1/32 scale animals

Let’s have a look at the size of elephants. The Britains elephants are meant to be 1:32 scale, but we need to check of course. There are quite a few articles on the size of African elephants, but I found the best information in an article by Shrader et al. (2006, Jn of Zoology). They found that across 10 different regional populations, adult females were between 200 and 270 cm (n = 264) and males between 230 and 350 cm (n = 245) at the shoulder. The smallest calf was just over 85 cm. In another article, Della Rocca (2007, Web Ecology) reported that the largest female was 280 cm (n = 317) and the largest male 323 cm (n = 35), while the smallest calf was 79 cm. Della Rocca also surveyed other studies and her graphs show that across these studies the largest male was about 350 cm and the largest female about 300 cm.

However, quite a few websites (including Wikipedia) report that African elephants can be up to 400 cm in shoulder height, which is considerably taller than the largest elephants measured in research papers. I think that this maximum height is based on “Henry”, a stuffed African elephant displayed in the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington, which was reputably the largest ever African elephant. However, we may need to be a bit sceptical about his size, as reports of his size vary quite a bit: He is sometimes said to be 13.2 feet (which is 400 cm rounded), sometimes 14 feet and sometimes 13 feet. I found only one photo of Henry that may give us a clue about his size, a photo from 1959 with a human next to him. He certainly looks very large, but unless the human is very tall, I’d say Henry is no more than 350-360 cm in height.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I’ve generally become quite suspicious about reports of gigantic animals, especially if they are based on information from hunters and fishermen. And it is not just hunters and fishermen who often exaggerate, it is also well known that in the past, museums and zoos often exaggerated the sizes of their animals to attract visitors. Interestingly, Henry was specifically hunted down in Angola in 1955 because the hunter wanted to shoot what was reputed to be the largest living land animal. It is also reported that they found an old slug from a flintlock pistol that “proved” that Henry was 100 years old when he was shot, quite unlikely given that African elephants normally don’t get older than 70 years due to their molars wearing away. To conclude, until I see more reliable measurements, I take Henry’s size with a pinch of salt. If anyone on STS visits the Smithsonian Museum, please take your measuring stick with you and let me know what his real size is.

As we probably all know, Asian elephants tend to be smaller than African elephants although there is considerable size overlap between the species. I found that the most useful article was a study by Kurt and Kumarasinghe (1998, Acta Theorologica). They measured over 300 male elephants from Myanmar, Thailand and Sri Lanka as well as 400 females from the same regions and from zoos. Their graphs show that across all populations, adult males after the age of 25 were about 220-287 cm at the shoulder and females about 205-260 cm (with one exceptionally tall female being 280 cm). The tusk-less and tush-less “pussas” tend to be the largest, with one exceptionally large, almost 60-year old pussa having a shoulder height of 310 cm. A graph in Mumby et al. (2015, BMC Evolutionary Biology) shows that the smallest Asian elephant calf has a shoulder height of about 80 cm.

As with African elephants, there are also stories of extremely large Asian elephants. For example, Wikipedia and the Guinness Book of Records claim that the largest Asian elephant had a shoulder height of 343 cm (11.3 ft) and they actually provide a reference to a report by Pillai (1941, Jn Bombay Natural History Society). Pillai decribes Chandrasekharan, an Asian elephant that was reported to be standing 10 feet (305 cm) tall and was 10’ 7’’ (323 cm) when skinned. As we have seen, 305 cm is quite not impossible, but Pillai also shortly mentions a skeleton in an Indian museum that is 11’ 3’’ (335 cm) and might have been 12 feet (366 cm) in the flesh. These measurements may not be reliable; Pillai also says that Ortela, an elephant in Ceylon, is 170 years old and he seems therefore quite surprised that Chandrasekharan was only between 52 and 67 years old at the time of his death. Even Pillai himself is sceptical of the 11’ 3’’ skeleton, noting that its size is affected by whether it was correctly mounted and that the femur of this elephant was only 1/8 inch (3 mm) larger than that of another elephant that was known to be 10 feet tall.

