"Scale Misunderstanding!?" Topic

As I search through the net, forums and sites constantly seem indecisive about what the scale size is in millimeters. Doing the math, from 6 feet average it comes down to 25mm in 1/72 scale. But 1/76 scale comes roughly to 20-21mm. Now, why such an inconsistency, I understand that model companies have never really had an agreement like model trains, and other scales. Any help with this? I know I use Plastic Soldier Review to by miniatures in 1/72 but seriously. Why the confusion?

I thought they measured something weird like top of feet to eyes or something.

Historical accident in the main, and a variety of arbitrary measuring scales, eg. foot to eye instead of whole figure, and no idea what height someone is anyway (an average WWII soldier was more like 5'9, and Napoleonic maybe 5'4….) On the whole it's best not to try to rationalise these things – it doesn't make sense.

Most places measure foot to eye, or foot to head, depending on helmet or hat type. I am not expecting to rationalize any of it, I am more trying to figure out why it is as is.

Doing the math, from 6 feet average it comes down to 25mm in 1/72 scale. But 1/76 scale comes roughly to 20-21mm. Now, why such an inconsistency,

What inconsistency? Makes perfect sense to me. The difficulty sometimes arises though when some figures are labelled as "20mm" when they are in fact 1/72 or 25mm.

I understand that model companies have never really had an agreement like model trains, and other scales.

Nope. Even model trains cannot agree. British outline OO gauge trains (at 1/76, or 4mm to the foot) run on 16.5mm gauge track which is actually standard gauge at 1/87.

but seriously. Why the confusion?

What confusion?
1/76 scale is near enough 20mm figure height.
1/72 scale is 25mm figure height.

Minifigs early 70s – 25mm = 6'.

As 25mm is effectively 1", 25mm = 1/72nd scale.

Simple, sorted.

Oh, huh, I figured trains were at least organized lol. Well, the confusion comes from searching for 1/72 and finding it being called 20mm instead of 25mm its more the inconsistencies of websites, forums, and shops especially when it comes to 1/72 and 1/76. I mean, I do understand that measuring is generally based on who ever decides at that moment.

What confusion?
1/76 scale is near enough 20mm figure height.
1/72 scale is 25mm figure height.

Was that actually irony free? Cos you're claiming that a man in 1/76 is 1.52 metres high, and one in 1/72 is 1.8 metres high – there's a pretty obvious eleven inch inconsistency right there….

What confusion?
1/76 scale is near enough 20mm figure height.
1/72 scale is 25mm figure height.

Was that actually irony free? Cos you're claiming that a man in 1/76 is 1.52 metres high, and one in 1/72 is 1.8 metres high – there's a pretty obvious eleven inch inconsistency right there….

Umm, no. I meant 1/87 scale is near enough 20mm figure height.
However, 1/76 is nearly always referred to as "20mm".

The probable reason is the growth in the number of manufacturers. There was never an agreed upon method of measuring the figure size so some companies measured to the top of the head and others to the top of the headgear and still others included the base in their measurements. I believe it was Dick Bryant who suggested measuring from the bottom of the foot to the eye.

Of course it should also be borne in mind that most men are not 6ft tall …

" finding it being called 20mm instead of 25mm "

Largely because '25mm' tends to be synonymous with what is laughably called '28mm' these days.

Back in the day we used to use 1/87th, 1/76th and 1/72nd scale stuff our Airfix and Matchbox figures, it was all vaguely referred to as 20mm.

I recall someone turning up at the school wargames club in 1972/73ish with some metal 25mm figures. Those guys were HUGE.

To me, 25mm is always bloated great monster figures and nothing to do with 1/76th or 1/72nd scale.

I believe there is a potted history of actual scales and their vague relation to '20mm' on the PSC site. In fact here it is:

link

they reckon a 1/72nd scale figure is 23.5mm (foot to top of head).

The TMP scale page gives some reasoning, and a comparison of scales: TMP link

Interesting links. Just wish it was a little more uniform. However, I will stick to keeping things simple and stick between 20-25mm maybe a little over. It's a bit exhausting trying to make everything uniform x.x. thanks for all the help though!

