Measuring scale: Confusion & Controversy 

Thank you for choosing my suggestion for a topic. I do come from the world of modeling, that morphed into table top wargaming. I was taught that the denominator for scaling is 1.8m or 1800mm, as the average height of a human male. Thus at 1/72, we get 25mm. 1/76 = 24mm, 1/87 = 21mm, and that 20mm = 1/90. I as a modeler always viewed this as a hard rule. Having read more wargaming books, I understand that over time the denominator in now viewed as a variable with a range of 1725 to 1825mm, as the average height of a human. This means a 1/72 scale figure ranges between ~23 and 26mm. While I have this understanding, the mathematical part of my brain, and modeler part of my brain, cringes when someone says 1/56 (32mm) is 28mm (1/64). Cheers!

This topic is why I find figure comparisons of different manufacturers made in videos or web sites very useful.

Tend to differentiate between size (6mm, 12mm, etc.) and scale (1/72, 1/76, 1/87, etc). As a veteran gamer, I am used to using O, OO and HO/OO when sizing figures. Many manufacturers use 'foot to eye' rather than 'foot to head'. As you say, proportion is also a problem, my mate sculpts proportionately and gets complaints that his hands and weapons are 'too small for 28mm' but they are proportionately realistic. It is a mess trying to decide which figures are compatible unless you physically compare. I remember the days when you could get away with having '25mm' metal command figures leading units of plastic Airfix HO/OO French Line Infantry. Now, I have the prospect of being able to add metal figures from a range described as '10mm' which measure 12mm (foot to eye) and are compatible with a range of plastics described as 13.5mm! It was so much simpler in the 1970s.

Yes, I can only agree: if in doubt, get a few test figures and compare them. 👍 For all kinds of armor and uniforms, it makes sense to measure the figures from the soles to the eyes. You can always see the height of the eyes, but not always the top of the head. By the way, the list in the blog is really good and useful. Thx for this.

I've visited your blog scale chart before and it's very useful. I would quibble over your definition of N-Scale as being 1:160. That's true for US but in the UK it's 1:148.

The real puzzler when it comes to scale is what happens when (as is often necessary in wargaming) you count one figure to represent, say, 20 men. Now the small cottage that those 20 men decide to occupy cannot be in scale with the figure, or it would be a palace on the tabletop, nor do you want it to be a sentry box, even if that would correctly represent cramped quarters for the 20mm base your single chap occupies. In practice you end up with a compromise between the extremes- a single storey box with a door and a couple of windows. Out of scale with both the single man and the 20 men, but a compromise that works for the game. The same thing might be necessary with vehicles, and of course weapon ranges. I think the key thing is utility. It's no good being a slave to scale if it means you can't tell a rifle from an SMG, if the rules require the distinction.

Well presented overview of the 'scale' issue were one size fits nobody. Also great to see Bob Carruthers get a nod, I think his Line of Fire and related titles were excellent introductions. A TV equialent to Osprey, and perhaps could be part of a how to start in X resources segment. So many Line of Fire, History of Warfare and now free towatch on youtube, and included wargamers and some still presenting on TV in recent years.

In regard to fantasy gaming, not only has scale creep made it more difficult to add to old armies, if trying to enlarge armies from miniatures manufactured in the 1970s or 80s, but manufacturers and sculptors also (and understandably) have very different takes on the height of the standard fantasy races when comparison to their human miniatures. This is great for the secondary markets, when buyers know what they are getting, but it does make it risky to buy new figures if there isn't an arcuate scale with high-definition pictures provided. You also make a great point about miniature style being almost as important as height... I have a lot of old Ral Partha from the days when they were making detailed casts, but they seemed to all be on Ozempic (or 1/2 siege rations for a couple months). These skinny figures don't look so great when paired up with thicker predecessors. And not only has casting improved over the years, allowing manufacturers to provide more detail, but the switch from lead to pewter, I am only referring to metal figures here, has also impacted particularly the smaller manufacturers when working with old molds, The pewter does not seem to flow as well as lead did, back before it was verboten (not to mention ductility issues, which is another topic altogether).

This problem of scale is not just height, one very popular manufacturer insists on putting 28mm heads and torsos on 20mm legs and another has figures that have a rather large BMI. I've always understood the idea of measuring sole of foot to eye level was to allow for vastly differing head ware, bare head to bearskin or mitre.

Another problem with scale is that often the height from foot to eye is technically correct but the figure is leaning forward or otherwise not standing straight so is actually much bigger than the stated height. And no, variation in height is not good when all your taller guys are leaning over in the same pose.