Sorry, that was a long story. How about the Britains? The African elephant cow has a shoulder height of 8.7/278 cm. That’s not quite impossible for a female, but very large. Or maybe it’s a bull after all? The African elephant bull is 9.6/307 cm at the shoulder, which is an average size for an older bull. The calf is 3.7/118 cm, which is fine for a young African elephant in 1:32 scale.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The earlier Asian elephant is 7.8/250 cm and the later one is 8.1/259 cm. Both have tusks, so they are presumably male. Kurt and Kumarasinghe’s (1998) article shows that 250 cm is about the average height of Asian bulls over 25 years of age.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

rogerpgvg wrote:

Looks good. Wikipedia says that the Baryonyx may have had a ridge or hump on its back, it's interesting that Safari chose not to model this.

The ridge is based on an isolated vertebra (UOP C001.2004), which was assigned to an indeterminate Baryonychine. Since Baryonyx was the only certain English Baryonychine, it seemed logic to lump them. But now we know there are at least two other species of Baryonychines in England (Riparovenator and Ceratosuchops), which are, by the way, more closely related to a Baryonychine with high spines (Suchomimus) than Baryonyx is. Since we have no overlapping material, the vertebra might belong to Baryonyx as well as to Riparovenator or Ceratosuchops. Nothing wrong with the Safari, then.

I think you might find this paper, which covers both extant and extinct elephants, interesting.

Very interesting report about elephants. I tend to agree with your cepticism.

rogerpgvg wrote:

Which Papo African elephant do you have, Rogério? There are a few. I am looking forward to the new CollectA too, hopefully it isn't too large.

It istheir first one from 2004 and already retired. Here is a comparison picture with a Britains model. If you want, I can try to measure it.
I understand that you want the CollectA model in perfect size for your scale and likely it will happen. Though, I suspect previous CollectA elephant was slightly larger than this Papo model.I honestly would love it in scale with my Bullyland elephant but I am afraid it won't happen.

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

Thanks for showing the old Papo, Rogério. It is one Papo I don’t have. I didn’t like it much when I saw it in other photos, but it looks quite all right in your photo. I might consider it if I can find it. I am not so keen on the current CollectA so I don’t have it either.

Thanks, Leyster, that’s indeed a very interesting article. I’d found it before but had forgotten that Larramendi discusses the very large elephants that I mentioned. He says that Henry (or Fenykovi) was 401 cm when on its side, suggesting a shoulder height of 386 cm. However, using the postcranial long-bone diaphyseal length to estimate shoulder height, it was estimated to be only 351 cm. He also mentions that the 343 cm shoulder height of the Asian elephant in the Indian museum is an estimate based on its foot circumference. There is a considerable margin of error associated with this estimation, so this elephant may have been less tall. As Larramendi mentions, if they exist at all, such very large specimens are very rare, “usually there is one among hundreds of thousands, or even millions”, so when we collect animals to scale, these exceptions are not so relevant.

Let’s now move on to more recently made elephants. I don’t normally rank my animal figures according to which I like best. How can I compare lions from Britains, Kaiyodo, Starlux, a Safari Toob, Hausser Elastolin, Playvisions, Clairet and Eikoh? They are all so different: different styles, different periods. But when it comes to elephants, I find it tempting to rank them because they are mostly made by the major modern companies in the last 15 years and it seems fair to see which one is the “best”. So in the next few weeks, I am planning to introduce my modern elephants one by one, starting with my least favourite and ending with my most favourite elephant. I am curious to see whether you agree and to hear which elephants you like.

I have collected 14 modern adult elephants, so today we’ll start with number 14, my least favourite. This dubious honour goes to the Nayab African elephant:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

To start with the positive things, the elephant’s body proportions are not bad: the head isn’t too large, the body isn’t too chubby and the legs aren’t too short. However, its ears really put me off. They have a strange, half-circle shape and are positioned too low. It gives the elephant a rather sad appearance.

Why did I buy it? Well, it was one of my first non-Britains 1:32 scale figures and at the time, I didn’t know that 1:32 scale elephants were so common. I even got it in Canada! The seller sold it as “HG” and TAW tells me that HG was a toy manufacturer in the 1970s and 80s. Nayab has sold their animal figures under a variety of brand names, so perhaps it isn’t impossible that they re-used the brand name HG after they released their elephant in the 2000s. They also sold the same elephant as Timpo in the UK many years after Timpo went bankrupt.

