Re: Re:Scale Karl

Karl said
> BTW. I have noticed that British railroad modellers also use a "mm"
scale
(4
> mm, 10 mm etc.), which obviously has nothing to do with either figure
size
> or rail gauge. Can anyone explain the rationale behind that one ?

I was under the impression that the railway scales were truescales i.e.
4mm
to the foot.  which is where the 20mm military modelling figure started
from
(ie distance from feet to eyes 5 ft equals 20mm).

Bob DeAngelis
Hobby pages
www.angelfire.com/games4/chubbybob
----- Original Message -----
From: "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 11:35 AM
Subject: Re:Scale

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "The Pink Phantom" <thepinkphantom@yahoo.com>
>
> > And finally, though I'm sure this is a repeat on this
> > list-- 6mm, 15mm, 25mm, etc. is size relative to what
> > when describing miniatures?  The size of a 'person'?
> > The equivalent to a fixed length (1m maybe)?
>
> The figure 'scales' of 6mm, 15mm etc. are the height of a figure
represent
a
> normal man.
> That was the simple answer.
>
> However, it is more complicated than that:
> - Originally, up to at least the  late 1960's the scale was generally
> understood to refer to the actual height of the figure/person: from
soles
of
> feet to top of head.
> - This is somewhat difficult to measure if the figure is wearing a
helmet
or
> hat. So people started to redefine it as from  foot to eye-level,
without
> changing the numbers. Effect: figures got taller.
> - Many manufacturers produced over-scale figures: easier to get nice
details
> and look more impressive. Wargamers liked them and bought them. This
has
> produced a steady drift in size. Nominal "15mm" are now routinely 18
mm or
> higher, "25 mm" grew to 28 or even 30 mm.
> - The use of height to define figure size tempts producers to ignore
real
> differences in height between people. A Gurkha figure might well be as
tall
> as a Massai warrior.
> - as the scale is ill-defined, any large items not directly related to
> figures (vehicles, buildings etc.) tend to have a rather vague scale
as
> well.
>
> IMO, the only proper way to define a scale is as a ratio ( 1 / 300,
for
> example)
>
> BTW. I have noticed that British railroad modellers also use a "mm"
scale
(4
> mm, 10 mm etc.), which obviously has nothing to do with either figure
size
> or rail gauge. Can anyone explain the rationale behind that one ?
>
> Greetings
> Karl Heinz
>
>
>
>