogspot.co.uk Rob |
GarrisonMiniatures | 30 Apr 2012 12:06 p.m. PST |
Memory update – the real major size increase came when Bill Lamming started to produce giants – in fact, I think Phil Barker once made reference to it in a set of rules or army lists in relation to Bill's Arabs. Anyway, regarding the use of epoxy to make masters from about 1970, Bill once told me that he made/carved his masters from brass! By the way Tom, I have a load of early 20mm-ish figures Harry Pearson gave me. Neither of us have a clue what they are – Romans/Mongols types – which may or may not be early Greenwood/Scrubie figures from the 50s. PM me with your address and I'll send some, together with some of the early Rose figures. I assume you have samples of the 1966+ Garrison figures. Rob |
Doug em4miniatures | 30 Apr 2012 12:14 p.m. PST |
You don't have any Minifigs non-grenadier figures do you? A figure 20mm to the eyes would be 21.5mm to the top of the head, I wonder if it's the fact he's a grenadier or if they are all that big. I've got lots of figures in Shakos, Brunswickers and Austrian fusiliers – I'll measure them and leave out the plumes
Doug |
HistoriFigs | 30 Apr 2012 1:27 p.m. PST |
I know that I have in writing why and when Jack Scruby created his 25mm scale. So, I guess I'll have a bit of reading do do tonight, at least I have a fairly narrow time-frame to work with – 1967 would have been the first appearance of Scruby 25mm figures. Also, I have many Scruby (master) figures in various sizes. Including some of his original 25mm figures. I also have numerous (20mm or 3/4") pattern and master figures from Greenwood (those sent to Scruby for reproduction or as patterns for new figures). I'll dig those out and make some measurements. |
HistoriFigs | 30 Apr 2012 5:12 p.m. PST |
Now that I'm home from work, just thought I'd post a few links to some material I've posted on the Table Top Talk site: tabletoptalk.com/?p=673 : Figure Size 30mm tabletoptalk.com/?p=675 : Figure Size 20mm tabletoptalk.com/?p=678 : Figure Size 25mm tabletoptalk.com/?p=686 : Figure Size Comparisons This data was mined from various editions of ‘Jack Scruby's Catalogue of Military Miniatures' UPDATED: One more link: tabletoptalk.com/?p=689 : Figure Size Various Scales I'm combing through a few more books from the 1970s and will shortly head down into my Scruby Archives to see what other information I can dig up
|
musket1 | 30 Apr 2012 5:47 p.m. PST |
I checked a few of my pre-1980's figures. Measuring from the sole of the foot to the eye socket the heights are: Thomas (K&L Co.) = 19mm consistent for standing figs., 15mm for kneeling. These were sold as 20mm (HO scale). Hinton-Hunt = 21mm (20mm fig.) Airfix (HO/O scale ACW) = 21mm. Jim McCarron, Musket Miniatures |
HistoriFigs | 30 Apr 2012 6:08 p.m. PST |
After seeing musket1's post, I pulled out a few castings and made some measurements: Greenwood & Ball 20mm WWII Germans – 3/4" sole to crown this matches the definition given by Jack Scruby (see my previous post) Scruby (post 1972) 30mm Colonial British – 1 1/4" sole to crown. Again matches the definition given by Jack Scruby. These measurements were made against crisp new castings (yes, even the Greenwood & Ball figure was a crisp new casting from a Scruby mold). I'll dig out some other pre 1980s for measurement after dinner. |
T Meier | 01 May 2012 5:09 a.m. PST |
Airfix (HO/O scale ACW) = 21mm. Those are plastics aren't they? I was going to keep away from plastics because the original isn't made the same size as the finished product. That makes it more difficult to know the intention. So it looks like so far as 1950's manufacturers go we have Thomas – mm height is sole to crown Scruby – mm height is sole to crown (definitely understood mm height as meaning sole to crown) SAE- mm height is sole to crown Greenwood – mm height is sole to crown In the 1960's Hinton Hunt – mm height varies from sole to shoulder to sole to mouth. Figures sold as 'HO', 1/87 so are clearly out of scale. Minifigs – At first mm height varies and is confused a la Hinton Hunt, later settles around mm sole to crown. The S range for example is first marketed as 20mm then later as 25mm. It seems so far like there is a define U.S. standard of mm is sole to crown. In the UK there seems to be confusion. Initially mm means sole to crown but Hinton Hunt throws a monkey-wrench into the whole scale-size question. |
