1/32 scale animals

Leyster wrote:

rogerpgvg wrote:

Very interesting! I discovered that it is a very large animal, do you have any extant 1:32 scale animals to compare it with?

I am already collecting too much, so I am not expanding my collection into dinosaurs, but I find them very interesting as reconstructions of what animals looked like in the past. I also like the fact that collectors of prehistoric animals often pay attention to scale.

No extant animals in 1:32 yet, sadly, but if you like I have the Schleich unpainted "Hans" guy.

If you have the Eofauna straight-tusked elephant, it will work too because it is almost the same size as an 1:32 scale African bush elephant.

Roger wrote:

Leyster wrote:

rogerpgvg wrote:

Very interesting! I discovered that it is a very large animal, do you have any extant 1:32 scale animals to compare it with?

I am already collecting too much, so I am not expanding my collection into dinosaurs, but I find them very interesting as reconstructions of what animals looked like in the past. I also like the fact that collectors of prehistoric animals often pay attention to scale.

No extant animals in 1:32 yet, sadly, but if you like I have the Schleich unpainted "Hans" guy.

If you have the Eofauna straight-tusked elephant, it will work too because it is almost the same size as an 1:32 scale African bush elephant.

Sadly not, ATM the only Eofauna I own is the Atlasaurus. I'm planning to add some others soon.

Wikipedia is helpful, it tells me that the Dicraeosaurus is a small diplodocoid at "only" 12 m length! Do you have a mammoth at 1:32 scale? I have a better idea of their size because it is similar to that of African bush elephants.

Back to the rays, I have got two other rays in 1:32 scale, both spotted eagle rays. One is by Colorata (on the right in photo below) and one by Play Visions. The Colorata comes from the same Sharks Box as the Colorata small reef manta ray I showed before. I got the Play Visions thanks to Yvette/75senta75.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

On the ventral side, the colour of the Colorata is more true to life and the mouth and eyes are also more realistic.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The disc width of the Colorata is 5.4/173 cm and that of the Play Visions is 6.6/211 cm. Most websites say that spotted eagle rays have a maximum disc width of 3 m, but this is highly questionable. Both Cuevas-Zimbrón et al. (2011, Fish Sci) and Tagliafico et al. (2012, Fishery Bull) say that their maximum size is 230 cm. Together, these articles and an article by Bassos-Hull (2014, Environ Biol Fish) measured over 2300 spotted eagle rays and the largest had a 226 cm DW. Most are much smaller, often juveniles. Tagliafico et al. reported that the mean DW at maturity was estimated at 129.2 cm for males and 134.9 cm for females.

Here are my spotted eagle rays with my smallest and largest reef manta rays. It’s worth noting that reef manta rays very rarely, if ever, attain the size of the Schleich. The Colorata reef manta ray has a much more common size.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And here they are with my smallest and largest giant manta rays. Again, it is very uncommon for giant manta rays to reach their maximum size.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The magic of collecting at a certain scale, how wonderful is to see those rays together?
Colorata is in average superior in terms of quality when compared with Play Visions but their sets were marketed at different price levels too. For tube like figures, Play Visions are very good.

Wonderful topic that makes me realise, thanks to its useful pictures, that models I believed so different are actually at the same scale! Big thanks to you all!

rogerpgvg wrote:

Wikipedia is helpful, it tells me that the Dicraeosaurus is a small diplodocoid at "only" 12 m length! Do you have a mammoth at 1:32 scale? I have a better idea of their size because it is similar to that of African bush elephants.

Given that relatively few dinosaurs are known by a complete skeletons and that companies might not follow proportion closely, I tend to favor skull/femur lenght over total lenght (which can vary wildly from various sources). Sadly, no mammals in my collection yet, at any scale, Hans excluded, so here he is:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Keep in mind that the Ankylosaurus here to be 1:32 is scaled to the largestmost specimen: other specimens are way smaller (it's more or less 1:26 for those).

even though I collect at 1/32nd scale, I will also add in animals that are slightly oversized (because I love the model) and ones that are smaller too.
The bigger ones will just be better fed versions (the same with humans  )
and the smaller ones I use as juveniles, babies and smaller adults and even a particular geographical smaller species.
Just as in real life - you get a plethora of different sizes all around.

