"Should 28mm "scale" be redefined as 1/50?" Topic

Recent poll suggestions have me thinking that it might be useful to re-define 28mm as 1/50 so that there would be a (loose) common standard for manufacturers. Besides being a true scale re-defining 28mm as 1/50 would also allow for manufacturers to define their products as "28mm(1/50)" during any transition to avoid confusion (much the way some 15mm manufacturers have defined their products as 1/100).
Is this a sound and good idea?

Who would define or redefine the standard? Would it apply internationally? I like the idea, but I do not see how it can be universally enforced, let alone accepted.

I think this will just start another argument that will never be settled.

Many vehicle manufacturers are now using 1/56 as "matching" 28mm figures.

1/50 is very close to 1/48, which scales out many times to 34-36mm figures.

Good luck!

No

I guess as ideas go it does little harm. But has anyone noticed how little standardization there is in scales of miniature figures? I ask this in jest. It's one of the communities' favoite things to whine about. This has been so from at least the 1970s. Hasn't gotten manufacturers to behave better, has it?
Just longform for Shogun's right.

No- the majority of vehicles are either 1:56th or 1:48th, so your idea of 1:50th is not going to work.

I'd support the 1:56th camp, as I explain here: mainly28s.com

I agree with Condotiere.
He used up all the big words that I was going to use.

I would add that I am still not with setting up 28mm as separate from 25mm, and THAT "scale" has been up in the air since the 1960s, or earlier.

Please define the "problem" that needs to be fixed.

Not enforceable, nor defineable, and no one agrees with your number anyway.

horse bolted ages ago..shut the gate as you leave please

The "problem" is that my 28mm Reaper figures do not look anywhere near in scale with my 25mm Ral Partha figures. If we had a standard, even a loose one, it would hopefully discourage scale creep, as well as providing some sense of proportion.

Defining 28mm as 1:50 would make it so in the future when you buy two sets of figures labeled with different sizes, the would look near in scale to each other?

So you learned your lesson the hard way, the way we all did.
It will NOT discourage scale creep. As always, sculptors will sculpt whatever they want to sculpt, and manufacturers will call it whatever they feel like.

As Condottiere asked, WHO will define the standard, and WHO will enforce it?
Nobody and nobody.
There is, and cannot be any group or person with the power to punish those who do not follow it.

Suppose, let's just suppose, that OFM Enterprises markets a Black Nymph Charlatan Sorceress that measures 32mm from right toenail to left eyeball pupil, and then markets it as a 28mm figure. he spokesman for OFM Enterprises comments in passing "It fits with the Crimson Scorpion Mermen, and THEY are 28mm!" Should he go to jail for that?

Give it up.

no,
as it should be 1/60th scale anyway!!!!!!!!!!!

What is the problem again exactly? All of you that have that big of a problem with the size difference just give all your 25mm to me and buy all new in 28mm.

I do not believe this is a problem. Further, even if such a scale was adopted, it would not solve the supposed problem. Just look at equivalent industries like model railroads, doll houses, and scale historical figures. They do not stick to the scales they purport to be. Why would an industry with a history of successfully selling varied scales stick to a single scale any better?

It seems like it would be a simple matter to just tack this definition into an existing trade agreement between the US and the EU. If you defined all former 28mm figures as 1/50th scale figures the government could force manufacturers to make vehicles in that scale and the figures all meet certain height requirements. Manufacturers that bucked that could face fines and so forth until they towed the line.

It seems that the figure manufacturing lobby would probably not be strong enough to resist such legislative changes if there was enough of a public groundswell in support on both sides of the pond to create legislation to that effect.

If you make the regulations binding enough, all molds will either shrink or expand to fit the standard. Laws are like that.

There doesn't really need to be any enforcement, but by having a "standard" consumers would have a reasonable definition of what scale was.

If a 1/72 figure is 3cm tall, you can clearly state that it's out of scale. A 1/50 (or 1/60 or 1/48 or 1/56 etc.) scale would provide a handy benchmark.

I would argue that in 1/285 (and 1/300) the reason we haven't seen figures go from 5-6mm to 10-12mm is because the scale is standardized. The same could be said for 1/72 (and 1/76).

It would also avoid the debate on measuring 25s and 28s to eye, the top of the head, the bottom of the chin, etc.

Even with agreed standards such as 1/32nd and 1/72nd scale you can find a lot of models that are oversized and undersized, even by the most reputable manufacturers. Few if any models in any supposedly identical scale have the same measurements.

I think it's time for someone to mention that, in fact, they like pie.

I'll step up to the pie plate.

My mom's blueberry pie was the best. For some odd reason, my ex did not appreiate me telling her that.

I like cherry pie with a scoop of chocolate ice cream.

Unlike the Model Railroad Assoc., this is quite a cottage industry. I think the only Standard for this hobby is that word on the bathroom porcelain receptacle. Dont forget to jiggle the handle twice BTW…..
Gunny

"If you make the regulations binding enough, all molds will either shrink or expand to fit the standard. Laws are like that."

I hadn't thought about that aspect of it. Likely you are right and ramifications on manufacturers not complying would be irrelevant as they would comply by force of law/physics.

no!