All this worry over figures being the same height… Yet real people aint, so why should all toys soldiers?

I use all '20mm' makes together… SHQ, AB, Wartime, Elhiem, Battlefield/Blitz, Fantassin, Britannia, Grubby… etc etc…

Once you mix so many the differences make it look normal.

Train model scales and electronics in the US are standardized. That is the job of the National Model Railroad Association. Just wanted to toss that out there since I used to be on their web committee many moons ago. :-)

I've come to the conclusion that any references to figure size are now so meaningless as to be a waste of time in terms of knowing how big they are, being based largely upon what was true about 30years ago rather than the wide variety of styles and types of figure produced today.

Folk can't agree as to what is (or was) being measured by the nominated height and don't stick to a system even if they do agree as to what, in theory, they are working to as a standard. What is more, little mention is ever made of the relative proportions and how much the basic human anatomy is caricatured in a miniature. Even if two different makes of figure are both called "28mm" yet both stand 35mm tall, they may still not look compatible if one works on realistic (delicate) anatomy, the other being greatly caricatured with large head and hands, thick arms, short torso and stubby legs. There's usually a big difference between "right" in a measurable scientific sense, both in terms of absolute size and the degree of variation from one figure to the next, compared to what any individual believes may look "right", as there's a lot of gamers who don't like the look of things made "correctly".

When I take on sculpting commissions I tell clients not to bother trying to give any kind of measurement of size as it accomplishes nothing, I just ask what other range of products they want them to be similar to and compatible with.

A 6foot tall man in 1/76th scale works out at roughly 24mm to the top of the head, and in 1/72nd scale is 25mm tall. The average "28mm" miniature is now about 32mm tall to the top of the head which works out at about 1/56th scale. That is assuming they are made to a consistent scale. If a figure is only modestly caricatured to a degree many accept as normal, a "28mm" figure's head could easily be 1/30th scale, whilst the legs could have a width measured at 1/40th scale and a length at about 1/60th scale. – so in truth they don't have "a" scale, they have many – Hence much of the confusion

Those minor differences are nothing to quibble over.

The modern hydroplane racing boats I have, really take the cake, as do some of the Matchbox and Hotwheels vehicles, which are very frequently mislabeled, with far more divergence than the little numbers you guys are mentioning.

For the hydros, which are billed as 1/48th scale, and sometimes even 1/43rd scale, they are really closer to 1/80th – 1/87th, depending upon which measurements you use for them, and their actual sizes.

The modern unlimited hydroplanes usually come in at around 30' – 32' in overall length, and the minis are around 4.5" long, depending upon whether you use their waterline length, or the measurement from the bow to the rear of the aerodynamic fins.

Still, I'm very happy with them, in the smaller scale, since they match up nicely with HO figures and vehicles, which is a plus, in my book.

I make our 15mm figures somewhere between 15mm and 17mm overall. The problem with that, of course, is that you can end up with 1 talk figure in every group of 8, which was pointed out elsewhere is above the global average for vertical deviation. However they all have the same size weapons (which some people complain are too thin, but are actually slightly over scale).

The Freikorp figures are definitely closer to 'true' 15mm, which nicely accounts for the historical variation in average make height of earlier periods.

A. The average man, even today, is less than 6' tall.

B. Most so-called 20mm figures are taller than 20mm, if standing reasonably straight -- 22-24mm seems to be the norm these days.

A. The average man, even today, is less than 6' tall.

Depends on where you are. Either the Danes or one of the other Scandahooligan countries are averaging 6'4" for men.

When I was in boot camp, I was about 1/3 of the way down the height line at 6 feet tall.

But when I'm putting together forces in 15mm (like my British Raj forces), I don't care how tall the trooper is, I care how big all the gear is. People don't come in standard sizes, issued equipment does.

The average man in the US is 5'10". Assuming that is the case and 1/72 scale figures are about 23-24mm tall, they are the correct height.

While different heights can be dealt with in terms of normal human variation, and M1 garand on a 25mm figure is not going to be the same size as one on a 28mm figure. Therein lies the problem.

