1/32 scale animals second part

Hello Roger,
here some fotos to compare the polar bear of ANIMAL WORLD and SCHLEICH.
I have no polar bear marked with Hong Kong or China.
I have a polar bear from VEB PLAHO and a unknown or not marked polar bear.
I have also a group of polar bears sold by MANURBA. I will show them soon.
I have a collector guide from Gascher ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] In this book you can find two other SCHLEICH polar bears. This figures belong to the SCHLEICH Series SCHLEICH CLASSIC.
Benno.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

rogerpgvg wrote:

bmathison1972 wrote:

I've said it before but it bears repeating (oh, see what I did there, 'bears' repeating - that wasn't intentional), I love seeing these comparisons of animal models in the same scale, even if they are items I wouldn't collect myself.

I am sure you have large swarms of insects and herds, packs, troops (what do you call them?) of spiders in the same scale. Do you never put them together?

No, my shelves are arranged taxonomically :)

I think that even if the dimensions are not within the ideal range, there should be a second level of tolerance called: "If it looks good alongside the others, then it should go into the reserve." By the way, Roger, you have already demonstrated a great level of tolerance when you included a Britains sheep among the polar bears just because it vaguely resembles one.

Hello,

here are the polar bears of MANURBA and to compare the polar bears of VEB PLAHO and ELASTOLIN.
Benno.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The Manurba polar bears look fantastic. Great poses! What does no. 5 have in its paw? I don't normally collect unpainted models, but I wouldn't mind having completely white polar bears.

The Hausser Elastolin hard plastic bear looks very familiar to me, but I don't know from which series it is. Not from the 70 mm plastic series because that polar bear looks the same as the 54 mm bear.

Roger wrote:

By the way, Roger, you have already demonstrated a great level of tolerance when you included a Britains sheep among the polar bears just because it vaguely resembles one.

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

Very eloquent!

I recently reviewed the new Access Toys Dangerous Sea Creatures box set on the Animal Toy Blog. The tiger shark measures 11.3 cm for a scale of 1:26-1:44 for a standard-sized fish, based on FishBase/SeaBase or up to 1:66 for a maximum-sized specimen. But it fits into 1:32

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

Thank you. I noticed that you wrote that many tiger shark figures aren't so good. What do you think of the Coloratas?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I was refering mostly to western brands. I've never studied Colorata's. The top one has a nice profile; is it's head nice and boxy?

Do you mean that its head is more square than pointy? I think so:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] what do you think of the Kitan Club Nature Technicolour wildebeest?

I don't have them because as far as I can tell from photos, they are too small for 1/32 scale. If anyone else has them, I'd be interested in their exact shoulder height.

The best 1/32 scale wildebeest is probably the Britains. Starlux has one too but it is less realistic.

Annette alerted me to three tiger cubs on Ebay recently. We both wondered whether they were a bit too large and fat for 1/32 scale, but they weren’t expensive and they were in a lot with a smelly 1/32 scale AAA elephant, so I bought them. This is what they look like:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

They came with a parent, which is marked “ 1994 MEG China 2”. Unfortunately, the adult is far too large for 1/32 scale.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Are the cubs the right size for 1/32 scale? They are smaller than 1/32 adult tigers; the question is whether they don’t look too young for their size? It’s subjective, so let’s compare them with other tigers to see what we think. First, with two Britains:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yes, they are quite large and fat, definitely not the ideal cubs for the Britains tigers. Britains didn’t make tiger cubs, but we can do a comparison with the Britains lion cubs (removed from their base) instead. I’ve included the Hausser Elastolin 54 mm lion cubs too.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The Takara Nobism tiger looks like a better parent because it is also large and fat (and lazy). Its colour matches the cubs quite well too. I think the cubs are acceptable with the Takara:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The MEG cubs aren’t the largest “1/32 scale” tiger cubs I have. The Eikoh cub is even larger, though it does look a bit older to me:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Here are the MEG cubs with the Eikoh cub and adult. In my opinion, both the Eikoh and MEG cubs look it bit too young for their size, but they don’t look too bad with the Eikoh adult.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The Busch Gardens cubs that I showed recently are also quite large, but they look older, more like they have the right size for their age.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Comparison with the MEG cubs. Stop it, behave!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

A very small cub was made by Bandai. It’s painted very precisely for its size.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

There is also one in white but I forgot to take a photo. I showed it [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The adult Bandai is rather small for 1/32 scale, so instead I’ll show the cub with two tigers that I haven’t shown in this topic yet: the Safari from the recent Asian animals toob and the Kaiyodo Wildrush Bengal tiger. The Kaiyodo is especially good.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Now let’s have a look at my vintage tiger cubs. The Hausser Elastolins are among my favourite figures!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Here are the Elastolins with two adults:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And with two of the MEG cubs.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Reisler also made two tiger cubs. They were multifunctional because they also served as lion and black panther cubs.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

