Size and scale topic

Some websites indeed mention Rogério's 45 mm height for the PNSO, but others say 54 mm. Could just be a mix up of digits. If the CollectA has a length of 15 cm and a height of 6 cm, then it's perfect for a 1:24 scale bull, see this article, Fig. 3. Males are larger than females.

Does anyone have the PNSO (with closed mouth)? Is it 45, 50 or 54 mm at the shoulder?

Gosh ! You guys are so clever

No, no, I mean it !

Your knowledge about scales etc is incredible

rogerpgvg wrote:

If the CollectA has a length of 15 cm and a height of 6 cm, then it's perfect for a 1:24 scale bull, see this article, Fig. 3. Males are larger than females.

But the CollectA hippo is a female.

Pardofelis wrote:

rogerpgvg wrote:

If the CollectA has a length of 15 cm and a height of 6 cm, then it's perfect for a 1:24 scale bull, see this article, Fig. 3. Males are larger than females.

But the CollectA hippo is a female.

No, the CollectA hippo is a male.Don't forget that hippo tests are not visible. Also, these tusks are for a bull for sure.

George wrote:

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.[/quote]

Those are all very interesting observations and it helps explaining some particularities of each era and collection theme. Those pictures with riders support what I mentioned about the flexibility when we are talking about the scale of humans and amimals.Your point about soldiers is also quite intriguing, it explains why they were so standardized, surely there were no children in those sets and also not Mini Shetlands. The animal themed collections inherited the terminology of the soldier themed series but not necesarily the concept. I am also talking about tendencies, not rules. For example, the farm or country side was relatively common among railway manufacturers. If you wanted to build a diorama for your train, it was common to find houses, cattle, people, at the same scale to compose the landscape. Though, those were not that influencial because often they worked with tiny scales and the animal miniatures were quite small and unappealing for children.
Even those composition models we collect, were absolutely marginal when compared with the soldiers sets. I am convinced the real first wave of popular animal toys, was when brands started using plastic and maybe Britains was the most popular in Europe and influenced, more than Starlux or similar brands, the animal toy industry for decades.

Roger wrote:

Pardofelis wrote:

rogerpgvg wrote:

If the CollectA has a length of 15 cm and a height of 6 cm, then it's perfect for a 1:24 scale bull, see this article, Fig. 3. Males are larger than females.

But the CollectA hippo is a female.

No, the CollectA hippo is a male.Don't forget that hippo tests are not visible. Also, these tusks are for a bull for sure.

Ouch! I tought that the slit in the underside is a vagina. Plus the proportions of the head (more slender) also looked more femenine for an hippo to me in this figure.

Pardofelis wrote:

Roger wrote:

Pardofelis wrote:

rogerpgvg wrote:

If the CollectA has a length of 15 cm and a height of 6 cm, then it's perfect for a 1:24 scale bull, see this article, Fig. 3. Males are larger than females.

But the CollectA hippo is a female.

No, the CollectA hippo is a male.Don't forget that hippo tests are not visible. Also, these tusks are for a bull for sure.

Ouch! I tought that the slit in the underside is a vagina. Plus the proportions of the head (more slender) also looked more femenine for an hippo to me in this figure.

I understand, that's not such a pacific question. it is not easy to find pictures of the genital areas but both males and females have them quite unusual.
I took a picture of my model and it is really hard to tell what we see. I also understand about the head, male features are not so evident in this CollectA model as they are on Papo figure. It is a fact the finishHere is the genital area of the CollectA's.

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

quality of the CollectA is supreme but I still love the head, back and legs of the Papo figure, a more sumptuous model in terms of sculpt.

Even as a female, the CollectA would be possible as 1:24 scale. At 1:26 scale it would be an extremely large female though.

rogerpgvg wrote:

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

Hi Roger

If one has this figure then you will get an exact measurement. However, with this information would you be able to sort out the scale?

