Help support TMP


"1/56 scale figures rather than 28mm" Topic


55 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.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Wargaming in General Message Board



Areas of Interest

General

10,625 hits since 17 Mar 2005
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 

No one at home17 Mar 2005 2:29 p.m. PST

Thereís been a lot of debate over whether to use 1/56 scale vehicles or 1/48 scale vehicles with 28mm figures lately. The problem seems to stem from the fact that most figures now tend to be 1/56 in height yet 1/48 in bulk. With things as they are I doubt thereís ever going to be a real answer to the problem unless the figures are brought back into proportion. With that in mind I had a bash at producing a 1/56 scale figure rather than a 28mm figure. You can see the result here with a foundry figure for comparison: -

picture

I know itís far from perfect but I feel itís a bit closer to real thing. Iím sure other sculptors could do a better job, but donít you think itís time to move away from the stylised GW look and try to lose some of the ďbulkĒ?

DrunkenSamurai17 Mar 2005 2:40 p.m. PST

That really looks great!

essayons717 Mar 2005 2:45 p.m. PST

My opinion about the bulk of the 28mm minis is that they are more robust in order to withstand repeated handling.

That being said, you miniature is great - don't sell yourself short.

I'm very curious as to how the Tamiya 1/48 German Infantry will turn out.

louboy17 Mar 2005 2:45 p.m. PST

yer that actually looks like a pretty tidy fig.

Squirrel17 Mar 2005 2:47 p.m. PST

Nice sculpt Woodwose, and a good comparison with the Fooundry figure. (And Foundry are not the worst bulk offenders!)Thanks for taking the time to do this and share it with us.

This shows exactly the point I have raised myself. Trouble is, would peope buy that style?

Steve Buddle started his excellent "Spyglass" fantasy range sculpting correctly proportioned minis, and is now bowing to customer opinions and beefing up his sculpts.

I have to say I'm happy with "heroic" proportions, as it helps the character of a mini come out. Also having far too many minis already, I'm loath to buy ones that don't fit in.

A different matter if I'm starting a new period, then I'd gladly go for correct proportions.

Pizzagrenadier17 Mar 2005 2:47 p.m. PST

Very nice sculpt!

Personally though, I like the bulk and the sylization. For me, it paints easier, shows up on the table nicely and just looks...I don't know...nice. Just my own personal aesthetical values.

Artizan and Crusader are for me, the height of this style and I love the look. I wouldn't want too much bulk and I think they have both struck a good balance.

As far as "moving away from the bulk"...well thats just one opinion. Mine is the opoosite and though they are differing opinions, there is undoubtedly a market for both. I am sure a lot of people will be very enthused with more model scaled minis. I am sure there will also be people who continue to like the stylized and bulkier look. I don't think it is a "GW thing" either. Aesthetical values change over time. Look at the way minis in general have changed. It may be that GW and some of their (and other) sculptors have pioneered new styles, but I wouldn't attribute it to GW alone.

Mini styles and tastes will always be changing and if you want to pioneer a new wave of "correct scale" minis (whatever that means)...more power to you or whoever does so! All it means is more choices for me! And I like having choices.

I am sure I'll end up buying some of them all.

John FoA17 Mar 2005 2:55 p.m. PST

Photo looks very good, congrats.

However the thinnest figures have never been the most commercially popular. There is room for thinner and bulkier figures, customers will choose the style they like.

Just make/collect what you're happy with, if they're good then others will collect them in the end.

Good Luck

John FoA

Rodrick Campbell Sponsoring Member of TMP Fezian17 Mar 2005 3:04 p.m. PST

"I know it's far from perfect but I feel it's a bit closer to real thing. I'm sure other sculptors could do a better job, but don't you think it's time to move away from the stylised GW look and try to lose some of the "bulk"?"

OK, Wiseguy, that is impressive work. Others could do a better job, I'm sure, but no too damned many.

And I do think it's time for a general shift away from the stylization. Those of you whose tastes run toward the stocky pumpkinheads, could you please tell me what so is appealing about them and why figure companies perpetuate these proportions? I always thought it was that the original sculptors just had no clue about anatomical proportions and later companies had figures designed that to match so they could sell more figures. Please tell me there is more to it than that.

