1/32 scale animals second part

I prefer American alligators to American crocodiles. First, the former walk instead of dragging. They remind me of Komodo dragons, although not in a powerful dancing gait. However, the alligator's smile is unbeatable.

It smiles when it sees easy prey .

Ostriches! I have been quite confused about their size. When I previously posted about ostriches in this topic [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], I relied on Wikipedia for size information. At the time, Wikipedia said that male common ostriches are 2.1-2.8 m in total height and females are 1.7-2.0 m. Nowadays it says 2.1-2.75 m and 1.75-1.9 m respectively. So I collected giants such as these:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

From left to right, a Johillco, Nine Products and (repainted) Marolin ostrich. The Johillco is 7.9/253 cm in total height (6.1/194 cm back height), the Nine Products is also 7.9/253 cm in total height (5.8/186 cm back height) and the Marolin is 8.4/269 cm (5.9/189 cm back height).

But I didn't completely trust Wikipedia, so I did some more research. Surprisingly, there is very little research on ostrich sizes. Similar to Wikipedia, many articles, websites and books mention that ostriches are 175 (or 180) - 275 cm in height (Cramp, 1977; Deeming, 1999; del Hoyo, Elliot & Sargatal, 1992). Many sources also say that females (175 – 190 cm) are much smaller than males (210 – 275 cm). However, it is unclear what the sources of the measurements are. Most likely, they are estimates. The total height of ostriches depends very much on how outstretched their neck is, so it is unlikely that they are precise measurements.

First-hand measurements of ostriches are very hard to find. Those that exist almost always come from farmed, domesticated ostriches and they are usually from chicks or juveniles. Shanawany and Dingle (1999) say that domesticated ostriches are generally smaller with proportionally shorter legs and neck. Domesticated ostriches are also sexually mature earlier (2-3 years) than wild ostriches (4-5 years).

Deeming et al. (1996) measured 17 male and 21 female adult ostriches of over 2 years old on a British farm and found that their back height was 120 – 148 cm. Their weight was 89-152.5 kg. Comparing this with other weights in the literature, the largest ostrich in this study was pretty large, at least in weight. Photos on the web suggest to me that the height of an ostrich with outstretched neck (for example, the male in the photo below) is about 1.5 times its back height, so this would mean a total height of about 180 – 222 cm for Deeming et al.'s British ostriches.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Khalid et al. (2022) report a mean height of 253 cm (70 kg) on one Indian farm and 198 cm (40 kg) on another (where they did not get enough to eat). Zhang et al. (2021) report the measurements of 3 female ostriches with a mean height of 211 cm.

I haven’t found any evidence that males are substantially larger than females. First, photos on the web, including those of wild populations, only show a small difference, if any. Second, Charuta et al. (2013) measured 10 male and 10 female domestic ostriches and found that the length of the tibia (54.9 cm for males, 53.6 cm for females) and tarsometatarsal bone (49.2 cm for males, 48.1 cm for females) were only slightly different. Elzanowski et al. (2022) measured the leg bones of wild and domesticated males and females and also did not find large differences. Third, Cilliers et al. (1995) and Ramos et al. (2013) measured the weights of domesticated ostriches and found no clear differences. Finally, the data from Zhang et al. (2011) show that the maximum height of 190 cm for females is incorrect (mean height of 3 females was 211 cm).

What do we do with all this information? We need to do a lot of guess work. The study by Khalid et al. (2022) suggests that domesticated ostriches can be over 250 cm in total height. Given that the reported 253 cm by Khalid et al. is the mean height at one farm and Shanawany and Dingle (1999) say that domestic ostriches have relatively short legs and necks, a 275 cm maximum total height for wild male ostriches might be possible. This would be a maximum back height of about 183 cm. Regarding the minimum size, the Deeming et al. (1996) study shows a minimum back height of 120 cm, which would be about 180 cm in total height. However, they were farmed ostriches that were presumably reared in perfect conditions. It is possible that wild ostriches are sometimes smaller. Finally, males are a bit taller than females, but the difference does not seem that large.

So while the total height of the Johillco, Nine Products and Marolin ostriches is fine for 1/32 scale, it seems like their back height is too high. Perhaps they are within the acceptable total height because their necks are too short or because they are not completely stretched out. They dwarf the Eikoh ostrich, which has a total height of 6.8/218 cm (4.7/150 cm back height):
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

My Britains ostriches were previously chased out of the 1/32 reserve, but they are now back in again. The later version (left) is 6.1/195 cm in total height and the earlier version is 5.7/182 cm (resp. 4.8/154 and 4.1/131 cm back height). I have had the later version since my childhood, but it was never among my favourite Britains. I prefer the earlier, more delicate version even though it is very small for 1/32 scale.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

