Re: Scales again (froth, gibber!)

On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:17:50 -0000 "Robin Paul" <Robin.Paul@tesco.net>
writes:
>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
>
>
>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit: