"Wargamers unite, Multiplicty of scale" Topic

E-etc.

I've just checked, and yes it does seem to be a 1 foot range for men- 5'2" to 6'2" – that's only 4mm for 28mm. Classic proportions are the head is 1/6th – so 5mm. The tallest to shortest should all be within a head of each other

Now that 4mm is at 28mm. At 15mm the difference will be 2mm- 15 and 18s don't mix

I think the problem is that a range tends to be all the same height, so you don't get the gradual variations between the two extremes- you basically need to buy from 4 or more different manufacturers to get the jumble of the real world- My 25/28 Napoleonic British are mostly Essex. I have another manufacturer – lovely figures but it looks ridiculous: My army is all 6'2" with some 5'2" mixed in.

Classic proportions are the head is 1/6th

Where do you get that? I don't know any adult male with a head 1/6 of their height. According to dinbelg.be/adultsmen.htm the average is 1/7.6. 1/6 is normal head proportions for an eight year old child.

I use 1/6 when drawing human figures, but I also employ a lot of variation of body morphology. I think 1/7 is in line with most of the classical art texts (Vitruvian Man, Dürer's proportions, etc.).

I do agree with Last Hussar that just picking a different scale doesn't necessicarily give you normal variation of human proportions. I do think, however, that variation in different lines of figures with a little help from different scales (25/28/32mm), you can give it a good go.

F'r'ex, I don't have a historical reference that specifically says the Franks, Normans, and Dutch crusaders were of noticably different heights. (In fact, from the illustrations, the Crusaders were all 6'6" with highly developed musculature, good posture and awesome teeth! :) ) But there is information about the different blood lines and ethnotypes in the regions during the 11th or 12th centuries.

So I like to select my diffrent crusader forces from different lines. Besides body morphology, it also give subtle (but noticeable en masse) differences in clothing and weapons/armour, but keeps them consistent within a group (which I think is likely).

And one last note. The averages give inisght, but shouldn't bound our understanding of human morphology. Most of the stats you can get inidcate that the populations they describe (populations of metrics, like height or weight) are not normally distriubted.

And advantage of 19th and 20th century gaming is the development of photographs. While browsing things like LOC collections of WNA photos

link

isn't research, we can see things like the presence of people a full head's height difference in even small, skirmish sized groups. And significant body type differences, like waist/height or head/height ratios. Even the regular presence of non-adult males!

I think I'm answering your question in saying that I would love to see all of the major mini companies either ask gamers to "vote" on future lines of minis, or, do Kickstarter submissions for future lines.

I use 1/6 when drawing human figures, but I also employ a lot of variation of body morphology. I think 1/7 is in line with most of the classical art texts (Vitruvian Man, Dürer's proportions, etc.).

No, Vitruvius' ideal man was eight heads, Durer and DaVinci followed his lead none of them cared to study what people are actually like. For an adult male 1/6 is an absurd proportion unless the person is extremely short. I, for example have an extremely large head, I wear an XXL hat ,size 8, I have a relatively long face and a cranial crest (like the actor Patrick Stewart) making my head height nearly 10", 6 X 10 = 60" or 5', that's how short I'd have to be to be 1/6, (I'm 6'2") anyone with a head smaller than mine (which is nearly everyone) would have to be even shorter. If you had an average size head of 9" at 1/6 you'd be 4'6" tall, average height for a nine year old boy.

Uesugi Kenshin,
Blimey dicatorship by the customer eh?
Think I'll stick to the old fashioned way of doing things where a designer has a good idea for a range of figures, does the best designs they possibly can and then hopes people buy them.
L

In terms of proportions and head sizes, clearly it's easy to identify what's correct in terms of real human beings, where most studies show a ratio somewhere around 7.5.

However what's not so clear is the more subjective thing of what looks good on a miniature, that's purely individual preference. Most of the character in a miniature can come from the face, and the limitations on casting technology often mean it's necessary to bulk up figures. A combination of these two things means many sculptors tend to work on a ratio of about 5 or 6, and that's what many customers have now become used to.

I too have a very large head, having worn an extra large adult hat since early childhood, At a height of 6'1" and head size of almost 11" my freakish proportions give a ratio of somewhat less than 7 showing that there is some variation in human proportions, but not to the extent many sculptors use for miniatures.

Large heads and thick limbs may not be correct anatomically, but they are easier to paint and there's a large number of gamers who feel anatomically correct figures look wrong, being skinny and weedy…. and in business the customer is always right.

Aidian Campbell: "Most of the character in a miniature can come from the face, and the limitations on casting technology often mean it's necessary to bulk up figures"
Not in 2013.

"Large heads and thick limbs may not be correct anatomically, but they are easier to paint and there are a large number of gamers who feel anatomically correct figures look wrong, being skinny and weedy…. and in business the customer is always right"
Give for free, these guys a 25/28/30/32mm figure army, modelled and painted by Bill Horan and their "feel" will be totally different ;)

Give a figure modelled and painted by Bill Horan and their "feel" will be totally different

I don't doubt that there are talented artists who can do a fine job with well proportioned figures, and in the larger sizes these can be cast cleanly and robustly. However there's still a large proportion of the market working in smaller scales or who don't have the skill to paint a really delicate figure well for whom older product ranges or ranges sculpted in "older" styles are as good as they can cope with.

Myself as a professional miniaturist I ask what the client wants and produce that, be it delicate and refined or chunky robust "deform" caricature.

