A Geek Named Carl | 02 Feb 2017 9:05 a.m. PST |
On a lot of old packaging 1/72 and 25mm are both listed usually seen as 1:72/25mm. I have seen this both on plastic soldier packaging and 70s fantasy lead miniatures. So why now are we calling it 20mm. I admit I am a young whippersnapper and when I started having a interest in fantasy miniatures it was the early 90s and most things were decidedly heroically chunky 28mm and beyond. But I am interested in the history of things and I'm curious what anyone else's thoughts are on this matter. |
79thPA | 02 Feb 2017 9:24 a.m. PST |
I have been calling 1/72s 20mm for decades. |
Pauls Bods | 02 Feb 2017 9:39 a.m. PST |
If it turns up on PSR (figs ranging in height from 21-25mm )and any metal or resin figs that fit alongside those listed, I call them 1/72nd. link |
nnascati | 02 Feb 2017 9:52 a.m. PST |
I think, technically speaking, 1/72nd is 25mm, while 1/76th is 20mm. |
davbenbak | 02 Feb 2017 9:53 a.m. PST |
As an old timer who bought his first Airfix 1/72's in the 70's, I'll take a crack at this. OK, first of all let's look at what the scale of 1/72 means. One inch equals seventy two inches. Why would you pick this as a scale? It means one inch represents six feet, a good round number for the height of a man. You do have to suspend your beliefs for a minutes as the average height of a human today is something less but why have a complicated scale based on people being 5'10". Just make the math easy and round up to six. Second, 25mm is a measurement and not a scale. 25mm roughly equals one inch so technically 1/72 and 25mm could be the same thing. It gets tricky when you are measuring your figure based on the height of a man or the height of the figure. A six foot tall man wearing a shako is taller than six feet, which incidentally was the reason for outfitting troops with them along with a blanket rolled up on top of a backpack (miters and bearskins even more so). Different manufacturers have different measurements and moldings and hopefully now you are getting the picture. If a figure is one inch tall (25mm) then the man might only be 20mm tall. Also remember that companies don't just model figures but also trains, planes and tanks. Scaling them based on measurements of 5ft (approx. 20mm or 1/76) is easier than measurements of six feet. |
DyeHard | 02 Feb 2017 10:10 a.m. PST |
Also being from the ancient times, I will speak up. The short answer is "Scale Creep". while scale models have a fixed reference, miniatures (especially spin cast metal minis) are much more a you get what comes out affair. While the masters could be made to an exact size the molds would shrink over time and the production casts' finial size is also a function of the metal mix, cast temperature, and the will of the Gods. The makes of these found by making them a bit larger they could make them more detailed and dramatic, and hence better selling. Over time each miniature size grow a bit. Until the target scale had little to do with the end product. In the 70s a 25mm was pretty close to the size of a 1/72 scale figure (although always much stouter). Here is the TMP old page on scales: TMP link |
Who asked this joker | 02 Feb 2017 11:23 a.m. PST |
Scruby 25mm figures are essentially 1/72 scale. Measured from the sole of the foot to the top of the head. At some point in the 70s or early 80s, they were measured from the sole of the foot to eye level. This was a better measure for manufacturers as the eye level never changes. So at some point, eye level became 25mm (AKA 28mm figures) and 1/72 scale figures became 20mm figures. 22mm really. |
Winston Smith | 02 Feb 2017 11:52 a.m. PST |
The "to eye level" business came about from an article in The Courier, by a Mister Barrett. This was to be used when reviewing figures in The Courier. It was mainly from a frustrated effort to make sense of the fact that every manufacturer had his own idea of what proper scale should be, and what it was to be called. At least, that's this Old Farts hazy memory of things. So the Barret Scale was not so much an effort to impose order as to let the buyer know what he was getting. I never liked the "to the eye" business, but who am I? At least it's better than "heroic 25mm" when 28mm measured to the eye… Rather than specify a "scale" when I was annoying all and sundry to back the Eureka 100 Club AWI Ragged Continentals, I merely requested that they be "Perry Compatible". Now, all the Eureka Age of Reason figures are Perry Compatible. Oddly, this has almost become a de facto "industry standard". Not that there is universal agreement about what HO scale means either. |
robert piepenbrink | 02 Feb 2017 11:53 a.m. PST |