After years of dithering, I finally bought the PNSO ostrich:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The PNSO's total height is 6.3/202 cm and its back height is 4.3/138 cm, but it is not standing completely upright. It has a high-quality feel because it is made of good, dense plastic and it has subtly shaded painting. However, there are a few issues with the model that make it less than perfect. The tree branch is an interesting novelty to make it stand up, but because the colour is very similar to the ostrich's leg, it looks a bit as if the branch is part of its leg. The ostrich's body seems a bit too long and most critically, the painting isn't accurate: there is no white on the wing, which makes it looks a bit odd. Someone at PNSO knew that ostriches have white wings, because its wings are white in the photo on the box, but sadly, the painter did not.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

A comparison of what I now think are my 1/32 scale ostriches:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Perhaps you can see why I gave the Eikoh a prize. There is not so much choice in 1/32 ostriches and in my opinion, the Eikoh looks good compared to the others. The early Britains has slightly thinner legs but the legs of the others are quite similar. While I like the early Britains ostrich sculpt, the modern Eikoh painting is more detailed and precise.

Very interesting, birds in general and ostriches in particular are complicated animals to measure.
Of course, I've never met an ostrich in its natural environment, either near or far, but the ones I've seen in zoos look more like the last four than the first three. The difference between males and females also seems unreasonable to me on Wikipedia.
Still, it's all a matter of guesswork.
I still wonder where Wikipedia found these sizes.

Although the domestication of ostriches is a very recent event in the animal's evolutionary history, it is still surprising that domesticated specimens exhibit palpable morphological and physiological differences in order to better serve the interests of those who domesticate them. With evidence like this, I do not understand why we are surprised by the evolutionary processes that millions of years have presented to us.
The first time I encountered an ostrich, I was just a small child. The creature had managed to escape from the circus and barreled into me as I played in the dirt. It was so much larger than I was that it practically ignored my presence, stopping just a few feet away to relieve itself.

Very interesting discussion about such an iconic bird!Great to see the various models as well.

Thank you, Christophe, Rogério and Taylor!

I wonder whether ostriches in zoos may sometimes come from domesticated populations.

The Deeming et al. (1996) article tells us that domesticated ostriches can certainly be Britains size (well, multiplied by 32 ). We don't have enough information about wild ostriches, but I am happy enough with domesticated ostriches. The Marolin-sized ostriches are probably too large, but yes, it's guess work.

The Wikipedia information comes from del Hoyo et al. (1992) Handbook of the birds of the world. There are many other sources that give the same sizes, including scientific overview articles. It is one of the many examples where everybody copies each other's size information but no one knows what the original source is.

Rogério: It is indeed surprising how fast Evolution can sometimes be. That was an exciting encounter with an ostrich! Fortunately it wasn't a lion or tiger that escaped.

When I first got the 9 Products ostrich I thought it was way too large for my collection, yet it seems that a few more are similar in size! It's interesting to see the 2 different sizes between these groups.
Have there been any other ostrich models in between Roger? I've not come across many ostrich models at all.

The Eikoh is beautiful and I like the PNSO too, even with the large branch support.

All the wild ostriches that I've seen all seem to be very similar in height. In most cases it is hard for me to notice any difference at all.

- Roger that was some encounter you had with the ostrich!! They are large powerful birds so you are lucky to be in one piece
Thank goodness circuses with animals don't exist any more.

here are the wild ones, all rather the same in height, aside from the curvature of the camera

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

No, I haven't found any models between the two different size groups.

Thanks for the photos. More evidence that female ostriches aren't much smaller than males. Interestingly, Shanawany and Dingle (1999) say that Somali females are larger than males:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Based on their characteristics, I am trying to determine which subspecies is in your photos. Hard! I am guessing East African?

When comparing the ostriches to the oryx, they look Britains sized (x 32).

It's fun to determine the subspecies of the models too.

Johillco: Impossible to tell. Perhaps South African because the neck doesn't have a neck ring. Certainly not North African because it doesn't have a reddish neck and  thighs.
The Nine Products: Perhaps South African because it doesn't have a neck ring and because its neck isn't pink. Unlike South African ostriches, its thighs aren't pinkish though. It doesn't have any white wing feathers, which isn't consistent with any subspecies.
VEB Plaho/Marolin: Given the reddish neck and thighs, it seems quite clear that it is a North African ostrich. The neck ring is a bit wide but at least it has a neck ring.

Britains (both versions): Because of the pink thighs and white (can we call it grey?) neck, South African seems a good choice. The absence of a neck ring fits with a South African ostrich too.
PNSO: Perhaps East African because its neck and thighs are pink-grey even though the PNSO doesn't have a neck ring. The main problem is the lack of white on the wings, which isn't consistent with any subspecies.
Eikoh: Probably South African because it doesn't have a neck ring and the neck is white (grey?). But unlike South African ostriches, its thighs aren't pinkish.

Perhaps surprisingly, the painting of the VEB Plaho/Marolin is closest to a real subspecies (North African). As I mentioned before, my VEB Plaho has been repainted, but I believe the painting is very close to the original. The Britains and Eikoh are acceptable as South African ostriches.