The issue is that for true scale all the proportions need to be in 'scale'. Taking this ostrich as an example. The legs are over thick so would these be in scale with the height? The feet are huge - do ostriches have feet this size? Again would these be in the same scale as the height? Head also doesn't look in proportion to a real ostrich. Schleich are toys and need to be robust to last a while so allowances are made when producing these.

Rogério mentions vehicles and that these are exact sizes so are easy to produce in scale. However, regarding toy cars this isn't the case. An example is with old Corgi Toys cars the designers deliberately made the cars wider than in reality due to providing an optical illusion. Toy cars, they felt, looked better when viewed from above by being wider! Hot Wheels and Matchbox are sized to fit a blister pack so the proportions are way out in some cases.

Another area to consider whatever the toy is how they are moulded. Going back to Corgi Toys the 'scale' of the toy car varied but was within the parameters of the casting block the machinery could take. Hence scales could vary from 1:42nd scale for a Mini to 1:52nd scale for a Yank Tank aka Oldsmobile Toronado. Placing both together the Mini towers over the Toronado!

You are right, Chris, the body proportions of animal toys are not always in scale with each other. For my own 1:32 scale collection, I normally use shoulder height or head+body length, because I feel they are a reasonable reflection of the overall body size. The shoulder height of figures is often easier to measure than head+body length (because the head is often up, down or sideways), so I mostly use shoulder height. Occasionally, the two measures lead to different conclusions about 1:32 scale and then it becomes more subjective whether the figure is admitted to my 1:32 scale Wildlife Reserve.
 
In practice, I don’t find this such a big issue. More problematic is that it is often difficult to find good information about animals’ size. Wikipedia is generally good, but it usually doesn’t give its sources and it is sometimes wrong. Other websites mostly just copy from Wikipedia. I prefer actual measurements reported in scientific articles, but they are often hard to find. Even they aren’t without problems: they often don’t report exactly how the measurements were done, there are sometimes obvious mistakes and sometimes they only give means, but no size range. And of course, animal subpopulations frequently differ in size, so if one subpopulation in a study has a particular size, that doesn’t rule out that other subpopulations are larger or smaller.
 
The ostrich is a good example. Wikipedia says that males have a height of 2.1 to 2.8 m and females are 1.7 to 2.0 m. However, total height isn’t a good measure because it depends on how stretched out the neck is. In addition, I am quite sceptical whether males are really that much larger than females. When I do a Google image search for “ostrich male female”, then I don’t see any photos where the male is substantially larger than the female.

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

This website says that the shoulder height is 1.2-2 m, but I don’t know the source and therefore how reliable the information is. I haven’t been able to find any scientific measurements of ostriches.
 
It’s interesting that you say that even the proportions of toy cars aren’t always right. But I suppose with cars, at least it is relatively easy to determine the size of the real car; subpopulations are less common and they don’t have a neck they can stretch out.

Chris Sweetman wrote:

rogerpgvg wrote:

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

Hi Roger

If one has this figure then you will get an exact measurement. However, with this information would you be able to sort out the scale?

The issue is that for true scale all the proportions need to be in 'scale'. Taking this ostrich as an example. The legs are over thick so would these be in scale with the height? The feet are huge - do ostriches have feet this size? Again would these be in the same scale as the height? Head also doesn't look in proportion to a real ostrich. Schleich are toys and need to be robust to last a while so allowances are made when producing these.

Rogério mentions vehicles and that these are exact sizes so are easy to produce in scale. However, regarding toy cars this isn't the case. An example is with old Corgi Toys cars the designers deliberately made the cars wider than in reality due to providing an optical illusion. Toy cars, they felt, looked better when viewed from above by being wider! Hot Wheels and Matchbox are sized to fit a blister pack so the proportions are way out in some cases.

Another area to consider whatever the toy is how they are moulded. Going back to Corgi Toys the 'scale' of the toy car varied but was within the parameters of the casting block the machinery could take. Hence scales could vary from 1:42nd scale for a Mini to 1:52nd scale for a Yank Tank aka Oldsmobile Toronado. Placing both together the Mini towers over the Toronado!  

