Size and scale topic

Some collectors collect by scale and others would like to ensure that their models aren't too different in size from each other. This is a topic for all your questions about size and scale.

I hope you don't mind if I start off. What is the exact height of this Schleich 2004 ostrich (no 14325)?

9,1 cm

Thank you very much! Do you know by any chance whether it is smaller than the Schleich 2010 ostrich? By the way, I think it is strange that Schleich no longer makes an ostrich.

[quote="rogerpgvg"]Thank you very much! Do you know by any chance whether it is smaller than the [url=https://toyanimal.info

I'll make an ostrich  comparison tomorrow, - unless somebody else does before me , of course

rogerpgvg wrote:

Thank you very much! Do you know by any chance whether it is smaller than the Schleich 2010 ostrich? By the way, I think it is strange that Schleich no longer makes an ostrich.

Yes, I don't know why they retired the last one so early, it is a good model.
About the 2010 figure, Schleich official measurements tell it is 10,5 cm high but nothing is better than Susanne's pictures.

Roger wrote:

Yes, I don't know why they retired the last one so early, it is a good model.

Not totally retired, as there is always the set with the hyena and the ostrich chick. Three retired models in one set.

spacelab wrote:

Roger wrote:

Yes, I don't know why they retired the last one so early, it is a good model.

Not totally retired, as there is always the set with the hyena and the ostrich chick. Three retired models in one set.  

That's a fact and it may explain why they're not anymore in their regular range. Surely, it turns this Hyena Attack set more salable.

This is a very good idea for a topic!

Here they are :

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

The whole gang ( minus chick, which I can't find right now, stupid play-sets !!!! )
All males as always.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Perfect Susanne, there's no comparison pictures as yours.
The most recent is very good and the one with the open wings has a very attractive design. Schleich released chicks, eggs but no females... quite usual with ostriches.

Thank you very much, Susanne. That's a great comparison with fantastic photos. Unfortunately, they are all too large for me, but that makes your photos even more useful: I now know I don't need to spend money on them.

Oooh, nice thread! I'll make good use of it!

Do anybody know which scale the Collecta Hippopotamus is?

Leyster wrote:

Oooh, nice thread! I'll make good use of it!

Do anybody know which scale the Collecta Hippopotamus is?

That masterpiece is about 1:24 scale. I am not good measuring but shoulder height is about 6 cm and head+body length close to 15.

Hello,
I love this thread!
But I have some questions.
1) What are the right words for the "scales" of the animals with the height like 1" or 2" or 3" or 4"?
1" = mini?
2" = standard?
3" = medium?
4" = large?
2) Where is the point of measurement? I think this point depends of the animal. I think you measure a giraffe from the bottom to the head and you measure a crocodile from the mouth to the tail? And so we need a graphic to show where to measure.
I like graphics like this.
Benno.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Babdo wrote:

Hello,
I love this thread!
But I have some questions.
1) What are the right words for the "scales" of the animals with the height like 1" or 2" or 3" or 4"?
1" = mini?
2" = standard?
3" = medium?
4" = large?
2) Where is the point of measurement? I think this point depends of the animal. I think you measure a giraffe from the bottom to the head and you measure a crocodile from the mouth to the tail? And so we need a graphic to show where to measure.
I like graphics like this.....

Sorry, I have never heard of a system where you measure from 1 to 4

Some brands that have series of models with different size give names to the different series , but within each series they really have nothing to do with the scale to the actual animal.

When I measure a model, I use my common sence :
For instance It would not be much help to know the length of different giraffes. Those I measure from the bottom to the highest point.
But it would make sence to measure the length og af croc, so then then I would write : "Length xx,x"
Horses are traditionally measure from the ground to the the point where the shoulder meets the neck, then I would write "Size over the shoulder "xx,x"
This later one could also be used if one or both giraffes bend their head down.

I am not sure if this helps you, but so far it has worked fine for me a many others

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], scale terminology is much more complex and depends of what we are talking about.
Railway uses specific terminology and often based on gauge what is quite confuse.
Dollhouses have a huge tradition and the most common scale is known as one-inch scale. It doesn't mean a figure is 1 inch long but that 1 inch of a figure or accessory corresponds to one foot of the real thing. As one foot is 12 inches, this scale is also called 1:12 scale.
Our animals are too much connected with the soldier figures and we herited their terminology, particularly evident when we talk about vintage figures.
For example, Britains Ltd, Starlux and many other brands used the 54mm scale. As you see, here it is used a different concept again. What means 54 mm? It is what they considered the standard and average height for a human figure. It doesn't mean that all human figures were 54 mm tall, obviously some were taller and other shorter as it happens in real life.
54 mm was convetioned as 1:32 scale, it means, each 1 cm in a figure represents 32 cm in a real thing.
This terminology of the human height is now somewhat abandoned, if you multiply 32 by 54 mm the result is 1728 millimeters, close to 1,73 meters.
So, 1,73 m was considered the average human height, lately, they're using 1,80 m as the average height what would turn 1:32 as 56mm instead of 54mm. Confuse?
Thus, I believe a discussion about scales only is efficient if we all use the same terminology and, the proportion layout, like 1:32, 1:12, 1:24, etc., is surely the most efficient.