Sizewise, it’s fine for 1:32 scale. Its shoulder height is 9.4/301 cm, which is quite an average height for an African elephant bull. Here is a comparison with the Britains 1965 African elephant:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I think whoever sculpted for Nayab had never heard of necks; several of their animals I've seen look like the heads are just sprouting out of the shoulders with very few vertebrae in between

It's really interesting that so many companies choose the same scale, or something very close to fitting it, for their elephants. Which isn't the same for their other wildlife, so anyone compiling a zoo or nature reserve or even an old fashioned circus can't have a fully matching set, even if buying all of them from the same company.
To me, as the logical kind of child, it would have really bugged me if my elephant toy wasn't the right amount bigger than the other wildlife, so I greatly appreciate the way Britains make all their animals the same scale, and just accept that some will be teeny tiny and easy to lose, while others will be huge and more expensive.
With me coming from the model horse side of things, where you do have various different scales to choose from, but everything within a scale will work together - a big breed will always be made big regardless of having an consistant size throughout the range for pricing reasons or packaging and shipping concerns. You can have a little field with a shetland, a shire, and a sport horse, and they'll all have the right size ratio when you stand them together.
And I think that's what makes it seem really strange to me that kids are expected to just overlook the fact the big animals aren't the same scale as the medium ones, and the small ones are a different scale again. What if you want a dog to be friends with an elephant? Or a bird to perch on a giraffe's back? Or a shark to chase a fish for dinner? Can't, they're not the same scale

I know it matters less to a lot of adult collectors out there, even though a few focus intently on getting everything the right and matching scale, many of us buy several different scales and display them all together or split up by size or brand or whatever, we're a different kind of audience. It's the little kids who want to play that their animal toys are alive and interacting which I'm thinking of here, and how annoyed I'd have been if I couldn't get hold of an elephant at the same scale as everything else!

I am not so sure scale always plays a factor in a childs mind. I think also safety standards come into play as well. up until the 60s Britains toys were made of lead. I remember my little brother in the 80s some how thought it would be neat to shove a Britains piglet up his nose. How he managed that I will never know! It was not easy to extract it that I know. I think also dexterity also many come into it and I think a 1/32 scale chicken would be harder for a 3 year old to play with than say a Schleich chicken (and I am sure safer for them also).

I surely enjoy your ideas. Now I am really excited to see what comes next.
I'm always telling that Nayab models are not necesarily Nayab but, since I don't know the original manufacturer of these molds, I think it is convenient to call them Nayab. Also, there's always the chance they're the Nayab copy of the original model. Timpo was the brand of some Toyway figures and now Toyway is part of Bachmann Europe. It is all very confuse and not the real subject. So, I have to agree with George about the design of the models of this series. Tehir lack of neck is a tendency perceived in many models, sheep, fox, wolf are other good examples. Fortunately, I have the giraffe and it has a neck. About the ears, they're surprisingly dropped, it is like Dumbo when he is sad so you're right. African elephants have round ears but they surely does not look like those as you can see here.

My impression is that most STS forumites weren't too bothered about scale when they were a child, except if they grew up with Britains. A young child doesn't know the exact sizes of animals and when they grow up, they get used to the relative sizes that most toy companies use. Educationally, absolute sizes (i.e. to scale) are better because children may believe that their animals are to scale even if they aren't. I still have difficulties with the size of kangaroos and crocodiles because Britains made them too large.

As Scott says, it's easier to play with larger models, but on the other you could argue that smaller toys promote dexterity. Many other companies like Playmobil and Lego make small pieces that children are happy to play with.

As for myself, I prefer models to scale because I want my shelves to look realistic overall. Whether a specific figure is realistic or more toyish doesn't bother me quite so much because I find that they "blend in" if they are the right size.

Ah, yes, the Nayab's neck! I knew that there was something else wrong with this elephant, but I couldn't put my finger on it.

Another 1:32 dinosaur, the GR Toys Carcharodontosaurus (for the neotype, largest specimen).
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

GR Toys is a company I'd never heard of - it looks like they exclusively focus on dinosaurs. An expensive model but it looks good.

Next up as number 13 is a knock-off of the Schleich 2012-16 African bull elephant. Except for a few JEOLs, this was the very first non-Britains 1:32 scale model I bought. I was such a Britains snob that I didn’t even know that it was a Schleich knock-off!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

As Christophe often says, Schleich elephants have 1:32 scale bodies with 1:20 scale heads, and that’s exactly the problem with this elephant. The head and body are well modelled, it’s just that they don’t go together well. The body isn’t too chubby and the legs aren’t even that short. The head itself looks OK too, except that the trunk may be a bit too large. It’s 9.3/298 cm at the shoulder, so its body height is 1:32 scale.

