1/32 scale animals second part

oh forgot to say - the Safari authentics is so crazy it's amazing! Bless Safari for producing it, hahaha!

What a black & white army

I own the lying Kaiyodo CQ on my 1/30 floor and the Bandai with bamboo and the Ueno zoo Colorata which are for now on my 1/35 floor. Reading your explanations, I think I will probably change something.

Thank you all again! Yes, the giant panda is one of the most common species in the 1/32 reserve, but it isn't as common as tigers, elephants, brown bears and polar bears. I am always happy to find a new panda.

There are many other measurements I could take, but the problem is that we don't know the measurements of the real animals. Even shoulder height and length are often hard to find and often come from only a few individuals. The other problem is that the size of specific limbs or parts of the head often does not reflect the overall size of a model. The size of a paw or ear may be 1/32 scale, but it is not uncommon that they are too large relative to the rest of the model's body. I normally use shoulder height of head+body length because they tend to be good measures for the overall size of an animal.

I am crazy enough to have considered measuring the volume of my models and comparing this with the weight of real animals. But the problem is that I don't know how to convert volume to weight. It is probably different for different species, and we also need to take into account the plastic used to model hair or feathers.

In practice it isn't so much of a problem. Even if a model isn't exactly 1/32 scale, it can sometimes visit the reserve. I am not as strict as this topic may suggest. I sometimes even collect models that are far off 1/32 scale, although true 1/32 models are usually closer to my heart.

Here is a photo of one of the articulated Kaiyodos on its back:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Kikimalou wrote:

I own the lying Kaiyodo CQ on my 1/30 floor and the Bandai with bamboo and the Ueno zoo Colorata which are for now on my 1/35 floor. Reading your explanations, I think I will probably change something.

1/30 scale is probably okay, but 1/35 makes the panda rather large, based on the limited size information I have found.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] well, volume is mass/density. Mass at 1g is equivalent to the weight of the model. Harder is to find the density, even if I think that most land animals have a mass close to 0,9 plus something (it's 0,99 for humans).

The volume of the models is easy to measure by putting them into water in a measuring cup. And I hadn't thought of it, but given that animals are mostly water, their density must indeed be close to that of water. So if we know the weight of the real animal, we can calculate the volume of it. I suppose that we'd need to divide the volume of the real animal by 32 x 32 x 32 (3 dimensional) to calculate the volume of the model.

Crazy me will try one day. The problem is that I have done a lot of work finding size information but never wrote down weights. It will be a big job to measure the volume of all my models too. My measuring obsession is beginning to overwhelm me . It could be very useful for domestic animals such as pigs and sheep, where we often have more information about their weight than size.

Roger, it's high time you consulted a psychiatrist

Oh my, so precious!! What an awesome collection!!

Thanks, Shanti!

Kikimalou wrote:

Roger, it's high time you consulted a psychiatrist

No worries, I am completely sound . It was Rogério's and Leyster's idea . But they aren't as crazy as they might seem. Research has used the volume of dinosaur models to determine the weight of real dinosaurs. This article by Campione and Evans (2020) gives a useful overview. (Can you access the link? Have a look at the photos of the models.) It is an interesting case where animal models have been useful for science. Some of the used models were toys sold at the British Museum of Natural History. I suppose these models.

Despite being completely sound, I couldn't help myself. Just to see whether the numbers makes any sense. The Colorata Ueno Zoo and Kaiyodo Capsule Q pandas each weigh 13 g. PVC is a bit denser than water (about 1.3 g/cm3) so the volume of the models is roughly 10 cm3. Because the models are 1/32 scale, the volume of a real panda should be 10 cm3 * 32*32*32 (3 dimensional) = 327,680 cm3. Assuming that the density of a panda is the same as that of water, a panda should be 327.68 kg, give or take. However, the heaviest panda I have found was only 138 kg. Something isn't isn't right .

Well the text is a bit too long for me now but I will read it when I will find a lot of time.

