Everything there is to know about scale and proportion in gaming figurines:
I welcome correction to the following essays. These are the facts as best I can figure them out (no pun intended) from my own experiences and with the resources available to me but I do not delude myself into thinking it beyond the possibility of error - I will, of course, require some proof I am mistaken.
Definitions: Scale is the ratio between a given object and a model of that object, it is expressed as a fraction e.g. ¼, 1/1200. Proportion is the ratio of one part of a thing to another, also expressed as a fraction, as in a model of a human with a head 1/7 of his height. Size is the comparison of an object to an established unit of measurement and is expressed as a number followed by the unit designation e.g. 25mm (millimeters) or .95" (inches)
Part one: History
In the beginning people made models of things which were smaller or larger than life size, the things they made models of were organic in origin, people, animals, plants and so didn’t have a set size and there was no need for them to be compatible with anything so there was no need for the concept of scale. There was, from early on a concept of proportion, though this was constructed out of an ideal imposed on subjective experience rather than scientifically observed reality. That is the artist or someone just arbitrarily decided normal people ought to be 18 times the width of their hand tall, or have a certain proportion in the ‘golden mean’ they didn’t test a statistical sample and arrive at the conclusion people are on average 18 times the width of their hand tall or have a hand to forearm ratio of 1 to 1.618 (in fact they don’t).
So the first toy soldiers didn’t have scale, they were just made whatever size the manufacturer found convenient, they weren’t presented as being a particular size, there was no reason to.
With the advent of accurate models of machines, model trains specifically, the need for a scale began. A given machine is an exact size and two machines to be used together must be in the same scale to be compatible and run on the same rails. The first modern toy soldiers, dating from the end of the 19th century were made to conform to model train scales. They are commonly referred to nowadays by a size designation i.e. 54mm, which was railroad ‘I scale’ that is 1/32. The referring to them by size is an anachronism, that is it happened after they were made and had become popular, when they were made they were not so designated.
Vulcanized rubber mold spin-casting technology made it much cheaper to make small castings and the beginning of modern model soldier war-gaming called for ever larger armies and so figures got smaller. Again, model railroad scale or no designation of scale or size by the manufacturer was the rule. It was about this time however that many hobbyists to refer to model soldiers by size, 30mm, 54mm, this was probably because many figures were made by manufacturers ‘just the size we make um’ and the people in the nascent wargame community needed a way to communicate about the various manufacturers’ compatibility. The first to self-describe their figures by a size rather than a scale as far as I can determine was Jack Scruby, a hobbyist who began to manufacture smaller figures specifically for war-gaming in 1957 and called them 30mm. They were about 30mm overall height, soles of feet to the top of the head.
In 1964 Hinton Hunt has the distinction of making the first line of figures egregiously misrepresented as to size, they were marketed as ‘20mm’ but were actually about 25mm tall to the top of the head, (20mm was their approximate measurement to the chest).
Jack Scruby made a compatible line he called ‘25mm’, to reflect their true size and it was in this size Minifigs later made their figures, which came to dominate gaming (which was all historical at that time) by the early 1970’s when the fantasy gaming explosion hit.
The first relatively widely used fantasy figures were made by Minifigs, though many others swiftly followed suit. Fantasy has the peculiarity of having many non-human imaginary creatures of no set size, as well as exaggerated humans. At first fantasy figures were relatively restrained, made to be compatible with existing historical figures, (which generally had certain minor distortions for better durability in the soft lead alloy they were then cast of, thicker ankles, bigger hands and wrists) but the tendency in fantasy was always to increasingly exaggerate proportion and size. The changes in the materials used to make figures at this time only added to the tendency. Fantasy gamers quickly grew to outnumber historical gamers several times over as the average age of miniature gamers dropped. There was ever more economic pressure, changing the way figures were designed, from models trying to reproduce reality preferred by older historical gamers to the fanciful caricatures designed to appeal to the imagination of younger fantasy fans. Eventually the caricature style which originated with fantasy found it’s way into historical figures and the line between scale model figures and cartoon-like toy figures which had briefly begun to define itself, was blurred.
Which brings us pretty much up to date.
Here are some pictures of the new Goblin standard pack, I will be molding it in the next few days.
Trackbacks
Comments
-
emrys
says:
#1 2007-02-10 01:44 (Reply)These goblins are the best I have ever seen !!!
