1/32 scale animals

rogerpgvg wrote:

It's great that you have a chance to see lions regularly. Do you live on the African Savannah? Or are they in Edinburgh Zoo . I agree about the quality of the JEOL figures. I suspect the company director was a collector and made sure that he was completely happy with the products. I'd be happy with JEOL elephants without tusks (they could probably be repaired). It depends on the price, but the only time I saw an adult JEOL elephant, it went for a fortune even without tusks.

Andreas just posted a photo of a K&M leopard [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. I don't know whether it is common for K&M (made by Wing Mao?) to imitate models and it is also very uncommon for JEOLs to be copied/imitated. Perhaps the similarities are just accidental.

I believe Jeol was from Hongkong. So maybe they have the mold? But yes, it looks like a copy.

I don't think this model was manufactured by Wing Mau although it is possible since Wing Mau produced several figures for them. However, I don't remember seeing this one in their website.

I grew up in the African bush actually, but the ones I see are online (live viewing).
I stopped going to Edinburgh zoo a long time ago when they put down a litter of healthy red river hog piglets.

Good to know about the elephants, I am sure that one day you will have them all, to join your amazing elephant herd

I checked out the leopard, it looks similar at first glance, but it's not the same mould. There are quite a number of distinct differences between them.
I've noticed a few of these leopard imitations around.
And yes you are right, there are practically zilch Jeol copies/imitations around. Interesting that. It could be due to the fact that the owners of the moulds were Japanese, and produced them only in Hong Kong - they may have had tight control on the moulds, and the staff, and knew the operators in the industry, so perhaps they could nip any thefts in the bud.

rogerpgvg wrote:

No idea why they made the giraffe so large.

JEOL is listed as a Hong Kong company on TAW. The figures were indeed made in Hong Kong, but because the company is Japanese, wouldn't it be better to list it under Japan? Interestingly, I frequently check Japanese auction websites for animal figures, but I have never come across a JEOL. I wonder whether they weren't sold in Japan. They seem to be most common (still rare) in the UK. Does anyone know whether they were sold anywhere else?

As far as I know the elephants are "too small" and the Giraffe "too large" but I think we have to take into account the lack of literature at the time and the complete absence of the internet. Achieving a collection to scale was a real challenge at the time and, even if it remains imperfect, it makes the efforts of JEOL, Lineol and Britains Ltd even more appreciable.

I don't think Jeol ever reached France and, since the series had a short life, they are of course rarer now than more longer life companies.

Companies don't need the original mould to produce copies.

They can simply take a moulding from any model or using a pantograph. The latter can make the original 'inspiration' same size, bigger or smaller. If the company copies the original but produces it either larger or smaller are they copying?

Jeol might not have been copied due to limited production and market availability. From this post it appears that they were not seen in other parts of Europe when they were current.

There may have lack of literature stating measurements for animals at the time but this could have been made using animals in zoos. All the Jeol models measurements could have been made using captive animals. Indeed Britains zoo animals were sculpted from observations carried out in zoos. Perhaps this explains their scale accuracy.

Even Britains Ltd scale accuracy isn't true, Britains Ltd is probably, with Lineol, the brand that came closest to the ideal but that's it: Tiny polar bears and ostriches, lioness and platypus too big...

Sorry, another essay about size …

No, not all Britains are exactly 1/32 scale. When I surveyed this [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], I found that 73% of their adult zoo animals were 1/32 scale. Having said this, I am surprised how often Britains did get it right. Most of the sizes of their models were determined in the 1930s; the later versions usually kept the same sizes. There was no internet at that time and even books with good size information were very rare. The sizes may have come from zoos but it is difficult to get the scale right by just observing animals while drawing or sculpting them. Animals would have to be measured, which can be difficult for some animals. Even today, I believe that zoos usually don’t record sizes. It isn’t so easy to get scale right. I spend a lot of time researching animals’ sizes but I still occasionally get it wrong. Sometimes because I misinterpret the information, most often because information on the web, in books and even scientific articles is wrong.

The Britains lionesses and platypus are indeed too large. The platypus is already small, so it is understandable that Britains didn’t make it even smaller. And like most brands, vintage or modern, Britains normally made their males and females the same size. It’s similar with their cows and bulls. Other zoo animals where the size is wrong are the llama (too small), pelicans, kangaroos, orangutan and crocodile with opening mouth (too large).

The Britains polar bears aren’t that small. Derocher and Stirling (1998) measured 6208 polar bears in various regions in North America. The largest male bears were in the Foxe Basin, where the mean total length was 237 cm (at the age at which they reached maximum length) and the smallest were in the Central Arctic with 228 cm. The largest females were also in the Foxe Basin (198 cm) and the smallest in the Central Arctic (190 cm). Graphs in Derocher and Wiig (2002) show that adult female polar bears on Svalbard (a particularly small population) were about 175-210 cm in total length and adult males were 200-245 cm. Armstrong (2003) reports that polar bears in the Beaufort Sea can be up to 285 cm, which is the largest I have seen reasonable evidence for. Wikipedia says that polar bears are 240-300 cm in total length. I wouldn’t like to rule out 300 cm completely but I haven’t found any evidence for it and they can certainly be a lot smaller than 240 cm.