Doug em4miniatures | 01 May 2012 9:16 a.m. PST |
Hinton Hunt 20mm Austrian fusilier, circa 1971. From top of base to eye level: 22mm; to top of shako (ignoring cockade) 25mm
. Doug |
Elenderil | 01 May 2012 9:34 a.m. PST |
I'm not at home at the moment but I do recall a distinct variation within Hinchcliffe 25mm Ancients in the early 1970s. The figure that sticks in my mind was the Palmyrian Catafract rider and horse which were nice figures but looked a lot smaller than all the other figures in the range. The Hun light cavalry were bigger looking. |
T Meier | 01 May 2012 10:59 a.m. PST |
Hinton Hunt 20mm Austrian fusilier, circa 1971. From top of base to eye level: 22mm; to top of shako (ignoring cockade) 25mm
. I think it looks very much like the Hinton Hunt figures were not meant to be 20mm at all but a scale sometimes associated with HO in Britain, 1/76.5, about 23.5mm overall height. The scale of Airfix plastic 'HO/OO' figures. In America HO is 1/87 and an HO figure is 20mm overall height. Hinton Hunt seem to have originally been marketed as 'HO scale' and only later as 20mm. Jack Scruby seems to have reacted to them by making 15/16" figures (24mm) and calling them 25mm in metric. Curiouser and curiouser. |
Richard Humm | 01 May 2012 1:04 p.m. PST |
The first reference I remember seeing to "foot to eye" measurements for figures was in adverts by a Scottish company called Viking Miniatures. Their ad in the October 1980 Military Modelling refers to their Viking and Norman figures as being 25mm foot to eye. There may have been earlier ads but I've yet to find one. |
T Meier | 01 May 2012 4:05 p.m. PST |
Their ad in the October 1980 Military Modelling refers to their Viking and Norman figures as being 25mm foot to eye. You have a copy of October 1980 Military Modeling? It looks like the pioneers of small figures for wargaming understood X-mm to be sole to crown with confusion arriving with Hinton Hunt, though not from measuring to the eye unless they were measuring to the eye and still making them 10% too big. More likely the confusion was between 1/87 HO and 1/76 HO. If all this is true the idea of measuring to the eye was probably introduced in the 1970's sometime and probably first in Britain. I'd like to narrow it down more. |
HistoriFigs | 01 May 2012 5:42 p.m. PST |
A bit more reading brings a little more clarity (for me at least) to the size designations for the Greenwood and Ball figures. The more material I read that is dated in the late 1950's and early 1960's is clearly showing a trend. I'm mostly convinced that the 'official' designations for size being in inches rather than millimeters. This is for the 3/4" and 1" figures. For the 54mm figures we always see sized designation in millimeters (however, I have seen, and need to track-down references with inch designations for this figure size. |
HistoriFigs | 01 May 2012 7:11 p.m. PST |
Another interesting post on the Table Top Talk site: tabletoptalk.com/?p=697 This one talks about some 5/8" figures made by A.W. Saunders in the late 1950s. Here we see that Mr. Saunders created his figure to match the size of some plastic kits. Kits sized to (roughly) fit with TT scale railroads. Another case of figure height to match some known scale. Anyhow, relevant or not, makes for some interesting reading and food for thought. |
HistoriFigs | 01 May 2012 8:42 p.m. PST |
One more interesting tidbit. An advertizement in the June 1960 issue if War Game Digest offers: '
hundreds of 30mm, 27mm and 20mm model soldiers
' This ad is for a catalouge from Jack Scruby. The interesting bit are the 27mm figures. This is the earliest (and perhaps only) time I've seen reference to 27mm figures. Yet another mystery to solve, which means more digging. |
T Meier | 02 May 2012 4:32 a.m. PST |
This is the earliest (and perhaps only) time I've seen reference to 27mm figures. That matches 1/64, the scale generally associated with 'S' gauge model trains. |
HistoriFigs | 02 May 2012 4:52 a.m. PST |
This is the earliest (and perhaps only) time I've seen reference to 27mm figures. That matches 1/64, the scale generally associated with 'S' gauge model trains.