Magnificent ! -
minimaker
says:
#2 2007-02-11 04:19 (Reply)Not much to add really. It's interesting to see how it all developed. And shame there is no standard size in miniatures.
It's kind of the 1/72 and 1/76 scales debate you saw in military scale models. 1/72 has won in the meantime (even though this means that some 1/76 kits are simple relabeled 1/72). Somehow I don't see this happening any time soon with miniatures. Companies have invested too much in the range they alreayd have to switch and their clients still demand their style and scale.
As to the caricature style, most existing companies follow it (with their own style differences). One thing I noticed though is that many newer companies went for either as realistic as possible (like Corvus Belli in their SF range) or chose for "effect before realism" (MSB toys and Rackham are definite examples of this).
It will be interesting to see how this works out in the future and whether or not any size will become the most popular.
What size do you prefer to work in? Personal preference that is, not work dictated.
Bye, Ming-Hua
Good facial expressions on the orcs by the way. Very well done! -
Tom
says:
#2.1 2007-02-11 06:31 (Reply)Well I’d prefer to make things large enough to be convenient, say a figure 1/3 to ½ life size, but there are lots of people who can do good work that size and little demand.
My opinion of the best size to work in minis is dictated by the techniques of reproduction. I think 35-40mm is the best maximum size for metal casting in spin molds, though if the human sized figures are that big it makes for problems with the larger figures in fantasy. Resin castings can be larger of course. -
Timothy Holly
says:
#3 2007-02-11 11:31 (Reply)Wow!! great realism for a Goblin, the past interpretations from others have been more
stylized, having a cartoon quality.
A more elf look for the tainted brethern makes more sense historically, also they look more menacing retaining that humaniod elf apperance.
Can't wait to see more in the future.
Tim Holly -
Simon Fraser
says:
#4 2007-02-11 21:01 (Reply)Always love reading this blog. It's probably very good for me to hear what a true veteran has to say about things. Sadly I want to point out that your post is full of the grammatical error known as "comma splicing". For example, the last paragraph of your blog should be two sentences separated by a period.
-
David Wood
says:
#5 2007-02-12 15:04 (Reply)Excellent work on the Goblins as usual - they have a wonderful 'wildman' look about them.
I started collecting back when Minifigs were the only fantasy available (in fact before I knew about them I used Airfix Ancient Britons and Romans for childish fantasy skirmishing) and, I have to say, I have spent many a time since laughing at their expense however (!) I now collect these little gems and no, they're not in the same league as modern minis however they do have that certain 'je ne sais quoi' that I find irresistible. One day I'll get around to painting some up to see how they can look painted (I'm not a great painter but do have some ability!)- I collect far too much and paint far too little!
Dave -
Gerhard Schellert
says:
#6 2007-02-15 12:02 (Reply)Hi Tom,
this is really outstanding.
What I would really like to see is one of your first miniatures. When I see your work now, it´s hard to imagine that you have ever made some non-perfect miniatures.
But I have a question and I hope, I didn´t touch a secret with it:
When I compare the miniatures on your photos with my miniatures, I discovered, that your greenstuff look quite different. It has a quite translucent look, so I would like to know, if you add some other component to your greenstuff before sculpting.
Gerhard -
Tom
says:
#7 2007-02-15 13:14 (Reply)No, I just use the roll kind (I’ve still got half the 48 rolls I bought two years ago) and pinch out the middle bit.
I think what you are seeing is the light I use for photography, it’s very bright, four 200 watt bulbs about eight inches from the figure. I have to take shots quick before it gets too hot. I don’t know much about photography or why I need such light, a friend of mine set it up. It seems to work pretty well, particularly on greens, primered metal figures get washed out. -
Dan Frohlich
says:
#8 2007-06-25 12:16 (Reply)The Goblins look fantastic!
I especially like hte guy with the whip. I don't see him on you online store though. Did he not make it to produciton? -
Tom
says:
#8.1 2007-06-25 15:40 (Reply)No, it got squashed in the master mold. I will repair it and bring it out later as part of a goblin champions pack.
-
Dan Frohlich
says:
#8.1.1 2007-06-25 19:07 (Reply)crushing (pun intended)
Seriously, I love your goblins. Can't wait to see what you bring out next. -
dantel
says:
#9 2009-12-21 10:21 (Reply)very nice articles lol :S