I didn't mean that you should read the whole article (I didn't either). I mainly linked it for the photos of the models.

The article by Alexander (1985) shows drawings of what are indeed the Invicta dinosaurs:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

rogerpgvg wrote:

Assuming that the density of a panda is the same as that of water, a panda should be 327.68 kg, give or take. However, the heaviest panda I have found was only 138 kg. Something isn't isn't right .

perhaps the toy model weight did not take the light weight fur into account?
The fur/hair could probably account for maybe less than 10kg in weight? I'm guessing, because the weight of a sheep's shorn fleece is 2 - 5kg.
The real panda would be slightly smaller in size if he/she had a hair cut first, before then weighing only the actual body weight,
whereas the model includes all the fluffy fat add-on bits that represent the intended fur - therefore adding to the actual weight.

I wonder if the pink naked cats would show this theory better? Paige had some on her thread - the skinny naked cats with no fur. I suppose if they are compared to the fluffy ones then their weight would (could be) considerably less?

I like these exploratory situations - trying to solve something in a systematic way that can be applied to a group of things.
There are always exceptions.

- and I like the pic of the panda on his back! It looks more like a real panda that way.

I made a few assumptions that are based on estimates and won't be completely correct:

- I don't have a measuring cup that could measure the pandas' volume sufficiently accurately, so I had to estimate the volume from their weight. I assumed their volume is 10 cm3, which I am sure is close, but it may be 9 cm3.
- I assumed that the density of a real panda is the same as water (1g/cm3), but this is almost certainly too high. One thing is that I included the volume of the lungs, but this should be subtracted. Alexander (1985) assumed that the lungs occupy 10% of the volume of dinosaurs. This would reduce the density of a real panda to 0.9g/cm3.
- The other thing is indeed the fur. It may be quite a large part of the volume of a panda model, but it does not contribute much to the weight of a real panda (lots of air between the hair).

I have no idea how much the fur affects the volume of a panda model. However, we could calculate the density that a real panda should have in order for the formula to work (assuming a 138 kg panda):
9 g * real panda density * 32 * 32* 32 = 138,000 g

This results in a density of 0.47g/cm3. That seems impossibly low; it would mean that about half of the volume of a panda model consists of air in a real panda (lungs, air pockets in hair, air in bones?)

Of course, another assumption is that the Colorata and Kaiyodo pandas are indeed 1/32 scale. They may not be, but I'd be surprised if they were so far off.

I may try with other species. We need species that don't have much fur and for which we have accurate information about their size and corresponding weight. Not sure that this is the case for cats.

In any case, because we don't know the exact density of real animals, the method isn't of much use for determining the scale of models. It may be good enough for scientists who investigate the weight of dinosaurs, but toy collectors need far greater accuracy .

I commented a few years ago on the forum that you can figure out the scale by how much the figure weighs. It's great to know I'm not the only one who thinks this crazy way here. When it comes to how heavy animals are, most mammals are about as dense as water, and giant pandas are no different. Sure, they've got lungs and stuff that's lighter, but they also have parts that are denser than water. It doesn't matter that bones are kind of hollow; toss a bone in water, and it goes down. So they're definitely denser than water, with numbers above 1. Even if you turned the panda's fur into plastic, it wouldn't mess up the calculations. It would result unbalanced for a musk ox, a yak or other extremely furry animals.
The most important is really to check the material used taking its density in consideration.
Though, as you have many pandas, you can compare directly your sitting panda weights with standing figures of the same material which are easy to calculate the scale.
Then, you just need to make the weight proportion or through the standing panda, try to find which range of weights are accepted for panda figures of this material.
Through comparison, you can also use a formula. You have the weight and shoulder height of the standing panda. Let's use W1 for the weight of the standing panda and H1 for the height of that figure.
You can easily find the weight of the sitting panda of the same material. Let's call it W2.
To estimate the shoulder height of the panda sitting, H2, you just need to find the cubic rooth of the W2/W1 multipliying it by H1.
It doesn't give you the exact shoulder height of the sitting panda, it estimates it considering the proportions are the same of the standing panda.
With this method, you don't have to know the density of a real panda neither the density of the material. You just have to check that you are comparing figures with similar density.

goodness! so much maths
it sounds very logical!