OK, that makes sense. Still this is the only reference I can find to 27mm figures being offered by Scruby. After looking at a few more figures, I'm thinking the ad may be referring to the figures designed by Tom Cox. The Cox figures were always described as 1" figures (with the exception of those that were indeed 30mm). Since 27mm is slightly over 1" (1.06") perhaps this was just another case of mixing mm and inch designations? |
T Meier | 02 May 2012 6:04 a.m. PST |
As you said it's interesting how many of the early figures match scales associated with model railroad gauges. The odd one out is 30mm which seems to have originated with SAE, who most likely was following the lead of German flats and Elastolin figures in using size rather than scale as the basis and millimeters as the description. |
HistoriFigs | 02 May 2012 7:34 a.m. PST |
A few more tidbits concerning figures sizes: In the Wargamer's Newsletter dated September 1971 the editor writes about some new 25mm and 30mm figures from Warrior Metal Miniatures. I'll skip all but the sizing comments
'
these figures are really 40mm and not 30mm, just as the 25mm's are by my reckoning 30mm's
' Does anyone recollect how Donald Featherstone measured figures back in 1971? It might give an insight to how big these Warrior Metal Miniatures were – Or better yet does anyone have some they could measure? ----- Also from the same September 1971 issue we find an advertisement for Hinchliffe Models. The add talks about '
Our new 25mm figures springing to life as men of average 5' 8" height in real life when posed next to our equipments
' ----- In the January 1967 issue if Table Top Talk we find Scruby provides some details concerning his new 1" scale Secomd Empire range. He describes the figures as 'about 1 1/16 inches tall on its stand. Thus they are slightly larger than our 25mm figures, and smaller than our 30mm figures – a dandy "in-between" scale.' This fits with the 27mm description from my previous posting. ----- Lastly. In the June 1957 issue of War Game Digest, Lionel Tarr writes concerning his 18mm scale armies. He refers to his 18mm Authenticast figures
I've always considered these to be 20mm – now I'm going to have to pull out my armies and measure some figures to see how they measure up. Guess I should also pull out the pattern figures and RTV molds for these (these would be the same figures Scruby was producing late 1960's and beyond) |
T Meier | 02 May 2012 8:08 a.m. PST |
Does anyone recollect how Donald Featherstone measured figures back in 1971? Wow, that's a big discrepancy on the 30mm, remember that the distance from the eyes to the top of the head is about 4". To scale it would be about 2mm so it really couldn't account for it and it's hard for me to imagine even the most incompetent sculptor being off by 20%. I don't think I've ever seen a sculpt submitted at RP that was off by more than 10%, which is a lot to scale, (we generally made them correct it if it was off by more than 5%) the difference between a man who's 5'10" and one who's 6'4". 20% would be 6'9". |
Richard Humm | 02 May 2012 10:27 a.m. PST |
I do have a copy of the October 1980 Military Modelling, and also the April 1980 issue which has an earlier ad by the same company using the same "25 mm foot to eye" description of their Vikings. Historifigs' quote from Hinchliffe about their 25 mm figures reminded me that an old Hinchliffe price list (c. 1979) described their 25mm military equipment as scaled at 5 mm to the foot (about 1/61st scale), while the 20 mm equipment was 4 mm to the foot (1/76th scale, matching Airfix and OO, P4 and EM gauge trains). |
HistoriFigs | 02 May 2012 10:42 a.m. PST |
I have about exhausted my stash (now in a stack, about 4 feet tall, next to my desk) of old magazines and publications and have two more posts on the Table Top Talk site for your reading pleasure. tabletoptalk.com/?p=712 – They Don't Make Millimeters Like They Used to, from 1966 tabletoptalk.com/?p=714 – Wargaming in N-gauge, by Jack Scuby from 1973 Scruby's N-Gauge figures are really about 11mm tall, but he did advertize them as being 9mm. |
T Meier | 03 May 2012 4:59 a.m. PST |
Scruby's N-Gauge figures are really about 11mm tall, but he did advertize them as being 9mm. Scruby definitely understood X-mm to mean sole to crown so maybe most of the anomalies we see in figure size designation is just sloppiness and marketing. Were there any other N-Gauge figures already on the market he was trying to market his as compatible with? N-Gauge is associated mainly with 1/160 but also 1/150 and 1/148 scales. 11mm is 5'9" at 1/160 so it appears Scruby 11mm is right, calling them 9mm is what makes no sense. A 1/160 figure would be 9mm to the shoulder, at 1/148 9mm is 4'5" so I don't know what anyone who would call N-Gauge 9mm was thinking. |
HistoriFigs | 03 May 2012 5:27 a.m. PST |