They are very small. Here is a comparison with two MEG cubs and a Reisler adult:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

A comparison of all the tiger cubs:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Those cubs look great next to the Takara Nobism tiger!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] the Kaiyodo Bengal tiger is amazing, it's unbelievable how Kaiyodo offers such a paintjob on a figure way smaller than most modern western brand's (which are often painted poorlier, too), but I'm insure if it's really 1:32. It is if we consider a report of a 109 cm sh tiger (Brander, 1923), but as far as I understood it's the report of a hunter, which I'm not too keen to give credit to (fisher stories...). Most averaged Bengal tigers sh I found are around 90-95 cm, making it like 1:25 (I got 1:26, but I don't remember which extimate I used exactly). But Felidae are not my area of expertise so I might be wrong.

The painting of thids Kaiyodo is impressive at this scale!

bmathison1972 wrote:

Those cubs look great next to the Takara Nobism tiger!

Thanks!

Caracal wrote:

The painting of thids Kaiyodo is impressive at this scale!

Yes, though paint had peeled off from the face of the first one I got. I had to buy another one to get a perfectly painted tiger.

Leyster wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] the Kaiyodo Bengal tiger is amazing, it's unbelievable how Kaiyodo offers such a paintjob on a figure way smaller than most modern western brand's (which are often painted poorlier, too), but I'm insure if it's really 1:32. It is if we consider a report of a 109 cm sh tiger (Brander, 1923), but as far as I understood it's the report of a hunter, which I'm not too keen to give credit to (fisher stories...). Most averaged Bengal tigers sh I found are around 90-95 cm, making it like 1:25 (I got 1:26, but I don't remember which extimate I used exactly). But Felidae are not my area of expertise so I might be wrong.

Thanks for keeping an eye on who gets into the 1/32 reserve. How did it get in? Let’s open an investigation! I measure the Kaiyodo Wildrush tiger as 3.5/112 cm at the shoulder with a 6.2/198 cm straight head+body length. Most of the information I have about tiger sizes indeed comes from historical hunting records, so yes, we need to be cautious. On the other hand, these hunters kept very systematic records and (unfortunately) they hunted a lot of tigers. A thorough analysis of these hunting records is here.  I have relied on this for my information.

Brander (1923) says that the largest Bengal tiger he ever saw was 9’ 11” (302 cm) in total length, 7’ 3” (221 cm) in head+body length and 43” (109 cm) in height. However, this does not appear to be the tallest tiger because he also says that “The height of tigers at the shoulder varies between 36” and 44” (91 and 112 cm). A good average male should measure 39” (99 cm).” Based on this, the Kaiyodo tiger is possible although it is clearly extremely large.

The records of the Maharaja of Cooch Behar (1908; Brown, 1893) show that male tigers’ head+body length measured over the curves was 179-217 cm (N = 54) and females were 155-191 cm (N= 17). The author of the discussion that I referred to above says that 12-14 cm need to be subtracted to calculate straight head+body length. The shoulder height of 43 males is 88-114 cm and that of 5 females is 86-91 cm. I presume this is measured in a straight line, not over the shoulder (see below). So based on this, the Kaiyodo would also be possible.

I have had difficulty finding good modern records. What was the information you found, Leyster? The only actual measurements I could find are by Sharma, Vejayanantham and Gupta, who report three Bengal tigers over 2 m in head+body length over the curves (211, 205, 201 cm). We could subtract 12-14 cm for straight-line measurements. The shoulder heights of these largest tigers were respectively 128, 107 and 118 cm. They must have been measured over the shoulder, which also suggests that the shoulder heights by the Maharaja of Cooch Behar were not over the shoulder. I should say that there are quite a few errors in the Sharma et al. data, so it is unclear how much we can trust them. For example, the length of the largest tiger is 211 cm at 2 yrs 6 mths, 184 cm at 5 yrs 6 mths, 211 cm at 8 yrs 10 mths and 192 cm at 10 yrs 8 mths. Possibly the ages have been mixed up. In any case, Sharma et al.’s head+body length data suggest that the sizes of the very largest tigers reported by Brander and the Maharaja of Cooch Behar are at least within the realm of possibilities.

The Kaiyodo is clearly very large and if you have a choice for what scale you use it, it would be much better for a larger scale. I don’t have that choice because I only collect in 1/32 scale. Many of the figures I have don’t have a typical size for that scale, but I admit them to the 1/32 reserve as long as they are within the possible size range for the species. I don’t have good evidence that the maximum sizes from Brander and the Maharadja of Cooch Behar are impossible, so I’ll keep the Kaiyodo in the reserve, at least for now.