Rodrick

Goldwyrm17 Mar 2005 3:27 p.m. PST

Beautiful sculpt, nice proportions. The green guy's alright too. (just kidding-Great work!)

Amazon Miniatures17 Mar 2005 3:39 p.m. PST

There is a lot of confusion on scale especially when it comes to vehicles. By my calculations:

1/48 = 35mm and a 6' man would be 38.1mm high

1/60 = 28mm and a 6' man would be 30.5mm high

However gamers like to see big tanks. Also the bases bring up the height of the man (but very few people base tanks).

Whilst these are my calculations: link I also think that people should game with what they like best. After all when 1 man = 10 men /50 men /100 men then this is a representation that is in the eye of the beholder.

In terms of bulk and proportion it seems that larger heads and hands have been popular perhaps as they "look right" on the table and the same goes for girth. I know that the few sculpts that we have had with correct anatomical proportions have not been the best of sellers. There have been some nice older ranges with good proportion (Rose, Stadden) but these are now regarded as old fashioned but cherished by collectors.

After all that, nice sculpt, well done.

Paul

adster17 Mar 2005 4:01 p.m. PST

Very nice sculpt!

This is a variation on a constantly repeating theme on TMP. Personally I do not see the problem of figures looking "chunky" compared to a vehicle. Unless of course you are going to be putting the figures in the vehicle. That would be more akin to playing with Barbie than wargaming though IMNSHO. :-)

Crucible Orc17 Mar 2005 4:11 p.m. PST

Squirrel:

Spy glass miniatures may be bowing to pressure to move away from correctly proportioned fanatsy figures, but that IS fantas. I cannot think of a single line of successful AND proportional sci-fi or fantasy figure line in hte last 10 years.

Now historical, that's different. the Honourable Lead Boiler suit company chaps have 1/48th historical lines and they don't seem to be changing that any time soon, or doing badly be cause of it.

Rodrick Campbell: i honestly have no particular inclination towards either of the figures in woodwose's pic. both have their merits. stuff like TAG moderns on the other hand make think of a group of comic characters, or action stars, or maybe the stars of some "modern" style serial. I'm a "what if" historical gamer(when I game modern/historicals and not sci-fi), and for some reason these figures caught my imagination.

Steve

Bungle17 Mar 2005 4:15 p.m. PST

Paul only one problem with your heights. The average height of a human over time...

in WW2 what was it? 5' 7"?

thats
1/48 = an average man would be 35.5mm high to top of head

1/60 = an average' man would be 28.4mm high to top of head

many of the "28's" are around 32mm tall which makes them 6'4" at 1/60 or 5'1" at 1/48 (roughly) hardly average heights. At 1/56 they are 5'10".. a bit closer to average height for modern figures.

stealth84117 Mar 2005 4:32 p.m. PST

Fantasticly sculpted green. realy shows the problem. I think its right to say that in the what is the right scale debate: every one was right from one point of view or other. Both scales are correct depending on how you approch it. Love the skinny figs. But would I buy them if someone did them? No to much invested in the chunky ones.

Amazon Miniatures17 Mar 2005 5:45 p.m. PST

@Bungle

Yes you are right. I have redone my chart link

In essence though it means that I adjust my argument 1/56 vs 1/48

Paul

Ditto Tango 2 117 Mar 2005 7:28 p.m. PST

The difference between the two figures in Woodwose's picture? Woodwose's figure is a model soldier - the other is not. My opinion and apologies if offends.

Well done. I don't understand why other figures can't be properly proportioned. I don't buy the theories about handling or the need to see weapons across the table.

And if anyone thinks Tamiya would consider adopting the style so many 28mm wargamers like so much, then get yourslf to the next IPMS competition/show to view what real MODEL figures are like.

ming3117 Mar 2005 8:24 p.m. PST

You have talent ...a lot of talent . Nice work.

Personal logo Patrick R Supporting Member of TMP17 Mar 2005 8:28 p.m. PST

The current minis are the result of a natural evolution, back in the day it was hard enough to make realistically proportioned minis in white metal and many sculptors were well, not "very good" or cut corners etc. As a result wargaming minis took a life of their own and the "heavy" look became the norm.