It's great to see all those manta rays. My point is - perhaps some could be babies in the shoal ?

Thanks, everyone!

widukind: Yes, it takes some study to work out the scales, but for me that's part of the fun.

Rogério: Oh, I like the Play Visions. I particularly appreciate that they made so many different species and they are painted very well for toob figures. For sealife, the advantages of collecting to scale are reduced a bit because many animals, especially fish, continue to grow all their lives, so they have a very large size range. The mantas make this quite clear: there is a big difference between the smallest and the largest adults I have.

Caracal: Yes, it's often surprising to see which animals scale together. One of the joys of collecting to scale.

Leyster: It makes sense to use skull/femur length. Tail length in particular isn't very representative of the size of the animal and companies often get the relative tail length wrong (rays are a good example). With my extant animals, I prefer to use shoulder height or head+body length. I believe Hans is a bit smaller than 1:32 scale. That's OK, but just to make sure that I add a bit of length in my imagination .

Sunny: All the rays in the photos are 1:32 scale: There are quite large within-species size differences. But you are right, smaller figures can be used as young ones. This works especially well with rays and sharks, because juveniles are most commonly found. Not entirely clear why. Perhaps they don't often reach adulthood or perhaps the adults are in parts of the ocean where they are less easily spotted (deep seas, further offshore). When they are born, most rays and sharks are like mini-adults; they don't look very different from the adults apart from their size. 

As you can imagine, I have a lot of figures that are slightly too small or large for 1:32 scale, and at some point I need to establish a sub- and supra- 1:32 reserve. For my 1:32 scale reserve, I prefer to be strict, because I enjoy size comparisons and otherwise there will be mayhem, like my chickens chasing foxes and my rats eating cats. I quite like to maintain the natural order .

rogerpgvg wrote:

Thanks, everyone!
Leyster: It makes sense to use skull/femur length. Tail length in particular isn't very representative of the size of the animal and companies often get the relative tail length wrong (rays are a good example). With my extant animals, I prefer to use shoulder height or head+body length. I believe Hans is a bit smaller than 1:32 scale. That's OK, but just to make sure that I add a bit of length in my imagination .

If you need a reference, Hans (including the base but excluding the ring) is exactly 4,5 cm tall.

Thanks, it's useful for me to know the exact measurement.

Out of curiosity, is there a thread for asking/discussiong figures general scales (not 1:32)?

Leyster wrote:

Out of curiosity, is there a thread for asking/discussiong figures general scales (not 1:32)?

No, we have several topics where scales are discussed or topics to show figures that look great together but not a topic for asking the scale of each figure.

Some collection threads like the Blaine's natural history museum or Gecko08's collection include the scale for each of the figures they present, and they have many! It's a very useful guide for other scale-conciousness collectors :)

Pardofelis wrote:

Some collection threads like the Blaine's natural history museum or Gecko08's collection include the scale for each of the figures they present, and they have many! It's a very useful guide for other scale-conciousness collectors :)

Thank you, I'll have a look

It would be useful to have a central topic where we can ask questions about the size or scale of a figure. It's a question that often comes up. When you are looking for the size of a specific figure, it can be hard to find. I often use the Lego block (9.6 mm high) on TAW, but depending on the angle of the camera, it isn't always a very precise method. Shall I start a topic?

rogerpgvg wrote:

It would be useful to have a central topic where we can ask questions about the size or scale of a figure. It's a question that often comes up. When you are looking for the size of a specific figure, it can be hard to find. I often use the Lego block (9.6 mm high) on TAW, but depending on the angle of the camera, it isn't always a very precise method. Shall I start a topic?

