"Do you really want anatomical perfection?" Topic

So if an infinitely large range came along that produced anatomically correct (AC) figures would you replace all your current grotesqueries? Any of them? Would you ever buy existing models again or only buy the new AC ones from here on out?

Let's assume that rifles, bayonets, swords, etc, aren't any less durable. And let's assume that the cost is the same.

If I could get figures that were truly to scale and I could get whatever I wanted, I would replace them all.

I wouldn't wait for 'anatomically correct' … 'anatomically plausible' would do!

Not a lot of replacement would be necessary as I don't buy the grotesque stuff anyway.

But, playing the game with you … yes I would buy the good stuff, no , I wouldn't buy any more humpty-dumpty men …

But it remains a matter of taste

There is a reason for exaggeration in miniature lines, sales and aesthetic looks. At smaller scales its hard to differentiate between figures so sculpters exaggerate the differences like artists when drawing political figures in news papers.

Yes.

They're called 1/72 plastics (see Zvesda, Caesar etc)

I wouldn't replace my current figures as we have seen too many glorious defeats together! I would choose them for a new project without a doubt if they were nicely sculpted.

No, only because the older I get the more I realize the figures (and their paint job) don't matter that much. 10 minutes into the game they cease being miniatures and become game pieces.

But all my new stuff would be "AC."

No. I prefer the stylized proportions exhibited by nearly all figures.

I want nice looking figures. Caricatures are fine. The hobby just isn't that serious.

Some comapnies make beautiful, accurately sculpted horses. they snap off the base at the ankles. Or whatever you call those things at the end of their feet.
And don't get mev started about "finely sculpted bayonets".

Give me sturdy any day.

It's one of the reasons I prefer 1/72 figures. Some historical figures really do look like fantasy dwarves in historical clothing. And some horses…well, I've seen more convincing pantomime dobbins.

There was an interesting comparison on Der Alte Fritz's website recently comparing his new Fife and Drum figures (very realistic looking), Perry and some others. The juxtaposition was quite jarring.

I, personally, would love it if more figures had this sort of proportionality:

Nope, I just want figs that look good on the table.

I buy AB figures – that sort of answers the question.

I would certainly buy the most correct figures. But I will never give up my old Mike's Models "devil dwarves".

As stated abocve these figures do exist (espcially in 1:72 scale). I for one do not buy figures that I consider overlly "gnomish" and would welcome more figures which were correctly proportioned.
I believe that you could have found far worse offenders than the Perry Miniature (I think)pictured above.
I sometimes feel like writing to manufacturers with basic anatomy charts – eg The hand should never be even approaching the size of the head and the head should be around 1/6th the size of the body…

Sturdy and close enough to normality to not be a fantasy mini are good for me. So no.
M

No I like the stylized figures, They look "right" on the table IMO AC figure don't look right.

I sold off ALL of my SYW figures when the Minden range was introduced and I have subsequently replaced my old armies with Minden armies.

Then I got crazy and started my own miniatures range of AWI figures -- Fife & Drum.

Both ranges are sculpted by the talented Richard Ansell and rendered in a 1/56 scale. Thus everything about the figures from the anatomically correct proportions to the size of the weapons and equipment are in exact scale.

I have not had any problems with ankles breaking on horses or on the infantry in either of these ranges.

Hopefully, the trend is moving away from cartoonish, fat and oversized figures and on to figures that are either close or correct when it comes to figure proportions.

Slightly larger and broader surfaces are easier to lay paint on I think. Perry minis have really good lines and take paint well. Nice figure up above.
M

I prefer my figures to be anatomically correct and have lots of 1/72 armies. But to be fair they do need to be able to take some abuse. John the OFM does have a valid point there. Some of my friends are rough on handling figures, they almost need a force field to protect them from being mangled. I do warn the aforementioned individuals that I will cut off their hands if they get too rough.

What Phil said. All of it.

Nope.
Give me good looking any day!

No. I want good looking figs and don't mind caricatures; fun to paint and they look better on the table imho. Anyways, I'm representing battalions of 1000s men with 24 figures, so what's a slightly out of proportion head, really?

