1/32 scale animals second part

widukind wrote:

I have no knowledge about scales, but could be this porcupine in the right size

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

really nice porcupine model!
and the Tm gnu looks good beside the Britains one

Let’s have a look at the size of leatherback turtles, the largest extant turtle. They are easy to measure when they nestle, so we have a lot of data about their size. Mature females are generally 130-180 cm in curved carapace length (CCL; Eckert, 2012; Zug & Parham, 1996). This is measured either along the central dorsal ridge or next to it; in practice, this makes little or no difference for the figures I have. Occasionally leatherbacks can be a bit larger or smaller. For example, Reina et al. (2002) found that the CCL of leatherbacks in Costa Rica was 123-170 cm. We know far less about the size of males because they don’t nestle and are therefore harder to measure, but it is thought that they are very similar in size.

However, the largest reported leatherback was considerably larger. It was found on a Welsh beach in 1988 and it is recorded to have had a CCL of 256.5 cm. When I find reports of animals that are so much larger than the typical length, I am normally suspicious. However, in this case, the specimen is well documented and it is exhibited in the National Museum in Cardiff. A report of it is here. It weighed 916 kg, had a plastral (underside plate) length of 134.6 cm and a plastral width of 81.3 cm. The foreflipper span, measured ventrally from flipper tip to flipper tip, was 240.7 cm. Further information about it is here.

While the size of this leatherback seems extraordinary, the evidence seemed good enough to accept that leatherback turtles can indeed be so large. However, finding out about animal sizes is usually not so simple. McClain et al. (2015) reported that the leatherback from the Cardiff Museum is only 159 cm and they question whether a turtle of this size can really be 916 kg. They add that the museum confirmed this length. I wonder whether 256.5 cm CCL was simply a typo and the original measurement was 156.5 cm; 156.5 or 159 cm would also be much more consistent with the 134.6 cm plastron length. Cunningly, the museum hasn’t updated their information about the turtle, still claiming that it is the largest ever recorded.

The next in line is a carcass that stranded at Karachi, also in 1988. It is reported here. Its carapace length was 213 cm, presumably CCL. The carapace had severely decomposed and was broken, so one might question the accuracy of the measurement. However, McClain et al. (2015) report 7 other leatherback turtles of 2 m or over, so even if the Karachi turtle’s length is not accurate, I think we can be fairly certain that some leatherback turtles can reach just over 2 m in CCL.

With the exciting bit over , let’s show you my leatherback turtles in 1/32 scale:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

My oldest leatherback is by Play Visions from 1998. My version was actually sold by Yujin in Japan from 2002 onwards. It has a 4.7/150 cm curved carapace length.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

At the same time, Yujin also released a juvenile leatherback turtle. It’s probably meant to be a hatchling, but for 1/32 scale we need to assume that it is a bit older. It is 2.0/64 cm in CCL.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The best 1/32 scale leatherback is by Korokoro. It was released in 2010 as part of the “Ecological Drawing Museum - Heartbeat of Life” series. It is 4.8/154 cm in CCL.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This model has my only jellyfish in 1/32 scale! Though it looks like I may not have it for much longer.

Finally, the most recent one was made by Yowies for their “All American” series in 2016. I was very happy to receive this one from Jill a couple of months ago. It’s the smallest adult, with a CCL of 4.1/131 cm, but still within the 1/32 scale range.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

A comparison of the ventral side is interesting:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Only the Korokoro is correct, with parallel lines on its plastron. The Yujin adult’s ventral side looks more like that of other sea turtles such as green or loggerhead sea turtles, while the juvenile lacks detail. The Yowie seems to have scales or so.

Very interesting reading through your links. The turtle next to the two primates looks really huge, even if the angle of the picture is intended to make it appear even larger. They're not hunters; I don't know why some scientists also use sensationalism tricks. The Korokoro leatherback has a significant responsibility for portraying a realistic sea turtle while the Yowie group thinks turtles are like chocolate eggs with two carapaces.