perhaps each figure on TAW could have it's measurements included, written in the info section below it ? like length and height, and doesn't matter if it's imperial or metric scale as we can use an online calculator to work it out (but it's 2.54cm in an inch). I've never had lego and I'm not familiar with the size - I didn't even know it was 9.6mm high, ha ha thank you Roger! and I have only a few figures outside the 1/32nd scale, so for me it's been an interesting journey trying to judge the size of all the models I see

Roger, you can surely open a topic, you don't need our permission to do it. If we find a certain topic inappropriate, we just call the police and they take care of it.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], about the idea of introducing the sizes of the models on TAW, I really find it very useful and I already did it sometimes with a few AAA or Safari figures. That informatiion is useful even for editors. The problem is always the same, it takes time and we always have a lot of things to do on TAW.
Maybe, a good idea, could be a certain editor, not used with the advanced tools, to dedicate his time adding the sizes of the models. It is simple in terms of editing it just requires time but it is much easier if we make a series in a row through catalogue measurements or so.

Roger wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], about the idea of introducing the sizes of the models on TAW, I really find it very useful and I already did it sometimes with a few AAA or Safari figures. That informatiion is useful even for editors. The problem is always the same, it takes time and we always have a lot of things to do on TAW.
Maybe, a good idea, could be a certain editor, not used with the advanced tools, to dedicate his time adding the sizes of the models. It is simple in terms of editing  it just requires time but it is much easier if we make a series in a row through catalogue measurements or so.

that is a great idea Roger, and I was thinking if there was a photo of the images on one page, like a photo catalogue of the models or perhaps even just a few of the models ? with the sizes written up against them, and posted in the Makers page ?

for example ?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The Collecta Mantellisaurus is 1:31 for NHMUK R5764 (so usable as 1:32 considering some margin of error in measurements/intraspecific variation).
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Roger wrote:

Roger, you can surely open a topic, you don't need our permission to do it. If we find a certain topic inappropriate, we just call the police and they take care of it.

I've opened a size topic. If the police hunts me down, then you are also implicated .

I may add size info to figures I put on TAW in future. I should say that if you collect strictly to scale like I do, size information is only useful if it is sufficiently precise. I am often tricked by information that says that a figure is 2 inches, when in fact it is 2.2 inches .

rogerpgvg wrote:

Roger wrote:

Roger, you can surely open a topic, you don't need our permission to do it. If we find a certain topic inappropriate, we just call the police and they take care of it.

I've opened a size topic. If the police hunts me down, then you are also implicated .

I may add size info to figures I put on TAW in future. I should say that if you collect strictly to scale like I do, size information is only useful if it is sufficiently precise. I am often tricked by information that says that a figure is 2 inches, when in fact it is 2.2 inches .

You know that 2 inches and 3 inches are sizes often used generically for blisters, tube or bulk figures. As often these figures have completely different shapes, these measurements are a kind of average size when their length or height is quite variable.

The PNSO Tarbosaurus is 1:31, so it can well represent an 1:32 specimen.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Interesting to see these dinosaurs. It doesn't look like his arms could have been of much use! Is it the case that some large reptiles like crocodiles keep growing throughout their lifespan? And was this the case with dinosaurs?

rogerpgvg wrote:

Interesting to see these dinosaurs. It doesn't look like his arms could have been of much use! Is it the case that some large reptiles like crocodiles keep growing throughout their lifespan? And was this the case with dinosaurs?

Tyrannosaurid arms retain flexion ability and hooked claws, so I supposed they had some sort of function (compare them with Abelisaur arms, which are athrophied). Still Tarbosaurus has the most reduced arms among all Tyrannosauroids. kinda hard to imagine their use.
About the continuous growth, as far as I know dinosaurs stop growing at some point, but they reach sexual maturity before stopping growing (so the vast majority of specimens in the museums are not at their full size).