Yes, it happens and it is interesting. I tend to narrow my collecting experience to those modern 1:43 scale by Norev, Minichamps and similar brands which are respectful to the scale as far as I know. Surely there are a few design adjustments but when you compare a replica of a long car next to a Mini, the differences in size will be noticed. Though, even Norev as a series, popularly called 3 inches, much cheaper where all models replicated need to fit in boxes of an exact size. Thus, a compact car is always made at a slightly larger scale than a family car. Those were good to store but not so good to display.

Does anyone know the shoulder height of this Preiser 1:25 scale buffalo?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Unfortunately I don't have this wonderful model. It is said to be 105 mm long so I can estimate 58 mm at the shoulders. These measurements are not faithful, of course but it gives some plausibility for a very large wild Asian water buffalo at 1:32 scale. Slightly long but we have to remove some mm in length because the tail should not be taken into account.

Thanks a lot, where did you get the 105 cm from?

rogerpgvg wrote:

Thanks a lot, where did you get the 105 cm from?

I found it here. I am convinced it is the same model.

Yes, it's the same model. Very useful website, thanks!

I think animals from one scale could work as another species or as a baby in another scale. This for example is a baby red deer in 1/25 but with a lick of paint could possibly be an adult female red deer in 1/32

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

and these could be red deer fawns in 1/32 (they are roe deer fawns)

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



Sizes would need to be confirmed but this is just a general idea.

rogerpgvg wrote:

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

This website says that the shoulder height is 1.2-2 m, but I don’t know the source and therefore how reliable the information is. I haven’t been able to find any scientific measurements of ostriches.
 
It’s interesting that you say that even the proportions of toy cars aren’t always right. But I suppose with cars, at least it is relatively easy to determine the size of the real car; subpopulations are less common and they don’t have a neck they can stretch out.

Male and female ostriches are the same size from my experience. (from wild populations). I've not seen any large height variation in m. and f. adults.

thebritfarmer wrote:

I think animals from one scale could work as another species or as a baby in another scale. These could be red deer fawns in 1/32 (they are roe deer fawns)

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

That's right, I have the lying deer fawn and I use it as a red deer fawn. It's all about how much we want to cheat .

sunny wrote:

Male and female ostriches are the same size from my experience. (from wild populations). I've not seen any large height variation in m. and f. adults.

Thank you, that's useful to know. The next question is, are male and female ostriches 1.7-2.0 m tall, 2.1-2.8 m or 1.7-2.8 m? When I look at photos of ostriches next to people, my impression is that they (all males) are usually about 2.0-2.4 m. It might depend on the population and also whether they are farmed.

rogerpgvg wrote:

Thank you, that's useful to know. The next question is, are male and female ostriches 1.7-2.0 m tall, 2.1-2.8 m or 1.7-2.8 m? When I look at photos of ostriches next to people, my impression is that they (all males) are usually about 2.0-2.4 m. It might depend on the population and also whether they are farmed.

I only know about wild ones, and I can't tell their exact height, but from watching them a lot I can judge them to be around 2m. It is probably the minimum adult height.

Another thing to note is that whilst they look the same in height, it is the males who have a larger body mass. Not by too much, but it is easy to make out the difference between a male and a female on that reference alone.
Also the males are noticeably blacker, with white wing tips and usually a yellowish tail.
And the females are all a brownish/grey with cream coloured wing tips and darker tail.

Ostriches love to sit down in shallow water puddles and 'bathe' their underbody area - they also open their wings out to each side, by resting the tips of them on the muddy ground and then they lean over to one side at a time whilst also slightly rotating their upper body. Kind of like dancing slowly but sitting down to do it. It must keep them really cool :)

Does anyone know the height (without base) of this emu from the Safari Land Down Under TOOB (sometimes called Australian animals):
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

rogerpgvg wrote:

Does anyone know the shoulder height of this Preiser 1:25 scale buffalo?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sorry to be late. It is 55mm at shoulders

@rogerpgvp

The emu is 6.5 cm

Thank you, Christophe and Jolie! Unfortunately, both the buffalo and emu are too large for my scale, but it is important to know that. At least I don't need to try and find them.