About the designation 1 inch long, 2 inches long, 3 inches, etc. It is not about scale but just about size.
In the USA, it was very common sets with several small figures Marx did it and later many other North American brands. Boxes or cases with compartments of the same size.
Let's suppose a compartment of 3x2 inches. It means that if you include an elephant and a cheetah in the same set. Both figures will be confined to this size, they can't be longer than 3 inches and they can't be taller than 2 inches.
Obviously, these two figures will get a similar size but they're not at the same scale. The elephant is in a much smaller scale than the cheetah. Though, if this size becomes common, this kind of figures will be known as 3 inches models.
Tubes blisters, cardbags and other simmilar sets also contributed to turn this denominations popular among collectors.
Japanese use a very similar concept, gashapon figures are made to fit in capsules that are obtained in vending machines. So, each model is confined to the size of the capsule but again, they're not at a certain scale.

Micros, minis, medium, (standard), large, extralarge, Deluxe Jumbo, are also not a question of scale. They are also not used coerently among brands. They are just size reference for figures in a particular range. They're often connected with a price level or with a particular series in a range.
Safari Ltd is the best brand to explain it. They have Minis (Good Luck Minis), tube sized (TOOBS), standard sized (Wild Safari collections) with the different price tags, Jumbo sized (Wildlife Wonders, Incredible Creatures...)
Let's compare with Play Visions where their standard figures are the same size as the Safari Ltd TOOBS. Play Visions had basically 3 sizes, Minis, standard and large.
As mentioned, the PV standard sized figures are much smaller than the standard Safari models, they match the Safari TOOBS, though, paradoxally, Play Visions Minis are much larger than Safari Minis, what means there is no direct correspondence between these size designations.

Most of these series, are not related with scale but size. Though, as the hobby is complex, we also have some examples where the different series are directly related with a certain scale.
The most paradigmatic example is Breyer,
Their 4 most iportant collections respect a certain scale:
Traditionals - 1:9 scale
Classics - 1:12 scale
Stablemates - 1:32 scale
Mini Whinnies Series - 1:64 scale

Other examples from other brands that respect a certain scale are:
- CollectA Deluxe Horses - 1:12 scale
- Safari Ltd Blue Ribbon Collectibles - 1:12 scale
- Noah's Pals - 1:24 scale
- Southlands Replicas - 1:15 scale
- New-RAy My Best Friends - 1:12 scale
- etc.

There are also some series that scale is provided but different scales are used for different models of the same collection:
- Safari Ltd Incredible Creatures
- Safari Ltd Wildlife Wonders
- Almost all prehistoric series
- etc.

Am I writting too much?

I also love those charts.

That's a great introduction to scale and size for this topic!

Roger wrote:

Leyster wrote:

Oooh, nice thread! I'll make good use of it!

Do anybody know which scale the Collecta Hippopotamus is?

That masterpiece is about 1:24 scale. I am not good measuring but shoulder height is about 6 cm and head+body length close to 15.

With 6 cm of height I got similar results, too. Maybe it's a little too big to scale with 1:26 dinosaurs, the PNSO might be better.

Leyster wrote:

Roger wrote:

Leyster wrote:

Oooh, nice thread! I'll make good use of it!

Do anybody know which scale the Collecta Hippopotamus is?

That masterpiece is about 1:24 scale. I am not good measuring but shoulder height is about 6 cm and head+body length close to 15.

With 6 cm of height I got similar results, too. Maybe it's a little too big to scale with 1:26 dinosaurs, the PNSO might be better.

I don't think so, a figure is not confined to a specific scale but to a range of scales. 1:26 seems plausible for a very large bull. I was not using the maximum size to calculate it. It fits for 1:26 if you take the largest hippo ever measured. Also, the highest shoulder height accepted as common is 5,2 feet that is what the CollectA model represents if you use 1:26 scale. I think that if you want to use it to compare with dinosaurs, it is much nicer if you use a model representing a large bull than a model representing an average sized bull. I don't know the size of the PNSO model, I only know that CollectA hippo is absolutely fantastic.

Roger wrote:

Leyster wrote:

Roger wrote:

Leyster wrote:

Oooh, nice thread! I'll make good use of it!

Do anybody know which scale the Collecta Hippopotamus is?

That masterpiece is about 1:24 scale. I am not good measuring but shoulder height is about 6 cm and head+body length close to 15.

With 6 cm of height I got similar results, too. Maybe it's a little too big to scale with 1:26 dinosaurs, the PNSO might be better.

I don't think so, a figure is not confined to a specific scale but to a range of scales. 1:26 seems plausible for a very large bull. I was not using the maximum size to calculate it. It fits for 1:26 if you take the largest hippo ever measured. Also, the highest shoulder height accepted as common is 5,2 feet that is what the CollectA model represents if you use 1:26 scale. I think that if you want to use it to compare with dinosaurs, it is much nicer if you use a model representing a large bull than a model representing an average sized bull. I don't know the size of the PNSO model, I only know that CollectA hippo is absolutely fantastic.