It does lead to odd situations. I've seen realistically proportioned minis being described as "sickly thin" and "anorexic" in a review. And when I showed some of my 28mm minis to my neighbor, she asked why they all looked so stocky and had such huge heads ...

Ditto Tango 2 117 Mar 2005 9:18 p.m. PST

Bingo Patrick, bingo. Your theory of evolution is mine also.

It also explains to me what I call rationalization of unrealistically enormous weapons ("we need to see what weapons a figure has") and stockiness ("the figures can't handle handling, otherwise").

My friends and I who have grown up wargaming with 1:72/6 figures (ie, properly scaled) and modelling Bandai and Tamiya find many figures ridiculous looking. When these friends look at the Wargames Illustrated magazines I buy, they look up at me with pained expressions and say "What on earth is this supposed to be?"

My wife is an artist and she just shakes her head at the same pictures.

Of course, I have other good friends with whom I wargame who come from the xmm type background who get quite impatient with me over my aversion to such monstrous looking caricatures of the human body.

With respect to sculpters "just not being good" - as far as I'm concerned, Woodwose is better than most, if not all, 28mm figures I've seen.

If tanks were made with the same accepted 28mm style, a Panzer IV gun would be thicker than a Panther's road wheel and the turret ring would be wider than the chassis. And perhaps metal AFV models should be made this way, because that way we can see the weapon and they will stand up to handling. That's it, folks, this means the gorgeous Opel Blitz from EBob and beautifully done SDKFZ 10 from FOA, both recently featured in Hobby News here, sadly, just don't stand a chance as wargame pieces...

AMAshcroft17 Mar 2005 10:29 p.m. PST

Woodwose,

It would be nice to see at least this one figure in production so we could get them painted up and gamers could discuss the merits of 'True 28mm'.

It's lovely work and we should all take a longer term view of 28mm, not us guys with collections at present but what we pass on to the guys coming along into WW2.

It's not too late for us to have change, in the process we can get some standardisation going and that way the range available will expand quickly. 1/56th didn't exist last year!

As long as we can't agree on what 28mm is we will end up with a few Corgi, a smattering of Solido a miss mash of Bandai and some Tamiya plus some resin pieces from various sources.

I could have followed the easy route and made 1/48th, it would have been a lot easier and more profitable but I'd really like us to do WW2 justice and know that a Panzer I really is that small and a T-35 really that big.

I'd also like us to be able to compare those with modern vehicles so we can appreciate what these guys went through in their little tankettes not much bigger than VW Beetles. That is just one persons view of the world and maybe many others justifiably don't care.

Anyway point is, I'm happy to help fund putting your fig into production, I'm sure there are others who would gladly put their hands in their pockets for a few dollars.

Bravo! Let me know how we can have this lovely figure. Maybe even I will change my ways....


SCALE:
Average height during WW2 would be much less than 6' but an easy calculation would be 6' in boots and helmet v's the height of the model, boots to helmet.

305.4(mm to the foot) x 6(ft) / Height of model (often 32mm) = SCALE (feel free to try this calculation)

Regards Tony - NZWM
Lashcroft@xtra.co.nz

borrible18 Mar 2005 12:43 a.m. PST

Didn't you know,products with infantile traits sell better in some markets.:-)))

I dont't know the correct English term,but I recall in some marketing books the German term 'Kindchenschema' is used.

Trousers Moran18 Mar 2005 1:17 a.m. PST

I totally agree with woodlouse. Most figures that we can buy are about as correctly proportioned as those drawings of Judge Dredd. Now whilst that may have some merit as a comic book illustration I don't think that we should accept this stylisation in or figures.

As has been said, the green figure is a miniature soldier, the other is a toy soldier.

Amazon Miniatures18 Mar 2005 1:42 a.m. PST

Tony, I put your calculation next to the table of calculations I did and most were pretty much the same (rounded to 1 decimal place). A few were .1mm different - no larger variant.