I remember seeing a leatherback on my home town museum, and it looked really huge - even if it couldn't have a plastron much bigger than 1 meter.

I didn't know of the Korokoro brand, looks like a really well-made model.

Roger wrote:

They're not hunters; I don't know why some scientists also use sensationalism tricks.

Not sure whether the scientists used tricks. My impression is that the museum provided the data to Karen Eckert, the scientist, who then reported it in the Marine Turtle Newsletter. The museum may have made an honest error, though a very sloppy one, when they gave the data to Eckert, who in turn should have checked it better. It is not uncommon to see errors in scientists' reports of animal measurements.

Leyster, do you have any extinct turtles or tortoises in 1/32 scale?

rogerpgvg wrote:

Roger wrote:

They're not hunters; I don't know why some scientists also use sensationalism tricks.

Not sure whether the scientists used tricks. My impression is that the museum provided the data to Karen Eckert, the scientist, who then reported it in the Marine Turtle Newsletter. The museum may have made an honest error, though a very sloppy one, when they gave the data to Eckert, who in turn should have checked it better. It is not uncommon to see errors in scientists' reports of animal measurements.

I was just referring to the photo, it is taken to make the turtle look larger than it is as it wasn't large enough but maybe the intention is good.

rogerpgvg wrote:

Leyster, do you have any extinct turtles or tortoises in 1/32 scale?

Sadly not, there aren't many extinct turtles models and vast majority of them are too big or too small. I think the Kaiyodo and Eikoh Meiolania might qualify as such, but I do not own them.

The Safari American mastodon stands 10 cm at shoulder for a scale of 1:32 for the largest known specimen:

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

Slightly large to go with the Eofauna models but acceptable if we are not too picky. Actually, I would love to see a collection of prehistoric models at 1:32 scale. A vintage scale for modern figures of prehistoric creatures.

Roger wrote:

Slightly large to go with the Eofauna models but acceptable if we are not too picky. Actually, I would love to see a collection of prehistoric models at 1:32 scale. A vintage scale for modern figures of prehistoric creatures.

yes, me too Roger! I am going thru my extras and seeing what I can repaint and sculpt into prehistoric figures for my collection:)
I was inspired alot after painting the Hagerman Horse!
And I think it is only Starlux that made prehistoric figures at 1/32nd??

sunny wrote:

Roger wrote:

Slightly large to go with the Eofauna models but acceptable if we are not too picky. Actually, I would love to see a collection of prehistoric models at 1:32 scale. A vintage scale for modern figures of prehistoric creatures.

yes, me too Roger! I am going thru my extras and seeing what I can repaint and sculpt into prehistoric figures for my collection:)
I was inspired alot after painting the Hagerman Horse!
And I think it is only Starlux that made prehistoric figures at 1/32nd??

Of course, I hope you feel motivated to move forward with these projects, and I am looking forward to following them. I would say further that Starlux is a brand traditionally associated with the 1:32 scale, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their prehistoric figures are at that scale.

It would be interesting to see which Starlux are truly 1/32 scale. I suppose the dinosaurs are far too small. Perhaps Leyster might be able to put all his 1/32 scale extinct animals together.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] they aren't. I do not own any Starlux, but fellow DTF member Halichoeres does, and they range all the way from 1:3 to 1:75

Leyster wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] they aren't. I do not own any Starlux, but fellow DTF member Halichoeres does, and they range all the way from 1:3 to 1:75

Thanks, I'm not surprised at all.

rogerpgvg wrote:

Thank you all for your comments!

sunny wrote:

I have the impressive Kitan models as well! I've got a couple of them and they look superb in a herd with Britains.

Leyster recently asked about the Kitan gnu. I thought they were too small. Would you mind measuring their shoulder height?