The Britains polar bears have a head+body length of 6.6/211 cm. Their total length is hard to establish because their tail is hidden in their fur. A polar bear’s tail is generally about 10 cm, so the total length of the Britains is about 220 cm. Quite a sizeable Svalbard bear!

The Britains ostriches are probably too small (height: 5.9/198 cm early version, 6.1/195 cm late version), but I haven’t been able to find primary data on ostrich sizes. Today, Wikipedia says that male common ostriches stand 2.1 to 2.75 m tall, whereas females are about 1.75 to 1.9 m. But Wikipedia keeps changing its mind. In the past, it said that male common ostriches can be from 2.2 to 3.0 m in height, while female common ostriches range from 1.7 to 2.3 m tall. And before that, it said that that males have a height of 2.1 to 2.8 m and females are 1.7 to 2.0 m. Not sure what to believe. Total height also isn’t a great measure because it very much depends on how stretched out their neck is. When looking at photos of ostriches, males and females have quite a similar size and, for what it is worth, when I look at photos of ostriches with people, I’d say that their height is 2.0-2.4 m. It's a good example of a case where even in the 21st century, it is very difficult to find accurate size information.

I love your essays about sizes.

I am very surprised by the size of the Polar Bears.
Hunter and Barrett indicate a H&B length of 180-247cm for female and 200 to 285cm for males. For the height at the withers, they indicate 120 to 170cm.

As for the 73% success rate, it is indeed very honorable.

Haolonggood Ouranosaurus is a good candidate for a 1/32 Jurassic park
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The Haolonggood is, uh, good!

The Hunter and Barrett information about HB length corresponds well to the information I found in research articles. Shoulder height isn't measured in any research articles I found, so I prefer to use total length. Given a 180-285 cm total length, I doubt that a shoulder height of 120-170 cm is correct. Do Hunter and Barrett say where they got this information from? The problem is often that authors refer to another book, and that book refers to yet another book and either it is impossible to find the original source or if you find the original source then it turns out to be unreliable. In the past, I tended to rely on Wikipedia and web sources, but now, if possible, I prefer to use research articles that report primary data. Unfortunately, they don't always exist.

Let's have a look at the second part of my JEOL collection. We’ll start with the warthog:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It’s another rather large model, with a shoulder height of 2.7/86 cm. Butynsky and De Jong (2017, Ecology, Conservation and Management of Wild Pigs and Peccaries) show data from several studies with common warthogs ranging between 54 and 83 cm in shoulder height. Here is the JEOL and the much smaller Colorata, with a 2.1/67 cm shoulder height the only 1/32 scale warthog I know of.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Fortunately, the bushpig is 1/32 scale. It’s the only bushpig at this scale that I am aware of (and perhaps even the only bushpig in toy form).
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It’s 2.6/83 cm at the shoulder. I haven’t been able to find much information about the size of bushpigs. Wikipedia says that says that they are 66-100 cm (referencing Kingdon, 1997), but the maximum size is probably just a guess. Meijaard et al. (2011, in Handbook of the Mammals of the World Vol 2) say that they are 55-88 cm at the shoulder. This seems to be an authoritative work on wild pig species and is more likely to be correct. Here is a comparison with the Britains wild boar:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The beautiful impala pair that Annette mentioned in her post:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Again, JEOL has made them too large for 1/32 scale. The female is 3.0/96 cm at the shoulder and the male is 3.3/106 cm. Surprisingly for such a well-known species, there is little information about their size from primary sources. Wikipedia says that males are approximately 75–92 cm at the shoulder, while females are 70–85 cm tall. In Howells and Hanks (1975), heights are 86-94 cm for males and 82-88 cm for females, but these ranges are means for different age groups so the actual size range is likely to be wider.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Here we have the JEOLs with the Bandai impalas, which are better in size (impala with head up is 2.9/93 cm, head down is 2.6/83 cm). Bandai even made an impala calf! I suspect one of the adults is meant to be a female but female impalas don’t have horns, something that JEOL did do right.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

There are two zebras too. The underside shows that the zebra with head up is a male and the one with the head down is presumably a female.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It looks as if they are about the same size but if you measure their actual shoulder height, then the male is 4.6/147 cm and the female is 4.0/128 cm. Again, it is surprising that for such a common species, it is difficult to find size information from primary sources. The zebras are presumably plains zebras, whose size depends somewhat on the subspecies. According to Wikipedia, Grant’s zebras have a 120-140 cm shoulder height and Heywood (2022) says that Grant’s zebra stallions in the Serengeti are 128 cm and mares are 123 cm on average. Burchell’s zebras may be the largest of the Plains zebras. Wikipedia says 110-140 cm but Smuts et al. (1975) found that stallions were 127-147 cm and mares were 129-141 cm. The JEOLs' striping doesn’t really look like that of Burchell’s zebras but perhaps we can give them the benefit of doubt.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