Hmm…let me see…no. Please continue as you were.

I say "yes", as 1/56 has never looked right or good (to me), but as OFM and others have already pointed out – how would one ever enforce a standard?

No. For scale heads 1/72 and 1/48 do the job. For everyone else the looseness of mm sized figures is probably a better thing than arbitrary scale enforcement would be. In any event 28mm figures don‘t fit into any scale because they‘re not designed to – height, width and equipment will all scale out differently.

If you make the regulations binding enough, all molds will either shrink or expand to fit the standard. Laws are like that.

Or the manufacturer could re-label the models to match their actual size…

Which leads to another issue: what good would it do to define only 28 mm, if other figure sizes would be undefined? If figure sizes/scales were to be defined/regulated, I think it should be done for all of them at the same time.

I view 28mm as 1/56

Why 1/50? Was that just a scale chosen at random?
If you were to make a model of a 5'10" (1780mm) man at 1/50th it would be 35.6mm high which doesn't really match any of the existing historical 28mm ranges.
The same man modeled at 1/56th would be 31.78mm which is far closer to most of the popular ranges.
(That's measuring to the top of the head of course!)

If the idea is to ignore all existing ranges and treat it as a totally new scale… well good luck!

(much the way some 15mm manufacturers have defined their products as 1/100)

Ah now I get it, it was a leg pull and I fell for it!

I would argue that in 1/285 (and 1/300) the reason we haven't seen figures go from 5-6mm to 10-12mm is because the scale is standardized.

Hmmm… Many new 6mm ranges are really 8mm tall. Have you seen the GHQ airbourne?

If you were to make a model of a 5'10" (1780mm) man at 1/50th it would be 35.6mm high which doesn't really match any of the existing historical 28mm ranges.
The same man modeled at 1/56th would be 31.78mm which is far closer to most of the popular ranges.

As always, however, taking into account the other two dimensions of your average 28mm model makes 1/56 scale seem small.

No.
As not all 1/50 stuff looks good with 28mm…

Gods! This is an old, desiccated, long has its flesh been flayed away, postmortem equine beast. Have we not managed well on our own for some time? We do not need a committee to tell us what toys to play with. And this mostly seems to center on WW II war gaming if I am not mistaken. While it may be a bit of bother when one manufacturer's so called 28 mm do not seem to match with another manufactures 28mm you pick what you like and stick with it or chose to not care if X figure manufacture's 28mm German Panzergrenadier is slighter and smaller than Y manufacture's Panzergrenadier.

I tend to favor the former which is why my 28mm ECW figures are mostly Renegade, Bicorne, Redoubt, and now Warlord. I find that the four companies match well together. However, if I put Perry or Foundry ECW figures in the mix it just would look like midgets joined the ranks. Other would not care. As far as the 1/56 and 1/48 debate this comes down to taste. Pretty much the debate has been won in my mind for 1/56 being close to accurate to 28mm figures when one looks at historical photos of a soldier or crewman standing next to a tank. But others like their tanks to look big and therefore 1/48 is more popular with that crowd. Fine for them and if they are enjoying and putting on a good game why should I be upset? Even a game where you might have a 1/56 scale halftrack but a 1/48 scale Sherman would be alright. Having a halftrack in 1/48 and then another in 1/56 I would find off putting but again how I chose to game and how you chose to game is up to you.

I would prefer if anything to introduce a girth scale to describe how much thicker limbs are than they should be for the scale. I think an old GW spearmen I have, has a girth that is 3 times thicker than normal (G3) where as the Immortal Hoplites are twice as thick (G2). Those are both wrist measurements. When you measure the feet the seem to reduce a bit G2 to G1.25 and G3 to G2. So I guess we could average them a little or better yet describe each part separately.

A – Arm
L – Leg
T – Torso
H – Head
W – Weapon

So now we have that straight.
Does anyone have any 28mm (1/56) Left handed Han Dynasty conscripts that are A(G2), L(G2.5), T(G1) H(G2) W(G10)

Personally I think my preference for 28mm minis is about a G2 to G2.5

optional field you should have seen my Reaper crossbow next to my Heritage yesterday…

Doesn't 1/50 come from Solido or Corgi usage?

But in reality they are scaled "to fit the box".

You might also consider this poll over on Frothers…

link

Soldiers vary on scale within 28mm scale, here are the main 2 reasons : some companies make them smaller in order to try to prevent them from blending with other normal 28mm productions, this is in fact a serious wrong doing as it is not entirely nice to sell 25mm figures as 28mm ones knowingly!!!!

In the past I made a pool on a so called "scale Police" this would prevent these people from selling 25 as 28mm.

Soldiers can be short or tall but to sell a smaller scale (25mm) as 28mm should not be possible, how could we prevent this?

As to vehicles 1/56 is about correct scale wise, on my way home today I walked by an old Citroen 2Cv it is so small I think I could just turn it to the side if I really wanted to…So for this vehicle and with the small Kubelwagen in mind I can understand they do look small but it's just that they really are small!

Figure sculptors are sometimes making big heads,very think torsos and so figures gain a lot of size in girth, this was normal in the Nineties but today?s productions have generally corrected this.