All I've figured out is that PSC 1/72-20mm are outrageously bigger than Italeri/Imex/Airfix/Waterloo 1815 1/72 figs.

1.) Real people aren't measured to the eyes but to the top of their head.

2.) 1940's men were rarely 6 feet tall – evidence of this is the UK Guards Armored Division. The 1st grenadiers were supposed to be a tank battalion, but were forced to exchange roles with the 2nd grenadiers (originally the motor battalion). This was because the 1st contained "King's Company" which were all men over 6ft tall and they didn't fit too well in the close confines of a tank!

3.) 26mm Figures 'ground to eye' are nowhere near 1/72nd scale, no matter what it says on the box. Unless you are modeling King's Company, 1st Btn. Grenadier Guards….. :)

Qwerty.

Railways are not standard either the brit N guage is 1/144 the rest of the world is varoiusly 1/157 or 1/160.

Railways are not standard either the British N guage is 1/144 the rest of the world is varoiusly 1/157 or 1/160.

Most Brits actually consider it to be 1/148th but as you say different countries use different "scales". In reality though, much as gamers talk about "heights", railway modellers talk about "gauge", and much as humans vary in height, the distance between the two rails can vary from country to country and from period to period. So strictly speaking N gauge isn't a scale at all it's a distance of 9mm between the rails.

I agree with the fellow Rail Modellers on here.Model Rail has never had a harmonised scale . Britain has been a stand alone compared to rest of the world with British N Guage and 4mm 00 scale being different.

I also agree with Piers and seen many 20mm armies with mixed figures. Once all painted they have a tendancy to blend in and us in 15mm arn't exempt from figures being slightly different in size as well.

The only exception is the so called 20mm figures are the very nice Valliant range although i have heard that they will mix at a pinch with Raventhorpe which IIRC are from the same stable .

Most good miniatures are out of scale in some way to give them distinctive character… Faces, hands, weapons and uniform features like buttons and kit are exaggerated to enable the painter to bring them out, most are way too bulky for an average scaled human.. They create a pleasing impression, whereas using true scale would be difficult to distinguish between different units… Height it an issue, in 25-28mm it really runs from 1/72 to 1/48 and you really have to pick your manufacturers carefully – certainly within units…

The average height in Holland and / or one of the Scandinavian countries is NOT 6'4".

link

I am 6'1" and was one of the tallest in my regiment – though Highlanders are generally short-arses.

Most good miniatures are out of scale in some way to give them distinctive character… Height is an issue, in 25-28mm it really runs from 1/72 to 1/48 and you really have to pick your manufacturers carefully

I certainly agree with the sentiment having said essentially the same thing earlier in this thread, though it would need to be a large "28mm" figure of about 35mm tall, even to represent a short man of about 5'6" in 1/48th scale. Neither of these extremes are beyond what we know to happen, but across any sizeable number of figures I suspect 28mm figures set against 1/48th vehicles may look a bit askew.

I'm sure the difference in height and girth is a ploy to make us buy from one manufacturer! Still some details just get ricidulous. When one figure in a range has a musket that is 30mm long and the next figure in the range has one that's 40mm long just to make them fit the fig; it smacks of amateurism. Make the musket, or whatever; and then build the figure around it. It'll work!

The average height of a Western European man (from a number of sources)in WW2 was 5 foot 7" or 1.70 m. American infantry were very similar at about 5' 8". Add an inch and a half for his helmet. This translates to almost 23 mm (boot to top of helmet) in 1/76 and 24mm in 1/72. I checked a couple of British AB figures and the officer is (naturally!) taller but the soldiers are 23 mm. PSC are also about 23mm and Matchbox are 21mm (or 5'3"). Use Matchbox for HLI and DLI and Revell for Grenadier Guards (6'2").