Very interesting attempts... I think I'll stick with my tape measure

For those who love maths, I think it is fun. Though, my personal method is to use Christophe's and Roger's topics about their scale collections.

That’s right, Rogério. If you only need to compare models with each other, you don’t need to know anything about density. You can just compare their volume. I might try. I'd need to buy a chemists' measuring cup to get enough accuracy.

Let’s continue with the pandas. I haven’t shown you my young pandas yet:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The left-most panda is another one from the Safari panda toob. It might be a subadult, but it is certainly too large for a panda cub. It is similar in size to my smallest adult pandas:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The panda in the centre in the first photo is from the Colorata Wild Dogs and Bears box. It came with an adult, but the adult is far too large. The cub is useable as young panda tough. Here it is with the pandas from the Ueno Zoo and Wild Dogs and Bears boxes:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And the Bandai Australia set didn’t just include the adult that I showed you before, but also a panda cub. Here they are, together with the Bandai panda from the Ueno Zoo set:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

As you may remember, the Safari toob also includes a cub with mother. The mother is too large, but the cub can enter the 1/32 reserve. However, the parent doesn’t let the cub go!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And finally, I have one red panda in 1/32 scale. It is a Good Luck Mini from Safari:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It is tiny and not a high quality figure, but because it is so unique, it is very important to my collection. Its head-body length is 1.9/62 cm.

Pocock (1941) reported head-body lengths of 57-62 cm (N = 7) and Bista et al. (2021) reported 50-60 cm (N = 7), so the Good Luck Mini should be fine as a large individual.

It is interesting to see how small red pandas compared to giant pandas. Here is the Safari red panda (a large specimen) with the Colorata giant panda (a large specimen) and the Bandai giant panda (a fairly small specimen):
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And here it is with the CollectA and Kaiyodo Yamanote Railway Line Souvenir:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Red pandas are similar in size to domestic cats:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Indeed, it's important to remember that using volume and weight measurements for such tiny figures would require highly precise instruments. In the case of scales, even 1 gram can make a significant difference. These minimal differences could have a very impactful result in cases like the red panda. In fact, it's impressive that you managed to find one with a satisfactory size. This is a creature whose popularity is relatively recent and may benefit from the fact that it has the name of a popular bear, even though it's not actually a bear.

rogerpgvg wrote:

As you may remember, the Safari toob also includes a cub with mother. The mother is too large, but the cub can enter the 1/32 reserve. However, the parent doesn’t let the cub go!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



Red pandas are similar in size to domestic cats:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I had no idea there were panda cubs!
These are just adorable!
And now that I think of my own herds and collection, a big part of them are the babies I have! I am always looking for babies to add to my flock, so this post has given me that clarity.

That Britains cat is really tiny, so I can just imagine the size of this beautiful little red panda! I love it:)

Where did you get it Roger?

You can buy Good Luck Minis from Minizoo or from the Safari shop on Amazon.com. The problem is that postage is very high relative to the price of the minis. If you buy the red panda, then also have a look for the red fox, kiwi, golden and bald eagles, which are 1/32 scale. The snow owl may also be 1/32 scale, but I need to find more information about their size. The sloth is only a bit too large.

I recently reviewed the Toymany baby African elephant on the ATB. It has a shoulder height of 4.5 cm at the shoulder.

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

It is hard to calculate a scale without knowing a precise age, but it scales well with the recent CollectA bull that is in scale 1:32-1:42

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

Thanks, Andreas.

I quite like the elephant calf, except for its thick trunk.

Seems very young that baby elephant, really a more delicate trunk would suit it better.

I also just recently reviewed the Toymany baby giraffe. It has a total height of 9.5 cm. It seems to scale well with the Papo 2018 adult which I calculated at 1:27-1:35

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