 optional field  | 26 Jul 2013 9:30 a.m. PST |
I'm just curious, but how did 54mm become a standard size? Other sizes make sense to me, 15mm and 25mm are multiples of 5, and 6mm is 1/300, but 54 just seems odd. 42mm seems strange, but it does equal 1 2/3 inhes. 54 is different, it's not a metrification of an Imperial measurement ( 2 inches is 50.8 mm). Why the odd size? |
| Grelber | 26 Jul 2013 9:41 a.m. PST |
I think it goes back to William Britains making figures to fit in with the new-fangled electric trains. Grelber |
| Garand | 26 Jul 2013 9:52 a.m. PST |
|
| Brian Bronson | 26 Jul 2013 10:03 a.m. PST |
The first makers of 54mm figures were aiming to produce the one true ULTIMATE scale that would be the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything. As we all know, this question is, or rather was thought to be, what do you get when you multiply 6 times 9 (which is 54, hence 54mm figures). However, recent research (thoroughly documented in Douglas Adams in the 5 books of his HHGTTG trilogy) debunked this view of the ultimate question and the incorrect answer of 54. Of course, nobody has again tempted fate and come out with 42mm figures. Thus, the world continues to wait for the ULTIMATE one true scale… |
| Lovejoy | 26 Jul 2013 10:14 a.m. PST |
Of course, nobody has again tempted fate and come out with 42mm figures. Steve Barber does 42mm figures… are we doomed? |
| John the OFM | 26 Jul 2013 10:25 a.m. PST |
Just as a guess, it would be because that size fit in the boxes they had on hand. |
| Swampster | 26 Jul 2013 11:40 a.m. PST |
3/8" to the foot. I think that makes the men 5'8" ish. |
| Lentulus | 26 Jul 2013 12:50 p.m. PST |
2 inches is 50.8 mm Heroic 2"? |
| Green Tiger | 26 Jul 2013 12:54 p.m. PST |
Irregular do 42 millimeter |
| Lupulus | 27 Jul 2013 2:06 a.m. PST |
Isn't a 54 mm mini two inches if measured to the eye?
(An astoundingly silly way of measuring if you ask me) |
| T Meier | 27 Jul 2013 6:41 a.m. PST |
Isn't a 54 mm mini two inches if measured to the eye? No, at least not originally. Yes, 54mm roughly equates to 1/32 scale. Correct. As far as I have been able to determine designating figure scale by giving the actual millimeter height sole to crown was originally something hobbyists did because manufacturers were so unreliable about keeping to scale. It was then adopted by manufacturers who did as poor a job of keeping to size as they had done keeping to scale. The final icing on the cake was people starting to use the size to designate the height to the eyes. My own view is this was probably to disguise when they had failed to keep to scale since when you screw up in that way it is nearly always in the direction of making the figure too big. |
| John the OFM | 27 Jul 2013 8:30 a.m. PST |
It was then adopted by manufacturers who did as poor a job of keeping to size as they had done keeping to scale. Which is why it cracks me up when we see the occasional post about "enforcing" a figure "scale". I would bet that the first manufacturer to break the convention was the second one to use that scale.
In fact, it was probably the first who broke his own scale. I was always amused by the "to the eye" thing too. Compatibility is always in the eye of the beholder. "That looks right" is the best you will ever get, and that is purely subjective. |
 Der Alte Fritz  | 16 Apr 2014 11:41 a.m. PST |
IIRC, the base to the eyes convention was developed by Toby Barrett as a method of comparing figures.First published in MWAN ages ago. |
| 79thPA | 02 May 2014 4:16 p.m. PST |
DAF: I remember reading that article. |