I have been working on a (yet another) scale calculator where you can enter actual size in metric or imperial and get the scale size in inches and mm. It is now available on youandwhosearmy.co.uk

Paul

Pizzagrenadier18 Mar 2005 1:43 a.m. PST

Thats funny, I am an artist and when I look at the stylized minis...I don't shake my head, I actually LIKE the way they look. Maybe it is because I know why they are stylized the way they are. Maybe I just like stylization because it has some sort of graphic appeal to me. Don't know really, but I do know that when I got into WWII gaming several years ago, the minis on offer (to me) looked like, well...crap. It has only been the recent sculpts from Artizan and Crusader and BAM that have REALLY appealed to me (and no it wasn't a "GW" thing for me).

I have YET to see a 20mm mini I like besides AB (which are works of art). The plastics some of you grew up with I would not be caught DEAD using: soft bendy plastic (that chips) with too few poses and too few weapon options in a box and all in really generic "green army guy" looking poses. Gag!

I think I like the stylized poses because they actually have character. Not that the scale model proper proportioned don't...they just lack that extra *something* for me.

So you see, there are people who are dumb and crazy enough to actually LIKE the big stuff (especially painted in that graphic 'Foundry Style' I so love.

Having said that though...there is room for us all.

Also, as an artist there is some (a lot actually) of precedence for exaggerating proportions on something viewed from a distance. There is a Greek (I think...my art school art history is failing me here) statue that had long been considered odd. It is a guy throwing a javelin and he has massive arms. Eventually, art historians came to the conclusion that he had originally been on a tall column and was meant to be viewed from below and had been made that way to appear normal (the arms being viewed the furthest away having to be bigger to appear "normal").

Now, this doesn't mean that the amount of stylization is done solely for this kind of reason, just that as a miniature viewed from a tabeltop distance, some of the stylized minis "read" better in some ways. So there is something to this. I think saying that the weapons are made huge so we can "see what they are" misrepresents the style. I also think that saying that having such styled vehicles would be a natural progression (or desired) is also flawed. For some reason, don't know why...humans are ok with stylization of human figures or representations, but like to see objects rendered more real. I wouldn't take this too far because there are examples of the opposite (those goofy car cartoons come to mind). But how often do you see a cartoon like graphic of a person staning next to accurately detailed cars, tanks etc. in illustrations? Something about us makes a disticntion and so a stylized mini does not look out of place next to a scale model of a machine (to some). Personally, I like my tanks to be pretty sparse and a little more graphic in look as well (less equipment, not too much weathering-if any). But thats also just me.

I really think the stylization is a graphic way of representing something in sculpture. Some may call it cartoonish (for lack of any better word). I think it looks cool. Then again, I dig comics like 100 Bullets, Sin City, and others with that distinct style. The stylized/graphic sculpts make sense to me.

Hey...even the way we LOOK at things with our eyes varies from culture to culture. Western viewers literally look at a picture by having their eye drawn to starting at the top left and looking right (mimicing the way we read). Asian people often are drawn to look at something by starting at the lower right...etc.

So you can see a difference in aesthetical values can vary for reasons we never would have thought of normally. I think even the aesthetic values of Americans has changed a LOT over the years. Look at our product graphics.

Just a few observations (no pun) of my own.

I hope we get several new lines of something in between the stylized and the scale model and allow me to spend even more money. Perhaps my favorite part of the hobby is the collecting and painting of figures, so I'm happy with the prospect of even MORE to look at. It's a visual feast for me every time I go to the con and hit the dealer hall or check my fave mini manufacturers websites for new releases.

Pizzagrenadier18 Mar 2005 1:53 a.m. PST

Curly Wurly: and why should we not "accept this stylisation in our figures" or why does that style not have merit when transfered to a sculpture? Is this some sort of "I demand people not like this!" kind of thing...or...ummm something else? I don't get that. Sounds like some sort of weird protest. "Stop the madness! I demand less stylization!"

Certainly does have merit and is accepted by me and a lot of others or else there wouldn't be that style in the first place it stands to reason.

I may have to apologize, but I think that is a very narrow minded assesement.

The style makes absolute sense to me when I see it. Some of it is pure design and graphic genius in fact. It takes the essentials and boils them down to clean lines and minimal detail and looks VERY good painted. Too much detail just blurs together when viewed from even an arm length away. Not enough and you don't know what you are looking at. It's about knowing not what to add, but what to leave out. It's amazing what the human mind can fill in visually.

