Discussion in 'Figure News' started by khorgor, Jan 8, 2009.
Images have been taken from buc wheat list. Make sure you visit him!
I already have the 90mm German sniper, there was just something about it I liked, I am just wondering if the sniper rifle is a bit out of scale? Not being any sort of expert in this period of history maybe someone else could answer this for me.
I know what you mean tommi. the sniper really appeals to me as well
I think the "something" is the base. It really adds a new dimension to the figure and really sets it apart. The doll and rubble really hits home to the viewer and gives the scene a very war like feel. Not a glamerous portryal of war at all.
Regarding Manfred...am I the only person really put off by the paint job? He seems to look cartoony :-(
I have seen both offers in the competition stands at GironaWE, painted by Cabos if not mistaken, unfortunetly the photos are nothing compared to the original, painting is so suttle ... they do not do justice IMO!
Quote: 'I am just wondering if the sniper rifle is a bit out of scale? '
Tommi, this is what happens when stupid sizes (54mm, 90mm, 120mm) are used instead of scales (1/32, 1/16, etc). I guess this figure is mean't to be 1/20th, and if I remember correctly a real K98 is about 111cm. So the scale K98 should be 5.55cm long.
There is no such thing as a 90mm rifle, or a rifle for a 90mm figure. The sniper depicted could be 5'5" or 6'7", but the rifle would be a constant size IF it was made to scale. The guy that sculpted this figure HAD to choose a scale before he could make the scale rifle, so why not state what that scale is instead of continuing with stupid sizes!!!
Sorry Tommi, I really had a little rant there! It is indeed a beautifully sculpted 1/20th scale figure!
How do you know it is a "1/20" scale figure? A "1/20 scale" figure should be approximately 90mm to the TOP OF THE HEAD. Of course nobody knows without measuring the thing, but in my experience, European "90mm" tends to be much closer to 1/18 scale where the figure is approximately 100mm to the top of the head. I don't know about Andrea figures, but this is certainly true of Pegaso. The figure DOES look large for the rifle. He could be a really huge guy, or the sculptor went with "European 90mm" for the figure, then made the rifle 1/18 scale - and, well, there you have it a giant man with a toy bee-bee gun.
I whole heartedly agree with your rant concerning scale. I always do my figures (and equipment) to a specific scale. I do not always hit things spot on, but at least I am making an effort to make it so....
I must confess I'm guessing at the figure being 1/20th, he could well be 1/18th...only the rifle knows the secret! Tommi could you measure the rifle and tell us the chosen scale? If it measures out at 5.55cm we're looking at 1/20th, and if it's 6.16cm we talking 1/18th.
The fact that there's a 'European (100mm) 90mm', 'to-the-eyes 90mm', 'armpit..., arsecrack to elbow 90mm', etc, shows just how ridiculous the whole size issue is!
How can we eradicate this nonsense?
For anyone who's still sitting on the fence in the size/scale debate allow me to illustrate. A mate of mine is 5'6" tall (about 152cm), and I'm 6'3.5" (192cm). To replicate us in '90mm' would make us both...
Actually, to have us standing side by side as miniatures in 1/20th would make us 76mm and 96mm.
Try putting a so called '75mm' figure next to an oversize so called '90mm' figure!
Use SCALE, however, and everything's hunkydory, you can swap weapons, equipment, etc, between the figures, and everything is correct........even if if doesn't look right, it IS right.
And while I'm having a rant I might as well point out that '8 heads high' is used by artists as a fantasy 'heroic'. It's not a standard to follow. It's unlikely that even professional models fit this bill. My little friend is not 'heroic', and never will be, he's probably nearer 6.5-7 heads high, bless 'im!
I'll scan some images from magazines to show this point. Artists depicting 1870's French 'Aryan' super soldiers with small heads and dainty feet, and then a then a contemporary photograph showing the 'Baldrick' like soldiers from the same regiment!
I'll put it in a separate post because after all this one's about the superb Andrea sculpts.
And SUPERB they are!
Mike, I feel really sorry for you next time you're commissioned to sculpt a 'European 90mm' or a '54mm to the eyes', or 'about 120mm'!
WHEN WILL THE MADNESS END? .........MAKE IT END!
