Scales again (froth, gibber!)

AAArgh! The bees in my bonnet are getting noisy again- the "foot to eye"
definition of figure height annoys me more than it should.  I'm firmly
of
the belief that it arose as an excuse for inflating the absolute size of
figures, with a dash of sloppy anatomy to boot.  When I was wee, 25mm
was
mostly held to represent the height of a man six feet tall (in those far
off
days, the height of women had yet to be established) in 1/72 scale.
There
were heretics who believed in the abominable "foot to eye" notion, which
they supported by saying that the wearing of hats made the accurate
establishment of a figure's height impossible.	It was pointed out to
these
persons that the eyes are near as damn it half way up the head, so its
no
real problem. Those who persisted in their beliefs were struck with
rolled
up newspapers or prodded with sticks.

Modern 15mm figures were first produced by Peter Laing, the scale being
invented by accident when he discovered that the pilot figures he was
scratch-building for 1/144 aircraft were overscale.

54mm we regarded with fear and suspicion- this was the height of the
reviled
_toy_ soldier, rather than our far more worthy _models_.  It was
understood
however that this represented the height of an average man at the time,
5
foot 8 inches in 1/32 scale. Historical or regional variations in height
were of course ignored.

In summary, "foot to eye" is prejudiced against the upper half of the
head,
which in my own case is daily becoming more visible but which I wouldn't
be
without. It leads to size inflation in figures and equipment, making the
whole hobby more costly.

Rob Paul