The situation is more worrying for the Nobism and Reisler tigers. It’s difficult to measure the Nobism tiger, but it looks larger than the Kaiyodo:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Similarly, the Reisler looks larger. Although the Reisler’s shoulder height is within the limit (3.3/106 cm), it isn’t standing straight up. Also, I had previously measured its length as 6.6/211 cm, but when I checked again today, it had grown to 6.8/218 cm. Still smaller than Brander’s 221 cm tiger, but it should not grow any larger!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Thanks for checking whether any tigers cheated themselves into the 1/32 reserve, Leyster. If you have more information, let me know. I enjoy discussions about sizes and scale. Needless to say though, you are not the most popular STS member in the reserve .
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Is that you Leyster?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I'm afraid most of my informations on tigers size come from a post which now appears to be deleted. I have a screenshot saved from it:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Hope it's helpful and I'm sorry not to be more helpful. On the same trend I also remember a post on a Chinese forum about the Collecta hippo fitting to a very, very large specimen in 1:35 (so in 1:32, too), but I'll have to hunt that thread down.

About the last image... well, this is a tiger compared to a megatheropod (illustration by Keenan Taylor), so I'm confident my collection would be able to fend them off without much fuss  [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


EDIT: what happened to this thread? I remember it being like 40 and more pages long! Now I see only five?

The information from your screenshot is here.

I just found some more information about Amur/Ussuri tigers from "Der Tiger" by Mazak (towards the bottom of the page).
Amur tigers with a straight HB length of 220, 201 and 210 cm.

After 40 pages, the topic started with page 1 again. Here is the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

My tigers have nothing to fear from extinct fossilised animals.

rogerpgvg wrote:

Annette alerted me to three tiger cubs on Ebay recently. We both wondered whether they were a bit too large and fat for 1/32 scale, but they weren’t expensive and they were in a lot with a smelly 1/32 scale AAA elephant, so I bought them. This is what they look like:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


The Takara Nobism tiger looks like a better parent because it is also large and fat (and lazy). Its colour matches the cubs quite well too. I think the cubs are acceptable with the Takara:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


Here are the MEG cubs with the Eikoh cub and adult. In my opinion, both the Eikoh and MEG cubs look it bit too young for their size, but they don’t look too bad with the Eikoh adult.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



Here are the Elastolins with two adults:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And with two of the MEG cubs.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



A comparison of all the tiger cubs:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Thanks for this post Roger! It's good to see them in comparison to all the other cubs including the lion cubs.
Even though they are rather fat, and aside from their overly cute painted faces, I think they actually go really well with the Takara Nobism tiger!

And I think they suit the Eikoh tiger and her cub as well.

I wasn't expecting that! but I think the Britains don't fit so well with them. Maybe these other tigers have more expressive faces with very visible eyes?

The walking Elastolin is just beautiful, and funnily, again I think the cubs suit this mother tiger rather well.
I think it's the white on all their faces and the same kind of eyes - they just look like a family.
Even the Elastolin cubs there too, to me it just looks acceptable

And thanks for the last photo of all the cubs! I had no idea there were so many tiger cubs out there?!
I think these 3 do fit in to your collection, and they are around the same size as that big Eikoh cub!

(I see everyone had a fresh dinner later on!)

Babdo wrote:

Hello,

here are the polar bears of MANURBA and to compare the polar bears of VEB PLAHO and ELASTOLIN.
Benno.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

those Manurba polar bears are amazing! especially 4, 5 and 6. What superb poses!

Wonderful of Benno to have such a great collection for comparisons

rogerpgvg wrote:

The information from your screenshot is here.

I knew it was somewhere out there!

Quote :

After 40 pages, the topic started with page 1 again. Here is the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Ah, that's useful to know!

Quote :

My tigers have nothing to fear from extinct fossilised animals.

Well, I myself live way closer to extinct fossilized animals than to tigers (even captive ones), so I'd rate the risk of the fossils flattening me higher

sunny wrote:

but I think the Britains don't fit so well with them. Maybe these other tigers have more expressive faces with very visible eyes?

Yes, they are very different from the Britains style.

rogerpgvg wrote:

I don't have them because as far as I can tell from photos, they are too small for 1/32 scale. If anyone else has them, I'd be interested in their exact shoulder height.

The best 1/32 scale wildebeest is probably the Britains. Starlux has one too but it is less realistic.

What do you think of the PNSO one?

Do you mean Toby? I think it's too large for 1/32 scale. Again, it's based on measurements in photos, so I can't be entirely sure. In my opinion, it has an awkward pose.

Apart from the Britains and Starlux, there are also 1/32 scale wildebeest by Eikoh and New-Ray. The New-Ray has strange colours and is hard to find. The Eikoh has good colours but looks a bit toyish. I'll do a comparison when I've got all my wildebeest together.