My opinion must be the must contentious of all. Difference between different ranges doesn't matter to me. Base sizes matters more. As long as they all have the same base size, it doesn't matter. Also, not all people are the same height.

Tom Meier (founding sculptor of Ral Partha and pioneer of using green stuff) used to have a personal website with a rant about scale creep and how measuring to the eye was just wrong. I suppose measuring to the top of head makes sense if you are the sculptor starting with a dolly, but it could be confusing for us users looking at flat caps and shakos, bare heads and great helms - especially in the days before online catalogs when we often had to trust a written description and possibly a sketch when buying figures sight unseen.

I’m happy to use any scale or size whatsoever as long as it’s 1/72, the proper scale for serious people. 😂

Hi Lee; my understanding is that the foot to eye measure was adopted as a more reliable measure when dealing with figs & uniforms which had hugely variable headdress (eg Napoleons old Guard busby, vs a WW2 helmet). As you say also, there are huge variations between the 'bulk' of figures from different manufacturers which can make identical scaled figs completely incompatible. It's always something that, particularly new gamers have issues with understanding; great work on creating your scale table, which I feel will take a huge number of hits as ref material for many gamers.

Scale ... I have too main points to make and a possible 'spin-off' talking point to suggest. First point, I think it's been said elsewhere, but foot to eye I think deals with the headwear issue. As an ACW gamer I definitely don't want my Iron Brigade, in their distinctive tall black hats to be the same height model as a regular kepi clad soldier. It would imply the regiments in the elite unit only recruited short arses.😂 Secondly, the difference in manufacturers versions of 6mm, 10mm, etc really do leave you only two options, physical comparison...or ... just buy Baccus6mm ,cos if Peter 'Mr 6mm' says it's 6mm, then who are we to argue? 🤣 My related digression, which you could do another talking point on, touches on scale and the aforementioned Peter Berry's latest line. Scale...figure scale, ground scale, building and terrain scale, and even scale as it relates to firing ranges and movement distances ....! Now that an even more confusing mess than just miniatures and scale. Do you feel up to picking your way thru that maze, Lee?

Part of the problem is different casting tolerances, not to mention different sculptors with their own preferences, style and skills. Also, once a sculptor has created a ‘dolly’ of a particular size, everything else in the range is going to match that. Frankly, there is so much available nowadays that you simply pays yer money and makes yer choice.

One also needs to beware of manufacturers internal use of scale: for example, TAG sell 28mm figures (very nice ones too) but try comparing their Russians with their Tartars and you'd think they were different manufacturers.

Yes. Proportion on the figures. I dont like the so called 15mm " "squat" miniatures the ones that while 15mm are "stumpy" looking. You see a few of these from 3D print manufactures abd the occasional resin or metal. the proportion of the legs and torso are just "wrong". I wont drop names. I avoid these like the plague. Then you get marvelous highly detailed and superbly proportioned "25mm" miniatures like Fife and Drum who are making museum quality amazing historical figs... more then "scale" I believe "proportion" is the key.

Call me old school, full fat, red meat, caffeinated scale modeller, but pragmatic; I can't control what is outside of my control. What really nags me is proportions of weapons and equipment. If those are are to a consistent scale then I can live with heads that are too large etc. Unfortunately, this means my life is full of sorrow. ;-)

Foot to eye, largely because a lot of miniatures have headwear whereas almost evcery miniature you can tell where the eye is. I agree that to top of head would be sensible but think of measuring a traditional UK bobby or a a napoleonic in a shako. Where is the top of head? I don't know but I know where the eyes are. So the engineering part of me about Gauge R&R (repeatability and reproducibility) defines the meaurement to use the things I can see rather than the things I can guess at. The 28mm foot to eye then need to take account of pose. So the real issue then becaomes real scale vs heroic and all the configurations in between. Have fun!!

The idea of measuring to the eyes was a trick that miniature makers invented in the 1970s so they could sell slightly bigger and more detailed miniatures than their competitors. It was the original scale creep. I'm surprised people still do it. Scale creep is one of the main reasons I'm moving to 3D printing. It lets me adjust everything to exact scale.

Scale may breakdown when a manufacturer bases his models on NBA basketball players instead of the average height of people generally. Ultimately, wargamers must take the blame for choosing to buy the inflated figure sizes. If only wargamers had chosen to stay with the one-true-scale, 25mm.

Haha I love the thumbnail

A real can of worms.....

Scales are like statistics ... a type of lie :)