Interesting information about gnu. Although we often see them in wildlife films, they seem a bit underrepresented as models for such a well-known animal.

they around 3.5cm at the most Roger

here are pics -

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

When I find one of my Britains gnus I will take comparison pics for you

Thank you, Annette! Very useful photos. It looks like they are just large enough for 1/32 scale.

rogerpgvg wrote:

Thank you, Annette! Very useful photos. It looks like they are just large enough for 1/32 scale.

They are more 1/40 than 1/32

It looks like the shoulder height is 3.5/112 and 3.6/115 cm, so if you accept the info in one of my previous posts about the size of wildebeest (a bit controversial because we don't know much about their size), then the largest would just make the minimum size for a female wildebeest. The problem is that this one has a large shoulder hump, perhaps because its neck is down, so in reality its shoulder may be lower. So yes, it's rather small for 1/32 scale.

The largest of the two wildebeest may be on the large side for 1/40 scale (144 cm). Attwell (1982) found that common blue wildebeest bulls had a shoulder height of 141-156.5 cm, but this was measured over the shoulder. We probably need to subtract around 13 cm for shoulder height in a straight line, see my post [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Roger, do you measure your models between pegs or "over the shoulder" ? I don't understand.

And what about the large shoulder hump, perhaps because its neck is down ? the shoulder height is the more stable reference point for measurement, that's why scientist use it. I don't think the position of the head have a real influence on a measure between the feet and the shoulder on quadrupeds. Lowering the head only lowers the height of the neck, not the height of the shoulders.

These two are also from the biggest wildebeest species. I can't measure my Kitan blue wildebeest right now but, for me 1/40 was the biggest scale for these two, at Atwell 156.5 cm they would be more 1/45.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. There isn't much information about the size of common blue wildebeest, but bulls are probably about 125-143 cm and cows are 115-130 cm (between pegs). It looks like the Kitans are about 3.6 cm between pegs, so that makes them 115 cm in 1/32 scale and 144 cm in 1/40 scale. Small for 1/32 scale and rather large for 1/40 scale.

I thought the top one had an unnaturally high shoulder that exaggerated its height, but looking at photos of real wildebeest, they do have quite a pronounced shoulder hump. I'd say they are probably best for 1/35 or 1/38 scale, depending on whether we think they are males of females (not sure).

I measured mine again just now, one is under 3,5cm and the other is more 3,4cm, I can't tell if they are bulls or cows but I must say they look dwarvish near a Britains Ltd Blue wildebeest.
So they would be between 1/35,6 and 1/37,6 if we follow Braack and between 1/37,4 and 1/45,3 if we follow Attwell. None of them are 1/32. I will try to find time to make a comparison pic with the Britains Ltd.

Roger wrote:

Slightly large to go with the Eofauna models but acceptable if we are not too picky. Actually, I would love to see a collection of prehistoric models at 1:32 scale. A vintage scale for modern figures of prehistoric creatures.

Being picky isn't an issue. This Safari mastodon calculates to 1:32. I have only measured the Eofauna steppe mammoth and it came to a scale of 1:33.6-1:40.9, so they probably should not be used as a gold standard for that scale.

here are comparison photos with the gnus

Gnus aren't a very large antelope but because they sometimes hang around oryx, impala and springbok they can seem 'very' large antelopes by comparison.
Next to zebras they look rather large as well, probably because zebras seem to be stockier, and gnus are always very sleek and streamlined.

Their nature is one of playfulness! They love to play, they are super chill dudes, and they are also very brave and won't back away from a 'joust' with anyone wanting to challenge them, including warthogs

I love gnus!

2 NewRays, Kitan, Britains, Kitan and then a ?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Annette, thanks for all these useful comparison photos.
I also love wildebeests, but every time I state this, I get the feeling that others might think I'm referring to a gastronomic preference. There are specific events in wildlife documentaries that impress me a lot, but nothing compares to the great migrations and the moment when the massive herds of wildebeests and other ungulates venture into the crossing of the Mara River.