…what looks good on a miniature, that's purely individual preference…A combination of these two things means many sculptors tend to work on a ratio of about 5 or 6, and that's what many customers have now become used to.

I agree with the part about it purely being taste but I disagree about taste having any foundation other than fashion. Older plastic 1/76 figures by Airfix and others had 1/8 head ratio proportions and they looked (and still look) fine to those who were used to looking at them.

A slight tendency to over-sized heads, hands and feet was evident in some (though not all) early metal figures, Minifigs being the most notable. This was indeed for durability with the old lead-based alloys then used for casting. The style was pursued well past the point of value to durability for other reasons. Now it's what many people are used to seeing to the point natural proportions look unnatural but it's just fashion, there's no innate perceptual bias for it.

Just like portraiture making miniatures is a process of cartooning, the smaller the scale the more cartooning, whether you like the particular 'cartoon' style of a figure is as always a matter of taste. And we all know how that varies!
L

Just like portraiture making miniatures is a process of cartooning, the smaller the scale the more cartooning,

I honestly don't know where to begin on this. Do you have any coins in your pocket? Have you ever looked at them? Do you see the least caricature? Are you aware of the long history of miniature portrait painting with near photographic realism?

There is absolutely no need to increase caricature with decrease in size except perhaps a lack of technique which anyone can overcome with effort. Degree of caricature goes in and out of fashion but there is no association with scale. If you prefer figures with cartoonish proportions that's fine, it's your taste and you needn't feel defensive about it but this pretense that is is somehow required by the size or intrinsically more appealing is nonsense.

Im perfectly aware of the history of miniature portraiture but also perfectly aware of the many portrait artists that make the point that when making a portrait certain details are exagerated, empahsised in order to portray the 'true' character rather than 'merely' producing a likeness. Its called art I believe.
Ah art which you Mr Meier have excelled at for many a year and one I have tried to master over the last 30 years or so.
No sure that words such as 'pretence' and 'nonesense' are entirely appropiate but maybe I should think of them as robust rather than anything more negative lol.
L

There is absolutely no need to increase caricature with decrease in size except perhaps a lack of technique which anyone can be overcome with effort

To a certain extent I would agree with this, but much also depends upon the context and distance from one which views a figure. If smaller figures were used in the same way as larger figures, just on smaller table tops when space was restricted, then they could just be made to a more refined style of sculpting. However in many cases gamers favour 6mm and 10mm figures over 28mm or 54mm figures for the ability to field hundreds if not thousands of troops on a large table. Technical ability (or lack of) aside, in these circumstances many would choose a style of sculpting that's quick to paint and get on table in great numbers, and quick to identify from a few feet away over something more subtle that you may need to take magnifying glass to in order to paint or identify.

Oversized, cartoon like heads and hands may be wrong anatomically but they do make a figure more instantly "readable" on a crowded games table for those that like or want that.

For some Picaso's "portraits" are highly prized art works, for others they are badly proportioned scrawl…. You can judge an artist's taste by what they produce for themselves, you can only judge their skill by how well they can adapt to the varying tastes of different customers!

many portrait artists that make the point that when making a portrait certain details are exagerated, empahsised in order to portray the 'true' character rather than 'merely' producing a likeness.

Yes, and the style of art is fashion. There were times when the fashion was as close to realism as the artist could get, times when things were somewhat stylized and times when they were caricatures but it had nothing to do with the scale or size. I am not denigrating anyone's taste or preference but the idea that greater caricature is objectively needed in smaller scales just doesn't hold up. It's a taste, a fashion, that's all. People do not look strange or less real or less appealing when they are farther away from you, it's absurd.

I don't understand why people who like caricatured figures feel this need to justify their taste, just say it's what you prefer instead of pretending there is a compelling argument for it. I don't try and make a compelling argument for a realistic depiction, there isn't one. My arguments along that line have always been about what realism is and that it is a useful frame of reference, not that it has a rational claim to preference.

…the style of art is fashion

Undoubtedly true, yet fashions are governed by many things.

In it's truest sense "fashion" is that which is most common, which irrespective of whether we are dealing with clothes, architecture or food is, at a pragmatic level, that which provides the simplest, cheapest and most efficient solution to a perceived need.

At a higher level fashion is about a personal statement and becomes about the personal choices we make to "show off" that we can afford more than "basic" "common" or "cheap".

In some sense we could see the "caricatured" sculpts as the basics as they are usually the quickest/cheapest to sculpt and paint as there are a far larger number of people capable of producing these, and therefore they are usually the most economic way of getting something on table.

Whilst not necessarily taking any greater manual dexterity to sculpt (and there are some exquisite caricatures out there made by people who can also sculpt exquisitely realistic figures), well proportioned figures do take a greater understanding of anatomy to do well, something which is apparently less common. So in that sense choosing them could be seen as a fashion statement about exclusivity and taste.

Something that really surprises me is that some people may be more concerned about the correct number of buttons, or the historical accuracy of a regiments cuffs in X battle or capaign, but on the other hand they don't really mind the anatomical aberrations that a figure may have. Why does the accuracy only fall on the uniforms and gear and not on the figure itself?

And no. You don't have to cartoon when you miniaturize. This doesn't apply to model cannons, tanks, airplanes, etc…
Skill is the issue…
There was a guy who had put in his blog an article talking about how a 1/56 tank would look if it was modelled with the same criteria as most of 28mm figures are. It was quite hilarious really. Unfortunately I haven't got the link.