Hell, the stuff just paints so nice and smooth and easy too.

No merit...p'shaw!

No one at home18 Mar 2005 2:15 a.m. PST

Borrible Ė you might have something there. Just look how the Manga and Pokemon styles have taken over in Japan!

Tony Ė I never really intended this figure as a commercial proposition although I might well get it cast just to see how well it stands up to handling. I only made it to illustrate at point and hopefully to spark off a serious discussion. Iím fully tied up producing the ďcomic book heroĒ scaled figures at the opposite end of the spectrum.
That seems to be where the money is and obviously thatís what the manufacturers will continue to produce.

Iron Ivan Keith Ė I understand what youíre saying about the figures and I agree in many ways. I do find a lot of the stylised figures very appealing, I wonder if its because itís because the have a toy like quality about them and most men are little more than big kids :-)

This was really an attempt to discuss the state of the ďartĒ, without getting too bogged down with who is right or who is wrong and hopefully no flame wars either.

With all the nice new vehicles appearing it seems a shame not to have in scale figures for them. To my mind 28mm seems to be loosing itís way a bit (or evolving if you like ;-)) Other scales seem to have settled down a bit, but there does seem to be a lot of different opinions as to what 28mm should be.

You can probably tell that I came from a diorama building background. My first job was making 54mm figures, I guess thatís why I tend to get a bit hung up on the scale issue.
Some time ago, I had a go at doing some 1/48 figures intended as a sort of diorama/ wargames cross over. I found that I was basically using 28mm sized heads, hands, feet and weapons, just elongating the body a bit.
The idea that thinner weapons wonít work isnít strictly true the weapons on most 15mm figures are thinner and people seem to be able to recognize them easily enough.

Richard

Steve Flanagan18 Mar 2005 4:06 a.m. PST

@ Borrible - I think the English word you are looking for is "Neotony". Stephen Jay Gould has an article explaining it by reference to the development of Mickey Mouse as he came to look more like a human child - bigger head relative to body, bigger eyes relative to head, smaller nose/snout etc - because people are inclined to find children appealing.

borrible18 Mar 2005 4:42 a.m. PST

@Steve Flanagan

The definitions for 'Neotony' I found on google do not resemble that of Gould,but he could have used this term with a different meaning.
Beside that English speaking psychologist and behaviourists seem to use the German term often,I found 'Babyishness' quite similar.
What I meant is the mechanism,that children have some exaggerated bodily traits that triggers protective behaviour in adults.Big eyes etc.,as Gould explained.

Steve Flanagan18 Mar 2005 7:00 a.m. PST

@ Borrible - Sorry, I spelled it wrong! It should be "neoteny", which my old Collins dictionary defines as "the persistence of larval features in the adult form of an animal." Gould's article, though using M Mouse as an example, was about the idea that Humans are neotenous compared to other primates.

This usage seems closet to "paedomorphosis - the resemblance of adult animals to the young of their ancestors" (Collins again).

BW194418 Mar 2005 7:26 a.m. PST

Amazon - Great Calculator. You should add 1/285 to your calculator.

Woodwose - great sculpt. This problem is rampant in the microscale figures and models. See the following site for a great comparison by mfg.

link

Amazon Miniatures18 Mar 2005 12:33 p.m. PST

@Bert 1:285 added - just one line of code. Any more for any less? link

Paul

MetalMutt18 Mar 2005 12:53 p.m. PST

Much as I like your sculpt I fear that were you to game with them they would lack "presence" on the table. As Iron Ivan Keith said some of the problem is due to the way we would normally view a 28mm figure. A distance of about two to three feet and from above - not as in the photo at eye level and from 4 inches!

The current "impressionistic" style of painting has evolved with this in mind.

If a 1:12 model was to be scuplted with the distorted physique of our 28s it would look ridiculous.

When I first started gaming we were on the cusp of the shift to this stylised form of representation. In my Achaemenid army I had Hinchcliffe figures who are pretty close to scale in terms of physique. My later Byzantine force featured Lamming figures who had the "chunky" scuplts in the GWish style. On the table the Byzantines looked far better and they were much easier to paint.

