"Do you favor miniatures whose proportions are a little off?" Topic

I notice that a lot of people on this site note how the miniatures of this or that company are very realistic and by that I think they mean that their proportions are realistic. I for one, however, tend to favor miniatures that are a little out of proportion such as those produced by Old Glory, Trent, Essex Miniatures and Tiger. I have found that not only do these miniatures paint up easier, but their details show up better as well. To me they are simply

No, I prefer more realistic minis.

I prefer more realistic figures

Phil

Who is going to admit that they don't like "realistically proportioned" miniatures, or that they like "unrealistically proportioned" minis?
Well, I like Dixon figures. So there.

Mikes Models fans?

More 'realistic' to me means accurate anatomy and weapons in scale with the figure-proportion is important; a figure can be 'large' and still meet that criteria.

That said, I too like Dixon – they have a unique character.

Mike's Models: no fan here.

MY big objection are grotesquely sized weapons.

Yes…..I like them proportioned just like myself.

Its not about the proportions, its about the music. If I can hear the music in them, I like the fig.

I divested myself of almost all my 28mm WW II stuff and moved to 20mm simply because they are proportioned like real human beings.

I love Flintloque and Dixon samurai, so you can probably guess my answer.

No.
Hand as big as heads
Submachineguns that could be used as clutches
Swords no one could lift
Heads as big as torso

It's one thing, say a head being slightly larger but with lots of character that shines through.
It's another when you look and the only thing you can see is the the out of scale part.

Interesting topic. i would like to contribute a few thoughts too.
1. Figures often have thicker weapons and fine bits(!) due to the material being used.
2.Some parts are thicker so that they can withstand constant handling. A case in point would be bayonets. A bayonet or sword often has a blade thickness of about 10mm which would be about 0.2 mm in 28mm. No one has ever achieved this.
3.Figure realistic proportions are failrly easy to achieve in terms of relative lengths. But then the limitations of the medium might affect widths.
4 If players use figures with strange proportions that is absolutley fine on my gaming table. i am very plaese they have made the effort to bring their little chaps along.
5. Might I sugest that a greater problem than proportion might be silly poses so beloved of some platic boxed sets. I used to have units of USMC running ashore having forgotten their weapons; maybe because they coudn't get aride in that dinghy!

6. With true proportion most 30mm and under figures would have straps that are barely raised more than 0-1 mm.

Anyway let's keep this discussion in proportion to the effect it has upon the enjoyment of the game. I really enjoyed my Lamming medievals and Peter Laing dervishes!

martin

You can't really help the proportions being a little out so I don't get too fussy.

I think I actually prefer figures with slightly disproportionate bodies. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it's a certain charm (or "music" as Irish said above) that some wonkier figures have that makes them so appealing. To take a concrete example, to my eye the old Essex 25's still possess more charm in their ungainly figures than almost any of their newer, more realistically featured brethren. They are far more enjoyable to paint as well, which is an added bonus.

Hear hear Martin!
Also Daryl re: painting.

I prefer the more proportional figures, although I appreciate that swords and rifle barrels need to be thicker for casting reasons. The figures I particularly dislike are the Dixon figures with the large hands and heads (large, squashed heads for the Samurai). I always assumed this was so that the details such as fingernails and teeth could be added, but other sculptors managed these without hugely distorting the hands and faces.