I'm in the no, give me good looking figures camp.

Mark me down for caricatures, but then in 6mm anatomicaly correct = incastable so a moot point.

I looked in a mirror & discovered that I am a caricature, so it doesn't matter to me if my miniatures or anatomically correct or round & fat like me.

-Elaine

Yep, 1/72 plastic has this exact scenario covered.

I doubt very much that a person can come up with a totally AC figure that the general public would like. Because at what point to AC buttons, lace and other fine details disappear? At what point do the hairs on our head and face all blend into one solid mass?

Thus, putting paint-able buttons, lace and other fine details on figure that are suppose to be AC, would mean that you have to paint them under a magnifying glass or leave them off all together.

All miniatures are caricatures if you are going to have the detail and durability needed for gaming figures.

I find the detail on accurately scaled figures more difficult to paint, but I like the aesthetic of more anatomically correct figures. However, durability and ease for painting are my most important concerns when buying (or sculpting) miniatures.

With my own Retro Raygun range from Hydra Miniatures, I wanted the miniatures to be more accurate, but still easy to paint and durable. Here's a comparison our miniatures and other leading brands--same height, but more accurate proportions:

-Matt Beauchamp
Hydra Miniatures
hydraminiatures.com

No, I like the exaggerated look. Big muskets need big hands.

Get rid of my old Mike's Models? You've got to be joking!

Anatomically correct? Does that mean if you hold a Scotsman figure downside-up, everything under the kilt is … er … not disproportionate? By whose standards? Where are your data?

I think the sculptor should at least have some idea of what anatomical accuracy would look like… and aim for that when it doesn't challenge the integrity of the figure.
Stuff that just throws any similarity to the human form out the window in the quest to look cool usually puts me off (ie. the enormous arms on some of the GW figures, particularly females).

I greatly prefer correctly proportioned figures. However, I can't stand the cost in terms of money and time to replace everything I have.

My latest generation Minifigs 15mm British Napoleonics many my Old Glory French look horrible. BTW, Tom Dye, we miss you!

I hate comic/cartoony figures. I would drop into new AC figures in a heartbeat, if they weren't so danged small and flimsy looking (1/72 scale, I am talking about YOU). I think the perfect scale for AC figures would be 30mm, in order to keep the weapons from breaking, or even the ankles for that matter….

I like both styles. However, if I was forced to give my preference, for massed effect and overall impression, I prefer the slightly exaggerated style. However, for one-off or larger display figures, I then prefer the anatomically proportionate figure to the left.

For 54mm & above, anotomically correct. Anything smaller, and I prefer the exaggerated features. They just look better on the tabletop.

To me, many historical figures look like a fantasy range.

The 1/72 plastic figures generally have the height & heft & proportions of real people.

There are exceptions of course. Strelets figures have the look of distorted metals.

7 of 9

for goodness sake somebody bring back "what can Perry Carlists be used for" before we end up trapped in this endless spiral..if you don't like a range don't buy it..stop whinging about it all the time..

Doesn't everyone?

Especially for 1:1 scale, for the opposite sex.

All the 'no, I want good-looking figures' responses are probably are most ironic thing I'ver read all week.

What Flintloque said

i'd replace them all in the blink of an eye-- except-- most of my 18th century figures are Surens and Staddens which are already very clost to being anatomically correct. The rest ore mostly from Dayton Painting Consortium which are very close to Surens and Statddens, so it wouldn'b be too many. I'm thinking of getting into Minden figures which are very good.

Let's be fair though.

A lot of the problems with figures come because of the tyrrany of the casting process. The squat, fat, dumpy triangular figures are easier to cast. You have to make fewer "back into the pot" spins to heat up the mold with these short dumpy figures.

Also, another problem is gamers themselves. Their mania for detail means that the equipment and uniforms has to be made larger to be more incised, likewiws with the pants and uniforms. This makes unrealistic caricature figures.

