Different Sizes of 1/35 figures

I enjoyed it Baron

 Here's the scale difference I'm talking about. The figure on the left is a WWI infantry figure from Emhar, the one on the right is an old Academy tank commander. Both are listed as 1:35, but obviously do not compare.

 

 

 

 

See what i mean? The tank behind them is the Emhar 1:35 WWI Tadpole. 

Not at all. I do think that mixing and matching figures from different companies will probably yield the best results, measuring the scales "by eye", seeing which figs seem to work together. I primarily was interested in the scale question because I have a Emhar WWI Tadpole tank, and recently got some of their WWI infantry figures. According to reference photos I've seen, the figs are definitely too big for the tank, even though both kits say 1:35. But an old Academy figure I have seems to be a better fit when placed next to the tank. So even the company can't make figures to go with their own models. I'll post a photo of the difference soon.

Actually, the scale was established by William Britain, when that company introduced its first hollow-cast toy soldiers at the end of the 19th century.  The scale, expressed as a measurement, is 54mm.  Britain measured from the ground to the top of a figure's head, excluding any additional height on a finished figure because of headgear.

The scale matched a popular common scale for toy railroads at the time.

I collect, cast and paint toy soldiers, so that's how I have that piece of trivia stuck in my head.

All of the other comments here are valid, though, too.  The scale's application will vary from one manufacturer to another.  And because of the natural variation of height among real people, you will probably find that you can mix figures of the same scale but of different manufacture, and have a realistic-looking result.

You may find variation in one manufacturer's figures, too, over time.  I think of Monogram's 1/48th scale pilot and crew figures from their aircraft line.  Their old classic pilots were smaller than their later standing figures (compare the Dauntless and Devastator pilots), and I think that the later ones might be truer to the stated scale (the old ones look closer to 1/50th, I think).

Depending on the period of history you're working with, you might deliberately mix and match figures, too.  For example, I make a lot of figures from the 18th century, from the Seven Years' War and the War for Independence.  The requirements for various arms of service meant that each looked for recruits with different physical characteristics.  The common heavy cavalry of the day, the cuirassiers, needed relatively robust men to wear the breastplate and easily mount the larger horses they rode.  So, those men tended to be larger.  The Prussians recruited men who were 5' 6" or taller.  The common light cavalry, the hussars, looked for men who were quicker, more agile, and mounted them on smaller horses.  Again, the Prussians as an example recruited men shorter than 5' 6" for that arm.

When I look for figures of those soldiers, I know that some manufacturer's idea of 54mm gives me a more accurate figure than others.  The old Stadden and Lasset castings are good for cuirassiers, but their hussars are the same height, so they don't look right.  I look for those figures from makers like New Hope Design, Ulrich Puchala, Hecker & Goros.

Lately, in my branch of the hobby, some makers have stopped using the 54mm designation for 60mm, which is more accurate of their figures, and which makes things a little clearer for the modeller.

Hope that didn't bore everyone!

Not only were "people" of different sizes in times past, but then there's also the nifty effect of what you mold (mould) figures "from" having different dimensions before and after casting.

Having to calibrate castings is important in auto parts, not so much in sculpted figures.

A person's eye is often the best thing to use.  Gather the figures you want together and then decide if there's too much variation.  Or, if there's variation, is it too obvious?  Or, if there's a noticible difference is that difference right?  (1/32 Ghurkas might not be a good match next to 1/35-1/36 "Brits".)

In a line of guys at route step, a couple of short dudes and a tall guy can add interest.  The trick of that is that you have to use one matched size of field gear among them all.  Airfix 1/32 1 quart USMC-style quart canteen not being a good match for another company's 1/35-going-on-1/36 (heller leaps to mind) quart canteen.  Weapons, too, ought to be constant--Garands, SMLE, Kar98K only vary between each other, not among themselves.  This where weapons and accessory sets can be very handy.  Or not (if a person did not want yet another decision to make <g>).

Tamiya has always been more correct in their size of 1/35th figs...Truth be known, almost every other company's figs, especially resin fig makers, scale out closer to 1/32nd scale...Most of the resin makers figs would scale out to well over 6 feet tall in real life (sometimes pusing seven feet!)...this is primarily due, IMO, so that the figs are easier to sculpt and produce, and also easier for us to paint....WOLF resin figs are also closer to 1/35th than most others...   

Because they're different companies. Old Tamiya are notoriously small compared to DML/Dragon. There's no standard human height, so companies set their own standard. Unfortunately, they also scale their equipment differntly.

IUf you prgress into 54mm figures, some sculptors measure the height at the eyes and som at the top pf thehead and one company uses its own measurment.