"Mired in indecision..seeking popular opinion." Topic
19 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the ACW Discussion Message Board Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic American Civil War
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile ArticleFor the time being, the last in our series of articles on the gates of Old Jerusalem.
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Inkbiz | 25 Feb 2015 7:34 p.m. PST |
Good evening Gents, I am just posting out of a bit of desperation, frustration, or 'sculptor's block'…not sure which. I've spent quite some time, effort, and money over the years exploring ways to bring a line of small scale figures to fruition, but I've been repeatedly tweaking them trying to pull out the best balance of scale to durability that I can, only to be frustrated over and over again. It's been a long and pricey learning curve, but I love the work, and it keeps me sane (I think), so I've stuck with it. I've always held to sticking to a scale when it comes to sculpting, rather than an arbitrary height, no matter the convention. I'm at a bit of a crossroads now, having fleshed out a number of dollies (basic figure forms without details) in various scales, but I'm not sure which one to commit to. I've long chased the vision of a 1:1 type of game table and this has pushed me to work on a 1:350 scale figure that topped off at about 4.7mm without headgear (aside from pursuing anything smaller where a 1mm tall ribbon of lead represents a string of men). I liked the results, but their weapons were too fragile in play-testing, requiring a bulkiness that ruined the scale effect I had been trying to achieve. May I ask your opinion of the following scales (for approximate heights of a 5'6" tall or 168cm tall infantryman), in terms of viability / popularity for a line? 1:350 and keep a 4.7mm tall figure without headgear, a 4.3mm long musket and thicken it, even if it means it'll be at least as thick as his leg in the end result, and nullify any semblance of scale? 1:250 such that an average figure stands 6.7mm tall without headgear, with a 6mm long musket 1:200 such that an average figure stands 8.4mm tall without headgear, with a 7.5mm long musket 1:150 such that an average figure stands 11.2mm tall without headgear, with a 10mm long musket All of these sizes appeal to me for one reason or another, and while I'm itching to get things finalized in one of these scales, I'm hoping the board's opinions will give me some clarity.
Thank you for any thoughts, Bob |
Bashytubits | 25 Feb 2015 9:29 p.m. PST |
The 1/350 sounds compatible with Heroics and Ros. The 1/250 sounds compatible with Baccus, Adler and Rapier miniatures. I would say go with a scale that is similar to other manufacturers as gamers like variety as long as it is compatible. In my opinion your line is more likely to be a success if you do this. Good luck! |
mumbasa | 25 Feb 2015 11:31 p.m. PST |
With the cost of small scale figures, I would assume that most gamers would buy both sides of a conflict. Therefore, I do agree with Bashytubits, but you could just go with what looks best. The success of the 3mm lines shows that , if you have both sides, the customers will buy them. Good luck and keep us posted. John |
von Winterfeldt | 25 Feb 2015 11:58 p.m. PST |
It depends how much time you have to sculpt, in case you start a rather "obscure" scale – people will buy only when there are complete armies. Go and buy some figures which are close to your desired scale and maybe it would be a good idea to discuss sculpting or casting problems with fellow sculptors in case they are willing to do. |
Cerdic | 26 Feb 2015 12:43 a.m. PST |
The 1:250 option sounds best to me. If someone makes figures that are about the same size as Baccus, Adler, and Rapier, I will buy them! |
CATenWolde | 26 Feb 2015 3:04 a.m. PST |
1:350 corresponds to "old" 5mm figures like Heroics & Ros, while 1:250 fits closer with the "new" 6mm figures like Baccus and Adler. 1:200 might fit with "small" 10mm lines, but 1:150 fits with what people call 12mm or "large" 10mm figures. So, from the point of view of linking up with a larger existing market, I think that 1:250 or 1:150 might be better. As to whether or not you want to match up, you might try and find out how successful Kallistra is – they have essentially gone there own way in terms of scale, as their "10mm" figures are so large that they don't match with anyone else. Unfortunately, I think that the market for 1:1 units has been somewhat stolen by the new 3mm lines. In terms of the success of the line, if it's well sculpted and offers a variety that others don't, then it will likely succeed on its own merits, even if it covers ground already covered (Napoleonic French, basic ACW troops, etc.). Just look at the recent success of Cracker Line miniatures in the ACW, a period already well covered in 10mm. Otherwise, perhaps you could start with something that is more unique to the scale, perhaps covering a sub-period (i.e. early Empire or even 1790's, or the Mex-Am War) to introduce the line. I know you've put a lot of time and emotion into this – best of luck! Cheers, Christopher |
jaxenro | 26 Feb 2015 3:48 a.m. PST |
Be interesting to see photos of what you have done before deciding |
Musketier | 26 Feb 2015 4:11 a.m. PST |
Since a certain pre-painted, 10mm ACW range has been abandoned shortly after its launch, that may be a way to go: Your 1:200 or 1:150 option, with a basic paint job? And I second the call for sample pictures, preferably with a coin or matchstick for size reference. |
