|robert piepenbrink ||09 Aug 2018 3:55 a.m. PST|
Sculptors and manufacturers pay zero attention to 28mm base to eyes. I see no reason they'd pay attention to a scale ratio.
|Winston Smith ||09 Aug 2018 5:09 a.m. PST|
Who is going to enforce it?
How do you punish those who don't comply?
|Winston Smith ||09 Aug 2018 5:10 a.m. PST|
Should be "base to top of head", anyway.
| 20thmaine ||09 Aug 2018 5:21 a.m. PST|
Err…"top of the shoes to the bottom of the moustache" isn't it ?
|The Beast Rampant||09 Aug 2018 6:43 a.m. PST|
Should be forcibly standardized as "anklebones-to-philtrum".
| Der Alte Fritz ||09 Aug 2018 9:53 a.m. PST|
@ Robert Piepbrink: the Minden and Fife & Drum figures are sculpted in 1/56 scale and we have absolutely no problems with keeping to scale.
| bauedawargames ||09 Aug 2018 11:42 a.m. PST|
A "scale" is a mathematical proportion as used by architect and modelers. Wargame figures are completely out of proportion and are no scaled down to any size other than purely arbitrary "I like it like that" values…
"28mm" figures may be 1:56 in height, but are certainly not in heft, and parts that are deemed more important, like face, hands and gear are at least 1:35 (just check with any 1:35 model if you have any doubt). Faces themselves are distorted out of any proportion with huge features (eyes-nose-mouth) compared to the overall head and face size.
If you go looking into details such as weapons barrels or hand grenades you easily get into 1:24 if not larger…
We like them like that, there is nothing wrong with it.
But don't call it a scale please!
|Winston Smith ||09 Aug 2018 12:01 p.m. PST|
I much prefer the terribly out of scale horses' feet of Foundry cavalry to the much more anatomically correct RSM horses, because I know they won't bend or snap off.
If Jim wants to call the figures he sells 1/56, I trust him that he is correct. And I happily mix them with figures that Old Glory call 25mm, and Perry calls 28mm. All play nice together, when they're not killing each other.
It's odd that the only manufacturers besides Jim that I've seen that call their stuff 1/56 are laser cut buildings manufacturers.
To me, this is a solution in desperate search of a problem.
|79thPA ||09 Aug 2018 12:01 p.m. PST|
Well, sure, it would be great if everyone decided to sculpt their figs to 1/56, but that is not going to happen.
|Winston Smith ||09 Aug 2018 12:04 p.m. PST|
Since this has been an issue (I refuse to call it a problem) since at least the 1970s, I don't see a TMP poll having much effect on resolving the issue.
|robert piepenbrink ||09 Aug 2018 2:24 p.m. PST|
The very early 70's, Winston. I remember the first time I heard the comment that Stadden and Suren were redefining height as base to eyes rather than base to top of head, and if I'm not the last man alive from that discussion, I must be pretty close.
But I would call it a problem. It's getting to be like Victorian engineering where they had proprietary nuts and bolts so you had to go back to the original firm to match. I only care somewhat how many scales we have, but it annoys me no end that it takes a full-bore research problem to find out whether a drummer from 28mm Line A can be used in a battalion from 28mm Line B.
As you say, a poll won't stop it. Nothing has so far.
|Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut||09 Aug 2018 3:12 p.m. PST|
it annoys me no end that it takes a full-bore research problem to find out whether a drummer from 28mm Line A can be used in a battalion from 28mm Line B.
All of my yes! QFT!
|Winston Smith ||09 Aug 2018 3:25 p.m. PST|
Really? And I thought it was the Courier and the Barrett Scale that came up with that cockamamie "base to eyes" Standard.
Maybe it goes back to King Tut.
|Winston Smith ||09 Aug 2018 3:25 p.m. PST|
|robert piepenbrink ||09 Aug 2018 7:56 p.m. PST|
Winston, by all means dig through your old Couriers to find the earliest Barrett Scale mention. I won't make it this month. (Long story.) But we were talking it over at Dave Mort's place in Claypool Indiana, which I think means no later than October 1974, and if I'm remembering some of the participants correctly probably 1969 or 1970. And no one was saying "that's how they do it in The Courier." It was new to us.
Actually, given some of the hats in use in horse & musket warfare, I thought the base to eyes measurement itself was not unreasonable. It was insisting that this was the standard for 30mm when it had not been prior to that time which was the problem. The whole point of a standard is for comparison, and it's no use if everyone makes their own.