Well, I'll see. How well done is the Collecta is certainly a factor I should consider. Here is the PNSO I was refering to BTW ,it might be an useful comparison from someone else (images not mine, from Tieba Baidu)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This PNSO is interesting for me because I can use it for 1/32 scale. Hippos are quite rare at that scale. According to some websites, the PNSO hippo has a height of 5.4 cm, but in the photo it looks like 5.0 cm. Or is that an optical illusion in the photo?

Yes, Roger is right and this PNSO hippo is probably 45 mm tall instead of 51.
It reminds me that I should add that calculating scale for animals (humans included) is not the same as calculating scales for trains, cars or planes. Animals do not have exact measures as cars, planes or trains. So, the result does not need to be precise. It is also recommendable to try to find, among the plausible scales for a certain model, one with a historical background or tradition.
That's one of the reasons why I'm giving 1:24 for CollectA hippo once 1:24 is the closest of the traditional scales. If I wanted to use it in a vintage collection, I'd say it is a 70mm scale (1:25 scale) that was very common among vintage companies and basically it is compatible with 1:24.
What Roger does with his 1:32 collection, works as a compendium . He accepts slightly larger or smaller models as long as the measures are plausible for 1:32 scale. It is much more correct than giving 1:31 scale for a slightly larger figure or 1:33 scale for a slightly smaller figure.
It is again related with the soldiers tradition. There were two main soldier scales. The smaller ones 1:72 and the larger ones 1:32. As I mentioned, 1:32 was known as 54mm but we can find also 55mm or other designations.. Thus, human adulte figures from 52mm to 56mm of height were all considered 1:32 scale despite their size difference. It represents humans between 1,66 and 1,80 m. This tolerance turned possible to collect figures from different brands and find accessories, vehicles, buildings, being interchangeable.
Even the major brands, that don't work at a certain scale, have their range based upon a certain scale. Though, they use it as an average point to the rest of the range that is reasonably respected for medium sized animals but completely ignored for larger or smaller animals. So, the average scale for Schleich models should also be considered taking in consideration their human figures. Not only buildings and accessories should work at the same scale, also it is important that horses fit with their riders. I don't have human figures but I believe Schleich works with 1:20 scale. It is important to notice that their dogs moved to this scale not long ago. However, it is useless to expect a Schleich hippo at this scale.

Here is a picture showing my CollectA 1:24 hippo with the Britains 1:32 hippo.

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

Roger wrote:

Not only buildings and accessories should work at the same scale, also it is important that horses fit with their riders. I don't have human figures but I believe Schleich works with 1:20 scale.

Horse and rider scale matching is a tricky one, as not only do horses vary in height, and so do humans, you'll find in real life there's really no correlation between the two!

You could see someone of 6ft 6 competing in the same class as someone who just tops 5ft with their boots on - and the tall rider might have a small compact horse, and the short one could be riding something enormous

Look at these two examples : tall man, small horse and small woman, tall horse - if they were plastic figures, you'd think he was too big a scale to be put on that horse, or she wasn't big enough for the other one, but they're both effective riders on successful horses who had great results in international competition, despite the size contrast - I specifically googled pairs I know from spectating at the highest level events there are.

It's not just in horse sport, but the wider horsey world.
You get a lot of adults, in the UK anyway, who are huge fans of native pony breeds, so while 'pony' automatically conjures images of small children riding, you also see full grown men and women on highlands or new forests or connemaras. I'm 5ft 9 and rode big ponies right from my mid teens til my 30s.
Other people love arabians, a notoriously small and compact breed, but not one we think of as for short riders only, they comfortably carry any adult height.
Then you might have the kind of rider who adores a big bold warmblood breed, and wouldn't let being below average height put them off one.
And there's a lot of ridden draft horses these days, too - I've seen women so small they need a ladder to get on at shows, who'd laugh in your face if you suggested their horse was too big for them.

So there's plenty of allowance for size varying, when you're matching a rider figure with a horse. What might look too big on one breed or sculpt might be fine on another, or they could all be well within the limits of what you'd see in real life.

As a note toward the history of scale figures being derived from toy soldiers, there's less room for that variation of proportion if you're talking tiny cavalry, as the men had to be a certain height to enlist in the army, and the horses had to be above height to be bought, too. So you wouldn't have any tiny troopers whose feet barely reach down the horse's sides, and you wouldn't have any pony-sized mounts with lanky chaps on board. So the people and horses there would be much more fixed in scale, than in modern toys where the riders are all non-military and dressed in casual outfits or competition clothes.

rogerpgvg wrote:

This PNSO is interesting for me because I can use it for 1/32 scale. Hippos are quite rare at that scale. According to some websites, the PNSO hippo has a height of 5.4 cm, but in the photo it looks like 5.0 cm. Or is that an optical illusion in the photo?

A thing that should be noted is that there are two PNSO "normal/mini" hippos, that one and one with its mouth open
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I'd not be surprised if some sites mixe the measures of the two models by accident