Scruby definitely understood X-mm to mean sole to crown so maybe most of the anomalies we see in figure size designation is just sloppiness and marketing. There are a few more or less documented cases where Scruby did make some design mistakes which resulted in poorly sized figures. I remember one case where one of his 30mm Napoleonic Grenadiers was the smallest (shortest) figure in the range. He knew he made the mistake, but it took quite some time for him to get around to designing a new figures to take its place. 11mm is 5'9" at 1/160 so it appears Scruby 11mm is right, calling them 9mm is what makes no sense. This has been a mystery that I've never been able to solve (satisfactorily) – even after talking with those likely to know. The best I've come up with and makes at least some sense is: That since N-Gauge refers to track dimensions (for N scale railroads) and the track width for N-gauge is 9mm, the most logical conclusion is that he went with 9mm for marketing purposes. |
T Meier | 03 May 2012 7:53 a.m. PST |
the track width for N-gauge is 9mm, the most logical conclusion is that he went with 9mm for marketing purposes. Yes that makes the most sense. I wonder if it explains Hinton Hunt 20mm? OO track gauge is 19.1mm, the scale associated with it is 1/76, which would give you 23mm at 5'9". Maybe Hinton Hunt's '20mm' is track gauge? |
Richard Humm | 03 May 2012 2:19 p.m. PST |
Actually, OO track gauge is 16.5 mm, as OO is 1/76 scale trains running on HO (1/87 scale) track. I don't know of anyone using 19.1 mm gauge track – the nearest is P4 at 18.83 mm, which actually matches 4'8.5" at 4 mm to the foot. |
T Meier | 03 May 2012 3:58 p.m. PST |
Actually, OO track gauge is 16.5 mm, I'm not a railroad guy, I'm going by this: link STANDARD GAUGE OO Practiced Gauge: 0.750" (*3/4") 19.1mm (prewar def 0.748" ~19mm) Theoretical Gauge: 0.7434" Made By: Lionel 1938-1942 Scalecraft (1930s) Nason (1930s) [NORMAL GAUGE 00] Practiced Gauge: 0.748" ~19mm Theoretical Gauge: 0.7434" Made By: ??? [NORMAL GAUGE 00] Practiced Gauge: 0.650" ~16.5mm Made By: Hornby Lima {BROAD GAUGE OO} Practiced Gauge: 1.102" ~28mm Made By: ??? {NARROW GAUGE OO9 (OOe)} (uses N standard track) Practiced Gauge: 0.354" ~9mm Made By: ???
|
HistoriFigs | 04 May 2012 6:59 a.m. PST |
Actually, OO track gauge is 16.5 mm There is a difference between UK and US OO Gauge 'American 00' (4mm scale/19mm gauge) 'British 00' (4mm / 16.5mm gauge) Can't comment on the popularity or usage, just the size designations. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 19 Sep 2012 3:38 p.m. PST |
While since this thread has been 'active' but thought it worth mentioning this. Just been browsing an old (1972?) Minifigs catalogue. They basically 'invented' 25mm, and in the catalogue is the statement 25mm = 6'. So basically the scale was originally meant to be closely linked to 1/72nd scale, 1" = 6', as 1" = 25.4mm. |
Aidan Campbell | 18 Mar 2013 4:31 a.m. PST |
I can't really add in any useful facts to further this dicussion but I can say that in working professionally across various model making disciplines it is startling how many different customs are used for both expressing scale (something which should be easy to calculate as a ratio of the model to it's full size counterpart) and then the precission or consistency with which producers actually stick to whatever standards have suppossedly been agreed. Railway modellers almost invariably lead with track gauge rather than scale which makes no allowance for the fact in real life railways could vary from more than 5foot wide (broad gauge)down to about 15inches for narrow gauge. Many modellers work with the most convenient gauge of mass produced track for the scale/subject they want to replicate, rather than calculate and make the gauge of track they should be using for a particular subject at a particular scale. You'd think it would be easy if they bought eveything ready made from one mas producer but No. In Britain, as has been mentioned, the most popular products are OO gauge, that being suposedly 1/76th scale trains but running on standrd gauge track of 16.5mm gauge rather than 18.8mm. That is despite manufacturing their own locos and their own track as products which can be bought in sets in the same box British manufacturers still make their track and corresponding wheel/motor mechanisms to continetal 1/86th HO scale but make their loco bodies to bigger sizes, giving no cosnsistency even within a single model. That would be like a wargames figure with one leg 12% longer than the other If you dare look as far afield as the dolls house market then the notion of scale is even more corrupted. 1/12th scale is the label used to describe the most popular size of goods. However whilst some makers actualy use this to mean the models linear dimensions are twelve times smaller than the real thing, most seemingly don't mean anything by it at all. I've seen some models of taxidermy specimen ducks made to fit inside a glass dome the size of a thimble to display on the mantle shelf of a 1/12th scale dolls house. At best the ducks were no more than 4mm long, which multiplied up by twelve would give a real life size of duck of no more than 50mm, that's one (or as was the case several) small duck(s). By my own calculations what was being marketed as 1/12th scale was actually closer to 1/100th scale. At the other extreme I've seen 1/12th scale crockery that was just about big enough for a real human to use, as it was probably about one quarter normal size. Not saying any of this is useful, or even relevant, just pointing out that war gamers are actually better organised with more consistently understood labelling than some other model making disciplines. |