I should perhaps try to find the original Schleich. It is probably better painted and made of a better, heavier plastic. On the other hand, I quite like to have a representative sample of 1:32 scale elephants and Schleich knock-offs are so common that they shouldn’t be missing.

Here is the Schleich knock-off with the Nayab. I’d say the knock-off is clearly more pleasant to look at.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And here with the Britains African elephant bull:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And with the cow:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Very nice, but that head is massive!

I think if you took the Britains bull elephant head and grafted it to the Schleich copy it would be perfect :)

The 3rd generation model. This family lasted a very short time when compared with all others. I don't know exactly the original of this model but, if it is as massive as the 2nd generation ones, its body is much more massive than a Britains model. The whole design is made to go with the huge head. thick trunk, thick legs and wide body. However, I find them attractive and they were very popular among collectors.

The body of the 3rd generation male is bigger than the Britains elephant, but it isn't too bulky. I think it has a well-shaped body, it's just that it's head is relatively too large.

Let's continue with the next elephant, the Safari running African elephant. Although it is still in production, it’s an almost vintage model: It is marked 1996, while TAW says it was released in 1998. I hadn’t seen it for a while and when I took it out of its storage box and wrapping, I had to laugh. It’s very chubby, its legs are too short and its head has strange angles, making it look quite funny. The running pose isn’t bad, I think this is kind of how elephants run.

Its shoulder height is 9.0/288 cm. I am not quite sure whether it is meant to be a male or a female. It would be a fairly small male or a very large female in 1:32 scale.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The plastic and paint quality is clearly better than the Schleich knock-off, and the relative sizes of the head and body are better than the Schleich knock-off too, so that’s why I slightly prefer the Safari.

Here is a comparison with the Britains African cow elephant:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And with the Schleich knock-off:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Nice to see another competitor performing.
It is available for 25 yearstogether with the calf, considering Safari intorduced other figures later, I feel I need to study better the history of the Wild Safari elephants.
I believe the gait is tendencially correct since they move the legs of the same side forward almost at the same time because their bodies are short.
Thanks for telling it is marked 1996. Safari sectiion is the largest on TAW and we needed to build it without catalogues or just with a few catalogues of the last years. We still do not have catalogues from the first years and the release dates are known from the year marked on figures. Often, we even needed to check online sales to try to find a picture where the year was visible and as you know 8 and 6 are very hard to distinguish sometimes. I fixed it on TAW to 1997 since figures of those years used to be marked with the year previous to the release. Many people also have no idea that 10 years ago, many of the Safari figures listed on TAW were not even known among the traditional collectors and sporadically we find figures still missing like Paige's cobra or the orca calf not long ago. I am also sure we still miss a good numberof Incredible Creatures.

good comparisons Roger, thank you for doing them! Interesting to see the different takes on elephants. I think the heads seem all a little too large. Perhaps detachable ears would make a difference to these moulds ?

Elephants cannot run, so when they move fast it is in a fast walk gait.
They don't have the same gait as camels and giraffes (both legs on the same side moving together), but it can appear that way, as Roger says.

I thought 1998 as the release year might not be completely impossible if it is marked as 1996, but normally it's no more than one year later.

Thanks, Annette, you are right, they can't run. This video shows it quite nicely:


When I stop the video, I can see that their fast walking pose isn't unlike the Safari, but the real elephants look much more athletic!

Next, at number 11 is one that I had forgotten until I surveyed all my elephants for my ranking. I now remember that I bought it because I didn’t have many Schleich elephants and wanted to have an example of an older one.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It’s the Schleich African elephant bull from 2005-2012 (marked 2004). It has the large head and feet typical of most Schleich elephants, but its head looks less enormous than that of the Schleich knock-off at number 13. Not the most fantastic elephant model, but it doesn’t have anything that I find seriously unappealing. It is 8.8/282 cm, which is perhaps a bit small for such a bulky bull.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

A comparison with the Schleich knock-off:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The original Schleich version of the knock-off was released in 2012 and succeeded the Schleich under discussion. I am not convinced that the successor was better.

Together with the Britains elephant bull:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This elephant is a iconic example about the way elephant figures were designed 20 years ago. Another figure I think could be included into the same style is the SOL90 from 2006.
They're appealing but not as morphologically correct as the Britains models. I also don't think newere African elephants from Schleich are better. It is easy to compare this one with the current female and the biggest difference I see is the excessive texture on the new model what I don't like at all. Somewhat like the Mojö 2nd generation. Probably Schleich will release a new family soon.