I couldn't agree with you more about figure size versus scales.
While I can't comment on this particular figure, I have another Andrea German figure and the Kar98 measures 58mm give or take a fraction , which scales out to 1/19th and measuring the figure that it goes with, it falls in the range of 1/18-1/19th, so it's pretty close.
Perhaps the sculpter has used an existing Andrea rifle with a slightly oversized figure, but the padded winter clothing can also give the figure a bulkier look, but I suppose you can only really judge it by holding it in your hand.
I believe that most sculpters of historical figures work on the height of an average man, which as far as I'm aware has always been 5'9" or 175 cm and 7.5 heads high, though of course the weapons etc should be matched to the scale being used.
Now I am 174cm tall, weigh 85 kilos and am 7.5 heads tall give or take a fraction, so i would regard myself as mr average, but because you're 18cm taller I think you would be closer to the 8 heads than 7.5.
Now I know the 8 heads rule is more artistic but it's not unrealistic either.
Re: Scales - I think it's a conspiracy by the figure companies. We are paying big dollars for 90mm figures when really we should be paying less money for 75mm figures of subjects that just happen to be a bit on the tall side.
Just a suggestion, but what if members of pF were to send a petition to the major figure manufactures asking them to present their kits in scales, rather than in sizes.
It may be a waste of time, but it may also prompt some manufacturers to consider the views of their customers. In the current global economic climate, I think most manufacturers who want to remain in business would be wise to be attentive to the views of their customers, and would ignore their views at their peril.
Many figure manufacturers are members of pF and many more check out pF from time to time, so why not use this platform to express our frustration at the use of sizes instead of scales.
As I said, its just a suggestion, and not everyone will agree with this approach, but it seems to me more constructive than simply venting our frustration to each other whenever one of the major manufacturers releases a poorly proportioned figure.
Well here you go guy's the real Length of the Mauser rifle in 1:1 scale
over all Length of the Mauser rifle (1110mm) ( 43.7 inches) then divide the real number by what scale the figure is.
Hope this helps you out.
This is the web-site for the Mauser:
Truth has been spoken. This is something I keep repeating - work to scale, not to size. The only scale that seems to work for most of the manufacturers is 1/35th - being geared mainly towards WWII collectors and diorama builders. There you got all those AFVs, technical equipment und stuff, which must be made to scale. So figurines have to adhere to that scale.
This is all the more true as it comes to the smaller scales which I work in (1/72, 1/43, 1/32). Since the smaller the scale the more a figurine will look out of proportion even with a minute divergence of scale. Lately, manufacturers of 1/72nd scale plastic figurines show a tendency towards millimetre creep - so a nominal scale, alas, is no guarantee for actually keeping a model in that scale.
Figurine painters and collectors often maintain, well, people's sizes are different, so figurines of the same nominal 'size' may vary, too. That is true, as long as proportions are adhered to. But if you compare a figurine in 'true' 54 mm size (measured from top of the head to heels) to 'large' (or, European, as it has been called here) 54 mm size (measured from eyes to heels) you know what I mean. More often than not these figurines are NOT compatible. Let alone the scale issue as it comes to weaponry and equipment - a Napoleonic musket has specific dimensions as well as a modern sniper rifle.
So something like a 'figure modelling scale charta' would be welcome, a 'voluntary scale pledge' or something like that. Unfortunately, I do not believe this will ever come true. Using different master makers and downscaling, moulding and casting processes, offerings of the self-same manufacturer may differ very much in size and, by that, in scale. Moreover, I suspect on grounds of business policy some manufacturers do not WANT their figurines to be compatible with the offerings of competing manufacturers so they cannot be mixed with each other.
This is one of the reasons why I started scratching my figures. If I want a specific figurine in a specific scale I make it myself.
I agree, Then I see a lot of figure's with weapons some are out of scale.
On a real weapon you can always find the right scale for it. That's what I do when I make a gun. It's not to hard to find The real scale of any gun. Just find it in a book or the web.
Some companies I see just wing it, They don't care ,they just want to pump there figure's out on the market.
C'mon guys! This is not some nefarious conspiracy! The lack of uniformity is the result of the lack of uniformity in the mindsets of sculptors themselves.