I suspect that such figures as you have produced would sadly be commercial failures.

borrible18 Mar 2005 1:24 p.m. PST

I never had problems with lacking 'presence' on the tabletop with almost anatomically correct 1:72 nor 1:35 miniatures I gamed with.

MetalMutt18 Mar 2005 1:53 p.m. PST

borrible - I would guess that you in the minority otherwise we would see a drift towards more anatomically correct sculpture!

Ditto Tango 2 118 Mar 2005 2:26 p.m. PST

"I never had problems with lacking 'presence' on the tabletop with almost anatomically correct 1:72 nor 1:35 miniatures I gamed with."

Neither have I, Borrible.

Iron Ivan seems to be claiming he looks at these 28mm minis and looks at photos of real soldiers and glancing back and forth can't see a difference!

grin I certainly wouldn't hire him to do portraits of my children then, sorry.

"The plastics some of you grew up with I would not be caught DEAD using: soft bendy plastic (that chips) with too few poses and too few weapon options in a box and all in really generic "green army guy" looking poses. Gag!"

That's an incredibly ignorant statement, though doubtless born of Ivan's own reaction to people like me trashing the "stylized" figures he likes so much. Let's examine its two parts:

Especially if you base your minis, there's no problems with bendiness and chipping: grin I would have to presume that in addition to the Style I find so gaggingly horrible you like so much that your game style must also include picking up bases and deliberately bending weapons or perhaps the whole figure over? Strange, indeed! grin

With respect to appearance, I've posted the following pictures from my web site already in another thread, a couple of days ago TMP link (apolgies for doing it again):

picture

picture

picture

picture

picture

picture

picture

picture

These look OK to me, for the most part, they all come from my site at ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal and they are all commonly available plastic figures.

"Also, as an artist there is some (a lot actually) of precedence for exaggerating proportions on something viewed from a distance. There is a Greek (I think...my art school art history is failing me here) statue that had long been considered odd."

I've see statues like this, certainly, but I also see many, many statues and busts that are NOT like this in any way. DO you really think statues that are part of war memorials would not cause controversy if they looked like little stunted children wearing military uniforms?

Nevertheless, it's nice to see people finally admitting these 28mm figures ARE stylized. And not realistic looking at all.

Whether you prefer stylized figures or realistically proportioned stuff in a wargame is another question and entirely up to your preferences. As Ivan says, if you like reading comic books where art is very much like this, then that's your preference.

My question has always been why do people prefer the caricatures versus the realistically proportioned alternatives? The reasons of "seeing weapons" and "better stands up to handling" just don't cut it, in my opinion.

phovsho18 Mar 2005 2:32 p.m. PST

Woodwose
Very nice figure. One comment, as someone who got into 28mm gaming because it is the largest practical scale for ww2, I would prefer to see how a 1/48th scale figure would compare with a chunky 28mm.
Murray

Ditto Tango 2 118 Mar 2005 2:33 p.m. PST

MetalMutt: "borrible - I would guess that you in the minority otherwise we would see a drift towards more anatomically correct sculpture!"

As far as the miniature world goes, Verlindin, Tamiya, Dragon, Italeri and other 1:35 producers are already there and have always been there.

Are you saying "We" (as in wargamers who game with both styles of figures) are a relative majority to the military modellers' minority?

borrible18 Mar 2005 3:13 p.m. PST

I always thought,that I'm in the majority of gamers that really don't care what their miniatures look like as long as they look like what they are used to.
I'm by no way a scale modeller,otherwise I would have to laugh about perhaps 95% of all wargaming miniatures,because of their scale inconsistencies.
But I have to say Tim Marshall is absolutely right about the history of the hobby and who is in the minority.
Did you ever met a Railway modeller that wanted his models stylized for a more impressive look or a better handling?