We still need to do comparisons with the 2023 1/32 figure of the year, the Eikoh lion.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Its size is difficult to measure accurately but I'd say about 3.4/109 cm shoulder height and 6.5/208 cm head-body length. For lion size information, I use [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. I should do my own research, but it takes a lot of time and other species have my priority.

I said that the lion is the best 1/32 scale lion ever made. Let's see and compare it with a few other modern lion models. The new lion is not the first male lion that Eikoh made. They made a lying lion in 2014. It's a good model too, among the better recent 1/32 lion models, but the pose is slightly less natural and the painting less crisp than that of the new lion.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It is much more relaxed than the 2023 model. The old lion is wondering what the young lion is so agitated about:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Eikoh also made a lioness in 2014 but it is too large for 1/32 scale.

Another Japanese company, Kaiyodo, made a lion for their Wild Rush series in 2018:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It's one of my least favourite Kaiyodos. The main problem is the very obvious seam around the hind legs. Quite a few Kaiyodos have seams, but I find these particularly disturbing. The Kaiyodo lion looks quite stylish from the front though:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Then we have several tube lions. The Safari lion from the South Africa toob doesn't look great. A very striking contrast with the Eikoh, which shows how good small models can be. I wish the main brands would pay attention. There is no reason why small models should be low in quality.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The Papo Mini lion is only slightly better. The sculpt is perhaps better than the Safari's, but the painting lacks detail. I was quite disappointed when I got it because many of the other Papo Minis are pretty good. It is very small, but with a shoulder height of 2.7/86 cm still OK for 1/32 scale.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The Mojö Mini lion from 2015 is a lot better than the Safari and Papo. Good quality plastic with detailed painting and subtle shading. The sculpt may be a bit unexciting, but I think it is a good representation of a lion. It is small (2.9/93 cm shoulder height) but that is quite appropriate for a thin, underfed lion.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The Mojö Mini lion was retired after 2020 and turned into a key chain. Then this year, Mojö released a wildlife tube with the same lion. I wonder whether it has the same high quality or whether the painting has been simplified.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

A comparison with just a few older lion models. First, with the Britains of course (the later version):
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I may be biased, but I think the Britains is very good, especially the sculpt. But it doesn't compare with the Eikoh's painting.

Another angry lion, one of the Hausser Elastolin male lions:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And with one of the Marolin lions:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I would be happy to see a comparison pic between the small Papo and the Marolin

I don't know why Eikoh decided to make a lion that just stepped on a nail and is yelling a dirty word. However, I must admit the idea is quite original.
I really like these comparisons, and lions are always a good barometer for measuring the artistic quality of brands. I greatly appreciate the vintage sculptures; they seem very good, and only some of the latest models can be compared in terms of realism.

Lovely comparison selection of old and new models

all of these are Namibian ostriches Roger.


I would probably take some of the tables information with a bit of salt, - where did they get 'their' information from to construct the table?
Unless they were out in the wild observing the different groups of birds, and noting the subtle differences and similarities in each geographical population, then I could ask myself - how accurate are they?
I've seen so many out of the norm features with all the wild animals I watch. A single photo never tells the whole story of a specific species.
And then on top of that comes the painting styles of these figures
and remembering that Britains were painted by home workers earning some extra money, and most probably the more models painted, then more money made. Perhaps that is also true of the other brands figures?

sunny wrote:

here are the wild ones, all rather the same in height, aside from the curvature of the camera

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

I've enjoyed the comparisons both of the ostriches and the lions! Thanks!

Remind me: in Part 1, did you examine the Jeol lion? I think I dimly remember that perhaps you thought it too large, but I've just had a search and can't find it.

The Eikoh lion is very nice!

Thanks for your comments everyone!

Ah, Namibian ostriches. I found it hard to choose between the South African and East African subspecies. Yes, given how often size information is wrong, I often wonder how accurate other information about animals is.

Roger wrote:

I don't know why Eikoh decided to make a lion that just stepped on a nail and is yelling a dirty word.

Haha, that's very funny!

Here is a comparison of the Papo and the Marolin:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The Papo's shoulder height is (just) OK, but it may be too short. It's hard to measure because its head isn't in a straight line with its body.

The JEOL lion looks even larger than the Marolin:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The JEOL has a hip height of 3.6/115 cm and a head-body length of about 6.5 cm. A graph in Ferreira and Funston (2010) shows a lion with a 115 cm shoulder height. The JEOL may be possible for 1/32 scale, but it is very large.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Most vintage lions are large. The Starlux is a bit smaller (3.3/106 cm shoulder height):
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

rogerpgvg wrote:

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

These 3 lions look good together.
Thank you for all the comparisons Roger. Do you have the NewRay lion? I think I remember having one by them and it's quite chunky.

Thanks for adding these! Your posts are a really great resource.

I missed this one earlier, Safari Malawisaurus. Body length approx. 37 cm for a scale of 1:29.7-1:40.5

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

Looks good! A large model.