"I agree with the fellow Rail Modellers on here.Model Rail has never had a harmonised scale . Britain has been a stand alone compared to rest of the world with British N Guage and 4mm 00 scale being different. "
OO is a code for OO and nothing else, so the only confusion there is if you have an inferior product. The other codes (O, N) may have been stolen from other countries' codes but if you buy "British N" then it should be consistent with other British N items. There are ruling bodies for this sort of thing which have recognised standards.
I am 1800mm which makes me 25mm at 1/72, 23.68… mm at 1/76, 15mm at 1/120 scale, and 28mm at 1/64.285… scale.

The scale confusion with wargames is often due to old school manufacturers measuring to the eyes, the new manufacturers measuring to the scalp, or lazy or otherwise cr@ppy manufacturers just making it up without bothering to measure eg. Valiant plastics, measured to the nipple and so being 20mm and 1/72 simultaneously…

Actually to be more accurate on my part but I didn't want to bore the none Rail modellers . OO is in fact a track guage and not a scale per se. Although its is 4mm to the foot or 1/76th scale the British 4mm purists will go for EM4 . This really is the true scale and is the correct guage for British 1/76th scale models.

OO guage was introduced many years ago by Bing in the early 20s and later adopted by companies like Hornby for the Hornby Dublo Range ( Dublo=00).In the meantime the Europeans adopted HO which is 3.5mm to the foot or 1/87 scale. companies such as Roco produced military vehicles for this scale .This scale should be considered if you are combining RTR European outline railways with military models.

Just my 2 cents worth

I didn't want to bore the none Rail modellers … the British 4mm purists will go for EM4

Actually whilst EM is technically much closer to the right gauge for 1/76th model railways representing British standard gauge track, it still isn't to scale as it uses overly thick rail and over sized wheel flanges to make running more reliable, much as war gamers use over sized heads, hands and thicker limbs to add character and durability to their figures.

S4 is a closer scale representation of the actual wheels and track of the real railways used by a large number of the "purists".

OO, EM, S4 are all notionally 1/76th scale model railways but all use different track and wheel combinations.

In truth model railways are no less confused about standards than gamers.

@ Aidan- I think I have met you . If you are the guy I was talking to at a model rail exhibition( Farnworth) some years ago. I bought some Railway workers from you that you had sculpted. I thought the name rang a bell .

As you see i have switched codes and back into the military side of things and hence my knowledge of the model rail side of things as well .

Mysteron It's possible we've met, many years ago I did produce a couple of ranges of quickly sculpted "caricatured" miniature figures for model railways and I demonstrate and teach skills at model shows around the UK. There are also various retailers that still sell my ranges of figures so even if we haven't met that doesn't mean you didn't buy my figures at a show.

That said I also do dolls house stuff and military and all sorts of other types of model work given that I work full time as a miniaturist, so I've met many modellers of all types over the years.

I wouldn't claim my model railway figures were anywhere near the standards most of my war-gaming clients expect, but then then you've got to make a profit on a smaller number of sales, usually at lower prices in the model railway market, so you just can't spend the time on the sculpts. One of those ranges was about 200 'O gauge' or "40mm figures" sculpted in less than three months including "time off" at weekends.

Actually I thought your railway figures were really good and they paint up well using basic techniques . And I have met you as you were demonstrating as you stated. Small world ! :)

Thanks for the kind words, they were deliberately sculpted in an exaggerated style as they need to respond well to quick basic techniques, as the average railway modeller has no interest or experience in painting figures, – block in the basic colours, dark brown ink wash and dry-brush cream highlights over the whole figure – job done in a matter of moments!

"OO is in fact a track guage and not a scale per se."

Actually it is a scale. Calling it a gauge is setting yourself up for embarrassment when it turns out HO, OO, Sn3.5, On30 and O16.5 all run on the same gauge. Calling it a gauge is only acceptable when you are trying to sell track products as HO/OO gauge, in which case it means something, whereas "HO/OO Scale" means as much as "My hovercraft is full of eels." Those codes are there for the purpose of linking a scale and gauge, and should not be leading to any confusion at all.

"In truth model railways are no less confused about standards than gamers."

Not for the same reasons. Gamers have none, while railway modelling has these standards governed by this ruling body here, link and rail modelling is full of people who just stick their noses in and get industrious and don't bother researching.