For me miniatures are gaming pieces,so I really don't care.
But for me the reasons for antomically incorrect miniatures in the wargaming cottage industry were at the beginning low skilled sculptors and insufficient technology,than tradition and force of habit and lastly that psychological influence I tried to describe in a posting above.
Big boys with little toys.:-)))

No one at home18 Mar 2005 3:24 p.m. PST

Phovsho - Your wish is my command :-)

picture

28mm Foundry & 1/48 North Star

Personal logo 28mm Fanatik Supporting Member of TMP18 Mar 2005 3:51 p.m. PST

Maybe it's time to start a trend toward correctly proportioned figures. Let's get 1/48 North Star and Tamiya figures to go with our 1/48 tanks and vehicles. The Tamiya 1/48 figure line will be the best in this scale. I've seen their Heer/Wehrmacht, Waffen SS and US Infantry already.

phovsho18 Mar 2005 5:36 p.m. PST

Woodwose
What do you think of the Northstar figures?
WW2Fanatik
I've been thinking about the Northstar figures for some time, but limited range put me off. I like to have 30 or so figures on the table at one time and NS doesn't offer that level of choice or completeness.
I certainly would tend my collection towards the 1/48th scale correctly proportioned figures and vehicles, than I would 1/56th scale correctly proportioned figures and vehicles.

Faustnik18 Mar 2005 6:21 p.m. PST

Woodwose,

Your sculpture is very, very nice. If there was a large range of figures with the "realistic" proportions you use, I would buy into it in a heartbeat.

I turned away from the "chunky" manufacturers in favor of Battle Honors and Ebob about a year ago. For the most part, the chunky ranges are lacking not just proportions, but animation.

F.

No one at home19 Mar 2005 1:21 a.m. PST

Phovsho _ I can't really comment on the North Star figures as I sculpted the range and I wanted this to be a non biased discussion. All I will say is that I made them in my spare time for my own use (I have a platoon of each that I use with a mix of Bandai and Corgi vehicles). The fact that they are on sale to the public is because it was a good way of covering the production costs. Now that Tamiya are bringing out new models I'll probably add to the range.

I have loads of 28mm 20mm and 15mm too. I can't help picking up things that I like the look of, then I end up trying to rationalize them in to some kind of fighting force in order to justify having bought them!

borrible19 Mar 2005 2:30 a.m. PST

@Woodwose

Is a anatomically correct miniature more work for a sculptor or do you sculpt them as fast as the others after getting used to it?

Pizzagrenadier19 Mar 2005 1:14 p.m. PST

Hmmm, I lost count of the ways you put words in my mouth and misrepresented my opinion on the matter. ;-)

But here goes:

"Iron Ivan seems to be claiming he looks at these 28mm minis and looks at photos of real soldiers and glancing back and forth can't see a difference!"

Never said such a thing, nor implied it. I did say that I like a stylized graphical representation of something real. It has to look at least somewhat real or it would cease to be a representation now wouldn't it? I certainly have no trouble telling an Artizan FJ from a Crusader Brit from a BAM Russian and I know immediately what they are when I see them soo...I don't think there is anything wrong wih my eyes (that glases can't fix). But hey, if you need to exaggerate my point to get yours across, go ahead.

Also, I never said I did not like realistically proportioned figs (I even said *gasp!* that I anticipate a new trend in realistic minis from manufacturers filling that demand).

My slam against plastic minis seems to have gotten your panties in a bunch. Sorry, did I kick your dog in this percieved fight?

"That's an incredibly ignorant statement, though doubtless born of Ivan's own reaction to people like me trashing the "stylized" figures he likes so much."

Thats an incredibly ignorant reaction.

I dislike the plastics for the reasons I laid out and not from some percieved attack against my taste. I did react to Curly Wurly saying the style I like has no merit or should be "stopped" in some weird protest kind of thing. I posted what I did to address the issue of merit and show that there are artistic reasons behind the look. Lost on you I see.

Let me say that the reasons I hate plastic minis have (mostly) nothing to do with the sculpt and everything to do with the material, the poses, and the variety of poses in a box. They failed to meet a single one of my criteria for minis I would use in a wargame.

1. I like metal. Plastics I do not like to paint, nor do I like the softness and bendability (even with careful handling).

2. I must like the poses and I don't like prone models (see the other post on this fun filled topic). Plastics have never fulfilled that for me.

3. I must like the selection in a box or packaging scheme to easily enable me to do the platoon I want. Plastics have never offered that to me.

"Especially if you base your minis, there's no problems with bendiness and chipping: grin I would have to presume that in addition to the Style I find so gaggingly horrible you like so much that your game style must also include picking up bases and deliberately bending weapons or perhaps the whole figure over? Strange, indeed!"