Another silverback speaks. You used to see references to 20/25mm as though it were one scale--which in a way it was. They were Airfix and metal competitors. The grown-ups played with 30mm metals, and Stadden and Suren were widely admitted to be pushing matters a bit. Proper wargame figures were to be above 25mm and below 35mm, which accommodated Scruby, Jal SAE, Stadden and Suren, and I remember the sarcasm when one of the gang--Ted Haskel, maybe?--reported that Stadden and Suren had taken up claiming that they were 30mm--but had changed from top of the head to eye level as the measuring point. This can't have been later than 1975: probably nearer 1972. (Why not measure to belt level and claim they made 15mm? Well, because no one made 15mm figures yet.) Incidentally, Scruby 25mm were purchased by the unwary thinking they were actually 25mm castings, when they were, as noted, compatible with the somewhat smaller Airfixes. For certain periods Scruby produced a "One Inch" range, which was compatible with other 25mm. If it seems strange now, it didn't make a lot more sense in 1973. What seems really strange to me now is the determined effort by manufacturers and players to pretend they aren't making and playing with 30mm figures. They're "large 25mm" or maybe they're "28mm" "heroic 25mm" or "32mm." But people are welcome to drop by my place and put them next to the old 30mm armies. Me? We need a scale every 5 or 10 millimeters. Everything in between adds to the confusion and reduces compatibility without actually increasing the potential games. |
Hafen von Schlockenberg | 02 Feb 2017 2:52 p.m. PST |
Too late--especially at the lower end. We now have 6,5,3,and 2mm. No 4,for some reason. I did once overhear Don Perrin describing his "upcoming line of 1mm figures". Pretty sure that was a joke,though. Oh,and a friend once got an ad for "zero millimeter" figures into an April issue of the Courier. Myself, I can't see it. |
(Phil Dutre) | 03 Feb 2017 2:11 a.m. PST |
Does it really matter? Anyone who's in wargaming long enough knows that scales and measurements should be taken with a grain of salt. The only toys were scales are reliable are historical plastic model kit vehicles and railroad modeling buildings. What really matters is whether things look good on the table, and produce a coherent visual look. Hence the practice of using buildings (and trees :-)) in different scales than the figures. |
Dagwood | 03 Feb 2017 2:27 a.m. PST |
@ nnascati "I think, technically speaking, 1/72nd is 25mm, while 1/76th is 20mm" If 1/72nd is 25mm, then 1/76th will be 23mm, close enough to be less than the variation in human size. They are almost the same, until you look at big things like tanks. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 03 Feb 2017 12:06 p.m. PST |
Minifigs catalogue 1972/3: 5mm to six feet 25mm to six feet 30mm to six feet Airfix were always considered to be 20mm or 1/76th. Later Airfix were, of course, bigger than the earlier ones – try looking at the height of figures in the Guards Colour Party with later figures. |
Zephyr1 | 03 Feb 2017 3:31 p.m. PST |
I've always equated 1/72 & 1/76 with plastic figures, and mm sizes with metals… |
Dan 055 | 03 Feb 2017 10:29 p.m. PST |
Well, from the above it seems nobody knows why. I always believed the problem arose when the plastic figures (1/72) were made "realistic" ie thin, like real people are. The metal ones (25mm) were "chunky" for ease of casting. When placed together one type looked smaller than the other, and since the metal ones were 25mm, then the plastic ones had to be 20mm of course. |
Marc the plastics fan | 04 Feb 2017 7:15 a.m. PST |
Yes, bulk is more important than height. One reason I went back to 1/72 plastics was the realism of the figures and equipment But bulk catches the eye so can make mixing metals and plastics hard |
rvandusen | 04 Feb 2017 7:48 a.m. PST |
I'm heading back into 1/72 plastics for the same reason as Marc. I like the more realistic human proportions and size of weapons. Right now I still have masses of old 20mm metal figures from various manufacturers, but almost all will be sold off to be replaced by the better plastic ranges – Caesar, Zvezda, Italeri, and the latest metal figures by Elhiem, Under Fire, and CP Models. The last mentioned metals will mix well with plastics for the most part. |
Tom Stubbs | 04 Feb 2017 10:37 a.m. PST |
I do wish the mm scale was used more: I can never remember what these ratios mean. |
gisbygeo | 05 Feb 2017 4:47 p.m. PST |
When 20mm figures came out, they were made to match Airfix figures. But manufacturers found themselves selling a lot of Command figures, and nothing else. So they began producing larger, 25mm figures. This was a conscious decision. 20mm was ALWAYS Airfix 'scale'. Once 25's were established, scale creep slowly began, getting faster and faster. Much of today's creep is created by companies choosing a signature 'size' to wed people to THEIR product for a certain game. (NOTE: Before 25mm there weren't that many companies, so far fewer concepts of scale) |
Judge Doug | 06 Feb 2017 9:49 a.m. PST |
|