Thanks for the video Roger. At 1m 24s you can see the last elephant, a female, stretch out her tail and hold her head high - this is a threatening gesture to make her appear bigger! I think the humans were too close to her herd for her liking.

It's interesting to see all these different models. What I find a little amusing is that these big name brands have elephants that seem to fit into the 1/32nd scale yet all their other animals are at a bigger scale
I have some old elephant models from AAA I think, that fitted in with the Britains ones.

Is the SOL90 1:32 scale? I am curious about Schleich's next generation of elephants: Will they continue their own tradition with large heads and bulky bodies or follow the more recent trend of making the proportions more realistic?

I don't know whether it's just a coincidence that the modern elephants are the same scale as the Britains or whether Schleich (and later other companies) deliberately chose the same size for the largest land animal.


Today we have reached the top 10! Ranked 10th is the Papo trumpeting African elephant from 2006-2021.

He (it’s a bull) looks OK from some angles, but something is wrong with the way his head fits onto his body. I find it hard to tell what the exact problem is. The trunk is clearly too small to reach the ground and the tusks are too blunt, but probably the main problem is that his head is much higher than the rest of his body, which makes this elephant look quite unnatural. The head also seems younger than the rest of the body. On the positive side, he isn’t too chubby and seen in isolation, the head looks nice enough. This elephant is 9.1/291 cm at the shoulder.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

With the Safari running elephant:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And with the Britains African elephant bull:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It is interesting to see a Papo being presented today. The trunk makes it look like a calf.
SOL90 elephant is often mentioned as Schleich sized but I don't know its exact size.
You can see here [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] but I'm afraid you're not familiar with the other models.
You can see [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] more pictures of the elephant and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I believe I can give you a link of a sale, let me know if it has any interest to you.
I owned the rhino and the material is more like Schleich than like Papo, maybe slightly heavier.
About these models having all roughly the same size, it is really a mistery. Usually, the brand which is considered the predecessor to these major brand lines, a kind of bridge between vintage and modern figures, it is AAA. AAA also have elephants at this scale but as usual they have lots of different sizes. Bullyland, Safari, Schleich, Wild Republic, are among many brands that used AAA moulds in their early animal series. I believe there's no direct influence from Britains since the concept of the major brands is just about 4 or 5 price tags and the elephant is the animal at the highest price level and the basal scale is the 1:20 used for farm figures where the humans are included. Then, they reduce the scale for larger animals or increase for smaller animals. Horses and humans are the key figures to determine scales. They're roughly 1:20. For Wildlife, you will find the zebras at the same scale as their horses, then roughly 1:24 for hippos, 1:28 for rhinos, 1:32 for elephants. Or 1:16 for large felines, 1:12 for foxes, etc. It is not precise, just a rudimentar way to explain how things work.

It's interesting that you also think the trunk makes it look like a calf; I had the same impression but I wondered whether that was just me.

Are the earliest AAA elephants earlier than the earliest Schleichs? I didn't know, I assumed that Schleich was first.

Next, at number 9, we have the Schleich Asian elephant cow from 2015 (still in production).

Her head looks slightly odd and her legs are perhaps a bit too short, but at least she isn’t too bulky and it’s nice that this is a female model without tusks or even tushes. I don’t have so many Asian elephants, so I am quite pleased with this one. Being 8.0/256 cm at the shoulder, it’s also a good size (not too large) for a 1:32 scale female. It’s one of the very few animal figures that I bought in my local toy shop and among the first 1:32 non-Britains that I collected.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

A comparison with the Britains 1961 Asian elephant:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And with the 1972 Britains:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Very nice although she does have a massive head! I am enjoying your count down of pachyderms!

I tend to like Schleich Asian elephants better than their African elephants. This model has a conservative design once it reminds the previous cow from 2005. It is hard to explain but I think the prroblem of the head is that it is horizontally extended. The distance between the eye and ears is probably longer than it should be but the model is pleasant in general. I like the fact they narrowed the trunk towards the tip. I only think they should have done the tail noticiably thinner and without such a big tuft. However, this model clearly receives a positive note from me even if I prefer the Mojö Fun model.
I forgot earlier Schleich elephants were so old. I don't know when the oldest AAA elephants were released. We don't have an official information. The only way to know is trying to find the oldest catalogue, of other brands, where they were used. I remember seeing them on catalogues from the 1990's but I don't know if they were already available in 1980's.