No I am not an all thumbs Viking using a hammer to move my minis around the table. Soft plastic just doesn't make me jump for joy ok? The poses look too "army man" from my youth to me (insert pic of guy throwing grenade). No big deal, just not my cup of coffee.

"Nevertheless, it's nice to see people finally admitting these 28mm figures ARE stylized. And not realistic looking at all."

Oh good, glad I can help.

But I must ask...if they look so unrealistic, why are they so popular? Why are we able to tell what they are meant to represent?

Could it be that we are just blind fools who poo poo on your old cheap plastic stuff and have no idea what realism is and secretly harbor a hateful grudge against you and your kind! muwhahahahahahaha!

Or maybe...

I just like the way stylized minis look and don't like plastics.

Which do you think it is?

I never percieved any attack on my "style" except from your posting that my statements were ignorant which seemed to stem from my own opinion that I hated plastics.

Sorry old man, I just hate plastics and you will just have to accept that. I accept that you don't like stylized, though I do not like to see my words misrepresented or blown out of proportion.

No one at home19 Mar 2005 2:23 p.m. PST

@borrible - I find it takes about the same time. It's always hard to say just how long a figure takes as I tend to work on anything upto 25 at a time, doing a bit here and a bit there while I wait for other bits to harden.

Ditto Tango 2 120 Mar 2005 12:28 a.m. PST

"Thats an incredibly ignorant reaction."

No, your initial statement to which I reacted was ignorant, and despite your qualifications afterwards, remains an ignorant reaction.

"I dislike the plastics for the reasons I laid out and not from some percieved attack against my taste. "

Yet you're, umm, what was it you said, "getting your panties in a knot"?

The reasons you gave for disliking plastic are fine, I can understand them, but I don't agree with them. But you've forgotten something and I find your omission interesting:

This is not a plastics versus metal issue.

It's the horrifically (my opinion) poor sculpting style versus correctly proportioned style.

I like, and have, properly sculpted metals.

Your words were not misrepresented. You're reacting angrily, is all, to my morbid curiousity as to why some folks like the pumpkin headed maw mouthed caricatures holding weapons that are probably close to a normal man's body weight due to their size.

What makes it all the more curious is these same figures are often displayed on beautifully done terrain alongside very nicely done vehicles. One would think the surroundings of these figures should match the figures' proportions and be crafted to look like a Tim Burton movie or something that had fallen out of the Don Martin pages of a Mad magazine.

"we are just blind fools who poo poo on your old cheap plastic stuff"

I didn't call you a blind fool, but if you wish to publicly testify to as much, that's your right. However, I think that is a telling, and once again, ignorant statement as to where you're coming from and what you represent.

And you'll notice I dropped the smileys this time. They were obviously lost first time round.

Now I'll go back to my extremely unrealistic miniatures. The IPMS folks rave over them at least. I'm done dealing with snobbish behaviour.

Bronze Goat20 Mar 2005 12:39 a.m. PST

Personally, I would buy a whole lot of your miniatures! That figure looks excellent!

Any plans to go commercial?

Pizzagrenadier20 Mar 2005 12:45 a.m. PST

Then you must have missed my wink at the beginning of my last post. I wasn't taking this too seriously and thought I was obviously joshing in the same way you were. I was kidding around and I thought you could tell that from the way I worded things...Guess not.

Sorry.

The initial post of mine that you consider ignorant was completely a joke, I mean look at the way I worded it! I thought we were on the same page with this thing. Did I not put enough smileys in mine or something?

I mean sheesh, I thought my description of me as a Viking moving minis with a hammer would be obvious that I was not serious.

It's been too damn touchy around here lately. What the hells gotten into everyone?

This sucks.

No one at home20 Mar 2005 1:46 a.m. PST

@ Bronze Goat - I doubt this will ever be a commercial proposition as I don't think any manufacturer would want to take the risk on an "odd" scale. My sparetime activities will probably concentrate on adding to the 1/48 range instead, as I don't have enough time to divide between the two.
I'll try and get this figure cast and painted though, you never know it might start a counter revolution!

Pages: 1 2