Consider. Your eye can't focus on something less than about 5" away. Consider the distance from your eye to the figure when you are painting it, it's far more than 5". So at 28mm which is about 1" to 6 ft, even at the closest you're looking at a figure from 30 ft away if you were looking at a real human being. So how much detail and incisement can you see at 30 ft? If we are also the 200 ft general which everyone talks about the problem of, how much detail do you see at 200 ft. At that range the figures can thus be much smaller and smoother (Like the old SAE's) and the detail simply painted on.

All the 'no, I want good-looking figures' responses are probably are most ironic thing I'ver read all week.

There is nothing ironic about them. At gaming scales and gaming distances, figures simply look better with the slight exaggerations of certain proportions such as hands and head. Not only does the exaggeration make the detail more evident, but it gives the figures more ‘emotional' weight.

I'm in this for the aesthetics. I buy and use what looks good and provokes a feeling motion. That is why I prefer 28s and sculptors that know how to convey emotion. I've never found the ‘true' proportions of 1/72nd attractive looking or engaging – 1/72nd is sterile and uninviting.

Props to OShcmidt and Thomas Whitten!

I would add that you also have to consider the "camera position" when deciding what "looks good" or "natural". Unless you are a low-flying bird, you likely don't look at real people from the same relative distance/angle as you do your minis.

As far as proportion of hands, head, and weapons, you should also consider the fact that the models are physically emphasizing what we mentally emphasize, in at least part to overcome the unnatural perspective. Can you visualize the face of someone you know well? Now, can you visualize their shoes? For most people, those are roughly the same physcial volume, but have very different perceptive impact.

This is also why we will frequently have figures in combat with kit or in poses that they wouldn't normally adopt in actual combat. Would you really go into a modern firefight without your helmet on? Do you really believe no one's hat ever fell off in all the Napoleonic engagements?

For me, at least, those are the same types of artistic conciets as modifying proportions.

figures simply look better with the slight exaggeration

the models are physically emphasizing what we mentally emphasize

I think you are rationalizing a learned preference into a biological one. The history of art both primitive and cultured belies the idea people prefer one set of proportional conventions over another. What looks good and right to you is entirely a matter of cultivation. In the early days of metal figures only those parts of a figure which were structurally required to be out of natural proportion were distorted (ankles and weapons). This looked right to everyone at the time. If you brought your army of thick figures to a convention in 1975 people would have been horrified by them.

Now people are used to thick figures and they rationalize their preferences but there really is no need, "De gustibus non est disputandum".

Trying to 'science it up' is just silly.

The squat, fat, dumpy triangular figures are easier to cast.

I think that concept is a carry over from the lead casting days. There are too many finely cast pewter minatures to believe that this is true today, e.g. Minifigs 3D and LotR:SBG etc.

Moreover, I personally believe (and have said in many similar threads) that people has simply become accustomed to the non-anatomically correct figures. As time goes by and more and more manufacturers produce more coorectly proportioned figures, what the accrpted norm is will change.

Could someone please identify the maker of the "dumpy" figure on the right?

Originally I would have gone with the figure on the right, because I like my figures sturdy and hard to break. But lately I am being swayed by designers who are doing a fine job of splitting the difference between anatomical accuracy and exaggeration. Perry brothers and Paul Hicks in particular seem to have more 'realistic' proportions (which encompasses a lot of anatomical variation, mind you) than previous lines. They have longer legs, are slimmer, have smaller heads and hands, and look more human, but there is still some exaggeration in the details so you can paint them. I'm currently enjoying painting me some Paul Sims sculpted Portuguese from Victrix (now available from Brigade Games) and becoming a believer.

I generally like these better than the dumpier figures, but I am having a bad experiences with my Victrix Portuguese because the guns are also made in 'realistic' proportions, and I'm experiencing a lot of breakage and unusable figures. My old, dumpy, Foundry figures are very difficult to break, even if they don't look as good as present-day Perry's.

I think in my perfect world I like mostly anatomical correctness, with somewhat exaggerated details and overly-thick weapons that don't break easily, carved by the Perry brothers or Paul Hicks. And a winning lottery ticket so I could afford all the figures I'd want to buy and the time to paint them.
\
Mark