From left to right: Britains early zebra (3.9/125 cm), late zebra (3.8/122 cm), JEOL stallion and mare, and Kaiyodo Yotsuba (4.3/138 cm).
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Finally, the magnificent JEOL waterbuck. It has a shoulder height of 4.0/128 cm.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

A growth curve graph in Melton (1978) shows that male ellipsen waterbucks have a shoulder height of about 110-140 cm.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

For comparison, I’ll show it with the later version of the Britains sable antelope. I haven’t shown it in this topic yet.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It is 3.9/125 cm at the shoulder. It’s probably a female because male sable antelopes are black. Given the size of its horns, it would need to be an older female. Is it 1/32 scale? I don't have access the original sources, but other articles say that Skinner & Chimimba (2005) mention that adult male sable antelopes are 135 cm on average while Estes (1991) reports that they are 117-140 cm. Wikipedia says that females are slightly smaller. I don’t know whether this means that they are always smaller than 117 cm; perhaps more likely that they are smaller than the average height of males, in which case the Britains is fine as a female.

Overall, the conclusion is that JEOL didn’t make their models so well to scale. Only half of the models I have are truly 1/32 scale. But that’s fine; I am not at all obsessed by scale

Wonderful to see the lovely Jeol models. Roger,do you think the Timpo Impala would fit in the 1/32 scale?

Thank you for these very interesting explanations and comparison pictures!

Jeol is phantastic, especially the waterbuck and the bushpig

Those Jeol are really beautiful  and so rare and expensive

"The JEOLs' striping doesn’t really look like that of Burchell’s zebras but perhaps we can give them the benefit of doubt."
Why not but, except their size, the Burchell’s zebras are known for their very specific stripes which Jeol haven't.

"It’s probably a female because male sable antelopes are black. Given the size of its horns, it would need to be an older female"
Again why not? For colour I don't trust Britains Ltd too much, they have some excellent sculptors, some very good surveyors, but the painters are not the most reputable.
The antelope is brown like the Gaur which is certainly not a cow since its model was most certainly the bull Conan, star of Regent's Park Zoo in London. I prefer to think this Sable is a male  

Thanks, Andreas and Alain!

Yes, Britains didn't always use the right colours. I wasn't quite correct in saying that male sable antelopes are black. Only the older ones are. This picture from Furstenburg (2008) suggests that the Britains could be either a male of about 5 years or a female over 8 years considering its colour and horn size:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Taos wrote:

Wonderful to see the lovely Jeol models. Roger,do you think the Timpo Impala would fit in the 1/32 scale?

Strictly speaking they are too large, but they aren't much too large. You'll probably find them quite acceptable in a 1/32 display.

Roger,just noticed that your Sable has different paintwork to mine!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yours is a special sable. It is uncommon to see so much grey on its belly.

rogerpgvg wrote:

Thanks, Andreas and Alain!

Yes, Britains didn't always use the right colours. I wasn't quite correct in saying that male sable antelopes are black. Only the older ones are. This picture from Furstenburg (2008) suggests that the Britains could be either a male of about 5 years or a female over 8 years considering its colour and horn size:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Very interesting graph wich corroborates what I have seen during my visits to the zoos, the females have a less erect and less robust neck, a flatter back than the males. This is why I consider the Britains Ltd as a male for my collection.

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

The PNSO "Sinraptor" hepingensis is, again, 1:32 for the only preserved specimen

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

Looks good, it has a colour that I expect from dinosaurs .

A few years ago, I got the Yowie Andean bear from Kelly:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

For a long time, he was alone in the reserve , until I recently got his mirror image from Cody :
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It’s the Play Visions Andean bear. They aren’t quite sure what has happened: Are they looking in a mirror?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Getting more used to each other:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

What is the size of Andean bears? A research review by Vela-Vargas et al. (2021) says that they have a head–body length of 119-174 cm, referring to Mondolfi (1971) and Bininda-Emonds (1998). I haven’t been able to track down the former source, but the latter actually says that male Andean bears have a mean head-body length of 190 cm. Other sources say that their body length (presumably total length) is 112-220 cm. Tirara (2017) gives some more information with this, for example the tail length is 7-11 cm, so it is possible that 112-220 cm is indeed correct although it isn’t clear what the original source is.

In any case, the Yowie and Play Visions needn’t worry because they fit within either size range. Their length is quite hard to measure because their neck isn't straight, but the Yowie has a head+body length of about 5.0/160 cm (2.8/90 cm shoulder height) and the Play Visions has a length of about 4.6/147 cm (2.6/83 cm shoulder height).

wow! first time I've seen an Andean bear in 1/32nd, these 2 look meant to be
well done on getting them Roger!

A beautiful pair!

Spectacled bears are very rare in the toy world and it's great to discover that two of them are 1/32.
The PV is a bit more mythical but I have a soft spot for the Yowie.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] this might interest you: Yujin polar bear, from 2012. I saw some pictures compared to Kaiyodos and it looks like it's the right scale for a big polar bear plus it looks well sculpted (from ninjaaquarium's site)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
This is a picture I found on Tieba Baidu some times ago:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Is it a mirror or is there anything wrong about my spectacles?
Wonderful pair, they look like they were made to each other.