For instance, I am scale conscious because I came from a heavy background of model building where scale was always an issue, and models always conformed (more or less) to an established scale.
But most figure sculptors do not see themselves as "modelers" but as "artists"; i.e. sculptors. It is also in the nature of sculpting "wiggly" life-forms that consistency in "size or scale" is not an element that can be depended on. That is why hats and shoes and clothing come in so many different sizes and cuts. A Mauser k98 rifle conforms to a precise size and measurement - a human being does not.
Ascribing a lack of consistency in commercial model figures to some proprietary conspiracy is disingenuous. It would be more realistic to call it human fallibility and physical inconsistency.....
As Mr. Touche points out, if these things are a problem for you, then it is best to create the models yourself. But don't expect your own creations to be consistent, no matter how hard you try. I know because I am speaking from experience!
But don't expect your own creations to be consistent, no matter how hard you try. I know because I am speaking from experience!
That is why I try to make white metal castings of everything that needs to be consistent in scale. Working with selfmade anatomy figures for a particular scale helps a lot, too.
As to the manufacturers 'conspiracy' - that was a joke as you may have noticed. On the other hand the big manufacturers do have all the facilities to work to a consistent scale. Nonetheless they don't, so they consider it unimportant - to the detriment of collectors and diorama builders.
It's been an interesting discussion. I've learned things about the 54/75/90mm etc. size classifications that I didn't know before. I come from an aircraft modeling background, so as Mike said, I have always thought in terms of scales (ratios). I hadn't considered some of the problems being discussed here until now.
By the way, I was kidding as well when I mentioned the conspiracy.
Of course there is no conspiracy! (They'd have to talk to each other to achieve that!)
Technology has changed the face of our hobby. The days of empire (Airfix, Revell, Monogram) ended many moons ago. What we have now is not large companies employing draughtsmen, patternmakers, toolmakers, and a whole army of Umpa-lumpas. Now even the most powerful companies in the business probably employ less staff that your local supermarket. (I'm not in the model business, so I'm making assumptions here.) One look at the latest 'Dragon' release will show the whole vehicle has been designed in a 3D package like 'Solidworks', probably by just one designer. The cost of tooling a kit is a small fraction of what it was back in the so called 'glory days' of the late 70's. What this means is that, as modellers, we've never had so much choice.....(WE'VE NEVER HAD IT SO GOOD!!!)... we have been spoilt rotten by having every possible mark of panzer (expensive retooling way back when....but a simple on screen rearrangement of the parts tree now) and more resin based cottage industries than there are fish in the (polluted) sea!
We are our own worst enemies! The figure designers, particularly those that aren't from a hobby background, are only trying to sell us a product. It's the use of our own nomenclature within the hobby that perpetuates the cycle. Glance briefly at the 'new posts' on our forum and you'll see constant reference to '54mm this' and '90mm that'. The designers are trying to sell us a product.....so they'll use the same language.....and sizes... that they think will sell.
It is us that have to break the mould, not the manufactures. We must get out of the habit of referring to our hobby in terms of sizes.
If we stop using the use of sizes then they will become meaningless. By just regularly referring to our figures by their scales (and not their sizes) in our posts on this forum then with time everyone else will follow suit.
I already do all of that. It does not matter.
The biggest stumbling block is making heads/faces the same size/scale. In theory, this sounds like it should be a simple thing. But the vagaries of changing features and reworking things mean that the heads have tendency to grow because I am a "modeler" (additive) type of sculptor. If I was a carver (subtractive) then the tendency would be toward them shrinking in size. This is very hard to control - even if you try to be conscious of these tendencies. It can be very frustrating when doing a portrait and finally achieving a likeness, to find that it does not conform to the scale of your armature pieces.
At this point I have a choice: enlarge the armature (bothersome, but not too difficult or time consuming) or pitch all of your hard work and start over. If I was well paid for this work, the choice to start over would be easy. But this is not the case. Time thrown away on a false start cannot be recovered and the pay is small enough as it is.
If I were only a hobbyist, the choices would be much easier. So, I make whatever choices seem most expedient. Perhaps I am only a conspiracist set on making life miserable for figure modelers with the conscience of a plastic modeler...... ?
C'est la vie!
Separate names with a comma.