We all know that African bush elephants are the largest terrestrial animals, but how large are they? Many sources mention a maximum shoulder height of around 4 m, but when you look into the scientific literature, this figure is actually quite contentious, and if it is correct, then such large elephants are incredibly rare. For example, Wikipedia mentions maximum heights of 3.96 and 4.01 m, Animal Diversity Web says 4 m and the “Kingdon field guide to African mammals” says 3.96 m. The problem with many sources is that they copy from each other, often without referencing their source. This is especially a problem on the web, where most websites copy from Wikipedia without mentioning it. Wikipedia is often right (and therefore all the other websites are too), but if Wikipedia is wrong, then this wrong information spreads very easily. The Kingdon book seems to be well researched, but books are sometimes wrong too, even scientific articles are. The more I look into the literature on animal sizes, the more I realise it is a big mess. I think partly because the size of animals is not of much scientific interest to most researchers. OK, moaning over, let's see what the scientific articles tell us.

In the case of African bush elephants, Wikipedia does provide a reference to an article by Larramendi (2016). It’s a very interesting article that tries to estimate the size of extinct proboscideans. Larramendi is actually quite sceptical that African bush elephants can be up to 3.96 m shoulder height. On p. 550, he says “Many studies have examined different population’s shoulder heights and it can be stated that the average shoulder height in good conditions for this species [African bush elephant] is 260 cm for females and 320 cm for males see (Laws 1966; Laws and Parker 1968; Short 1969; Hanks 1972; Laws et al. 1975; Lang 1980; Wood 1982; Haynes 1991; Lindeque and van Jaarsveld 1993; Lee and Moss 1995; Shrader et al. 2006; Della Rocca 2007).”

Later (p. 551-2), he specifically discusses exceptionally tall individuals: “Among modern animals, there is a very small percentage of record-sized individuals. These specimens are extremely rare, usually there is one among hundreds of thousands, or even millions. With regard to modern elephants, record-sized specimens are about 25% taller than average. (…) The largest, accurately-measured African bush elephant was a gigantic bull shot in Angola in 1974 (Ward et al. 1975; Wood 1982; Haynes 1991). Its forefoot circumference was measured at 180 cm (Wood, 1982), indicating a shoulder height of 396 cm.” However, it is worth noting that the real shoulder height wasn’t measured and that estimates based on foot circumference aren’t all that accurate (e.g., Kurt & Kumarasinghe, 1998). Larramendi also discusses an elephant at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum, which is often believed to be the largest, and argues that it is probably no more than 350 cm (see also discussion [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]).

We can draw our own conclusions about whether the Angolan giant was really 396 cm. When we look at actual measurements of African bush elephants, then we don’t see such large individuals. Another interesting article is by Shrader et al. (2006), whose main aim was to investigate the growth of African elephants. The most relevant information comes from their Fig. 2:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

We can see that the 264 females they measured were between about 200 and 270 cm in shoulder height (mean about 234 cm) and 245 males were about 230-350 cm (mean about 282 cm).

Della Rocca (2007) shows a useful graphical summary of the maximum size in a number of studies:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

To summarise this long exposition, evidence for African elephants over 350 cm is very controversial and if such large individuals exist, then they are incredibly rare.

Della Rocca (2007)
Kurt & Kumarasinghe (1998)
Larramendi (2016)
Shrader et al. (2006)

I read the Larramendi (2016), not completely I admit, and indeed he has doubts. Note that he does not bring a real denial either with a real demonstration, of course this is not the purpose of his presentation.

It would be interesting to know how the animals in all these graphs were measured, are there any doubts there too?  

If we have no doubts then indeed it would be more reasonable to limit oneself to 3.5m maximum for a large bull and to leave the 4m at the shoulders for a more than exceptional size.

This would make the Mojo a large bull at 1/35 and an average one at 1/32.