CaptainKGL | 26 Feb 2015 4:27 a.m. PST |
1:250 is my 2 cents. I'm of Cedric's opinion. Musketier's request for pictures with size reference gets a vote by me too. |
von Winterfeldt | 26 Feb 2015 5:47 a.m. PST |
in case you like to see the outstaning work of Inkbiz – just use the search possibility on TMP |
Los456 | 27 Feb 2015 10:30 a.m. PST |
Make your figures compatible with other similar ranges, e.g. baccus etc. Gamers are often looking for more poses and detest having to start over with a new size. Los |
donlowry | 27 Feb 2015 10:45 a.m. PST |
A figure in the hand is worth thousands on the drawing board. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 27 Feb 2015 11:18 a.m. PST |
I think some pictures do need to be posted here – I searched and found that the photos links in old discussion threads were dead ! |
von Winterfeldt | 27 Feb 2015 12:10 p.m. PST |
in case I remember correctly Inkbiz sent out samples for free to be evaluated, they looked great |
flipper | 27 Feb 2015 12:37 p.m. PST |
Hi I have seen your smaller offerings and they appeared quite detailed – if a foray into a larger scale produced a major increase in detail then my thoughts would be negated. You see, I believe that many people actually like lesser detailed figures, (I did not say anatomically sterile) and in the Napoleonic period that tends to be the complete opposite of what most designers/manufacturers come up with! I would (for example) like to see a range of 1:200 or 1:250 figures sculpted with little more than the detail seen on a Ros & Heroic 1:300 figure – obviously a bit more detail, as in raised detail, more animated poses and nice galloping plump horses – but not overkill: do we really need individual fingers, buttons, piping, cuff buttons/detail, haversack straps, grey coat rolled over haversack with numerous strapping's, musket straps and flintlock mechanisms on show? I would likewise like to see figures in 'Campaign' dress – with trousers and covered shakos replacing gaiters and shako cords! I do believe that many gamers/collectors appreciate a figure which can be easily painted, yet still look interesting (animated) – if you prefer highly detailed minis then this will sound mute…. "Today the whole brigade, men and horses adorned alike in mud, have neither form nor colour. Their uniform is misery" |
von Winterfeldt | 28 Feb 2015 12:15 a.m. PST |
I quite liked your figures as they were – I wouldn't change the style, they looked great. In the end you should do – what you like to do – you do it for yourselve, you must be content with your own product. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 02 Mar 2015 12:59 a.m. PST |
My advice (FWIW) is not to worry too much about "popular opinion". If we all followed popular opinon nothing new would come about. I agree with vW, follow your tastes and see where it leads – it`s an art form anyhow! |
Glenn Pearce | 02 Mar 2015 8:20 a.m. PST |
Hello Bob! I think you answered your own question. Although you like everything your doing 1/350 seems to float to the top of the pile for you. The only thing standing in your way is your ability to maintain the scale for the entire figure. I think that's a common problem in the small scales that's why so many of them in the market today are a little too big in certain areas. However, it actually works as those that don't do that have fragile figures. Your only problem seems to be the musket which can be minimized to some extent by keeping it close or attached to the body. Even that will only help marginally. The fact is to survive the casting and player handling your muskets and bayonets, swords, flag poles and lances must be shaped like little tree trunks. I would also mention ankles for humans and horses. Although there is or was a 2mm, 3mm and 4mm, competing for the 1:1 market your 4.7mm is clearly larger and might just be a magic bullet that attracts customers. It would also depend on price and an extensive line. So you won't know if your a success for a long time. Clearly not a clever move but if your going to do it so be it. The other thing 4.7 does is put you in the small scale 6mm market. That would be very close in size to H&R and Irregular. So people who like their figures might be attracted to yours as well. Depending on the average hat height of your figures you might even be competing with Baccus or Adler. Your 6.7 figure would clearly put you at the top of the 6mm market and with hats might just make your figures too tall to match up with even Adler who has some big horses. There is nothing wrong with having the biggest figures in a scale. It will just cost you more to make them and give you less profit. Your 8.4 and 11.2 seem to put you in the 10mm market. Again before going there you would have to take a close look at who you would be competing against. Clearly your at a difficult crossroad, let us know what you decide. Hope I have helped you in some way. Best regards, Glenn |
Inkbiz | 06 Mar 2015 8:44 a.m. PST |
Thank you very much, guys. I was really starting to feel a bit lousy trying to find a focal point, but you've perked me up quite a bit and I truly appreciate your insights and advice. Fellow enthusiasts are a but thin on the ground here on Long Island, and if it were not for good ole' TMP and the comradeship I've found within the boards over the years I'd be a very lonely geek indeed! Sincerely, Bob |
|