5. OO uses On3 scale wheel and track geometries
, as specified in S-3.2 and S-4.2. OO as
practiced in the US is historically bas
ed on US prototypes at 4mm scale and using
19.05mm gage. There exist other gages fo
r 4mm modeling used in the world with
respective societies governing their standar
ds. Principle among the options is the
16.2mm and 16.5mm gage OO scale, the 18.2mm gage EM scale, and S4/P4 proto
scale having 18.83mm gage. Consult The Double O Gauge Association, The E.M.
Gauge Society Ltd., and The Scalefour Society for
standards and other information.
Manufacturers are encouraged to label both
the scale and the gauge for these models.

From the NMRA website.

OO, EM & S4/P4 are all 4mmm/foot scale. The letter represent different gauge/wheel-rail profile/accuracy combinations. …….

"In truth model railways are no less confused about standards than gamers."

Not for the same reasons. Gamers have none

I'd agree that gamers have never really decided upon a set of standards, whereas model railways suffer from the other problem, far too many groups and associations around the world all setting out extensive documents and tables of data saying exactly what their own standards are. That many of the worlds "toy train" manufacturers have settled upon a set of wheel and track standards allows some cross compatibility in terms of running, but the actual models built on these standard mechanisms come in all sorts of "nominal" scales. Hence the reason there's such a huge supply of "after market" up-grade parts to convert what's sold into a model made to any individuals scale/gauge/wheel profile preferences.

When everybody's standards are different then you don't really get the standardisation that such things are supposed to bring about!

There should be once you have decided on one. Therefore I ask for (non-Japanese) HO scale buildings they've got to be in 1:87 scale (or 1:87.1 for the true gunzel) or else, what we have there is an inferior product (track codes etc. don't mean much when I just want a car or house to be an exact length.)
Gamers just get a measurement to refer to, which can be measured, without adequate indication as to how they are measured, from feet to eyeball, feet to scalp- and in many cases plain [faeces of the male bovine].
Then again all types of modelling can have inferior products, scales that aren't quite correct and even just plain lies on the box top. (Revells Pirate Ghost Ship, I be lookin' at ye!)

The original issue, as I read it, is that the one offering Kyras 1/72 figures is measuring one way and the one offering 1/76 figs is measuring another way, if they were both measuring to the scalp you should be getting slightly over 23mm for the latter. But that itself is assuming they are both using the same average prototype height to operate with (and bothering to measure the sculpts anyway).

Still, do gamers bother? Many road warrior games are stated as being 20mm and use Hot Wheels/Matchbox etc cars (easier to stuff the smaller figures into the larger cars anyway) demand that a base magically increases the figures scale such that a diesel VW Golf has to have the footprint of an M113, and around my way I have caught people playing Flames of War and other 15mm games with buildings made for Warhammer. Not Warmaster- Warhammer.

Sometimes I think you may as well just give them army men sets.

but across any sizeable number of figures I suspect 28mm figures set against 1/48th vehicles may look a bit askew.

There's a great blog entry on Antenociti's blog, but it boils down to the extra height of the figure bases makes an unbased car in 1/56 look too small because of where the roofline is compared to the based mini.

1/48 cars unbased have their roofline in the same place that the real car's roofline is.

Just a quick word on Model RR, there is a difference between Gauge and Scale in their use amongst the diehards.

Here you talk about Fat 28mm, and proportioned 20mm.

Model RR's go nuts, N gauge, the track is way to high. In reality it is nearly 5' tall (exaggerated). Then of course they will get into a discussion on the fact that the RR ties are to close together, too thick, too tall, etc.

Don't even get them started on the size of couplings.

And lest we not forget, when they talk about buildings be 1/87th, they are really only discussing features and height. The buildings footprint is nowhere near 1/87th, or most railroaders would have 2 buildings on their entire 8x10 layout.

So I think the answer is, scale is almost close in some cases and the rest of the time its not close enough for people that distinguish between affect and effect (this is a snide and sarcastic closing, really its a joke people…)

(Edit reduced the copious text)