Posting before introductions

[Jakko]

Y'know I do wonder where that 'foot-to-eye' thing came from, as I don't think I ever heard it before 25mm became 28
It used to be that 'N'mm was the height of a figure was foot to top of the head, like my 90mm figures aren't, what is it now 1/16th?
No, she's 90mm tall
I blame teh intrawebs!

That discussion is far older than that If you look through old (1970s–80s) issues of, say, Military Modelling, you’ll also see this come up sometimes. As far as I can tell, the British point of view is (was?) that it’s eye height, everybody else says it’s to the top of the head. I think the latter makes more sense, but I can see why you’d measure to the eyes instead: it avoids the problem of whether you count headgear or not, and if not, where do you estimate the top of the head to be if there’s a helmet or shako or something on it?

 

[Fernando N]

Hi and welcome Chris, nicely varied subjects you got

 

[Tim Marlow]

WRT the eye height thing, it was in common usage when I got into wargaming in the late nineteen sixties.......in fact talking about figures in ratio scales seems a relatively new thing to me, developed in the last thirty years or so....

 

[Steve-the-Duck]

I have only one thing to say about scales now:

HO/OO

I think we should all just agree to blame railway modellers and their toy trains...
Um... Joke? Just thought I'd mention that. Oh, there are train-makers around here - well, NOW I'm in trouble!
Blimey. Nearly wrote 'LOL' then, too

 

[Jakko]

I have only one thing to say about scales now:

HO/OO

I have never understood where those letter designations came from, if there’s a system to them, if so, what it is … or even the need for them in the first place.

 

[Steve-the-Duck]

The letters define the width of model rail track gauges - but I don't know where the letrers come from - so Z is the smallest, but O is bigger than N

No, wait. I think I've just slipped into algebra
AGAIN

 

[KarlW]

Yeah rail scales are weird, I think the HO/OO thing came about from two real world gauges ending up the same size so when the stock was scaled it came out differently. I blame the Atlantic.......

 

[JR]

Welcome Chris, even if you don't like a Stug and only like Russian your even more in .

Welcome Chris

If you like StuG's you are in

Bob

 

[Steve-the-Duck]

I can only say one thing 'narrow gauge'

See this why Barbarossa failed: same scale trains, different gauge tracks...
Is that two things?

 

[Tim Marlow]

Original railway scales were 0, 1, 2, like brush sizes....They had to be big to fit the mechanisms available at the time. When small scale electric was developed it was half O gauge, hence HO. OO (Which is the next “brush“ size down from O) used HO scale track, but the UK rail loading gauge meant that the bodies had to be bigger, hence HO/OO. OO therefore has a narrower than scale track gauge...Really It’s 1/76.2 bodies on 1/87 track.
TT was a rarer scale, stands for table top. N scale was originally called OOO, but N was easier to market.....Z scale is just weird......and S scale is completely imperial, at I think 3/16ths to the inch....of course, railway modellers talk of scales in mm/foot, so O becomes 7mm/foot, OO is 4mm/foot, HO is 3.5mm/foot, etc....
Confused? You should be by now

 

[Tim Marlow]

Narrow gauge...I never went into O/16.5, OO/12, OO/9 etc....my brother in law works in Live steam garden railways at 16.5mm/foot on O gauge track.....

 

[Gern]

Happily though, you guys do regard 28mm models as MODELS not just 'stay over there you strange wargamer-type' as you can find elsewhere
I feel welcome already

I recently did a whole model diorama in 15mm (1/100) scale ('Somewhere in Russia' over in the diorama section) and no-one suggested I go off and play with the fair.... I mean wargamers!

I can't think of anyone who's posted any kind of built item here that's been criticised for it being on the wrong forum. We've even had guys posting builds of their 1:1 scale mancave sheds.

Anyway, now for the important stuff. Why 'Steve-the Duck' when you're signing yourself as Chris?

 

[Jakko]

Original railway scales were 0, 1, 2, like brush sizes....They had to be big to fit the mechanisms available at the time. When small scale electric was developed it was half O gauge, hence HO. OO (Which is the next “brush“ size down from O) used HO scale track,

Part of the problem, then, is the confusion between 0 (the digit) and O (the capital letter). In any case the whole system, including brush sizes, reeks of the Anglo-American custom of using numbers (gauges, whatever) to differentiate sizes rather than just saying how big it is. Why not just have called it, say, 18 mm track, half-inch track, etc.? That would make it immediately obvious and completely unambiguous to everyone, not just those already in the know. Hey, maybe that’s the real reason …

 

[Tim Marlow]

18mm track is EM gauge (for eighteen millimetre) LOL....I used to work in 18.83mm gauge 1/76.2, which was either designated P4 or S4.....(protofour society or scalefour society) There were two societies early on because some of the members fell out with each other when the scale was designed. That one is correct scale track with correct scale bodies, unlike OO which just looks wasp wasted front on....
Railways are basically weird....too many early compromises to fit bodies on existing mechanisms...certainly in Britain bodies and track gauge don’t match....
I actually found it easier to think this way....7mm/foot=O scale (1/43), 4mm/foot=OO scale (1/76.2), 3.5mm/foot=HO scale (1/87), 3mm/foot=TT scale (1/120), 2mm/foot=N scale 1/160).... etc.... But, these are for British Prototype, Continental and US scales sometimes varied.....

 

[Jakko]

18mm track is EM gauge (for eighteen millimetre) LOL

That’s it, I give up

 

[Steve-the-Duck]

Wait, how did my intro thread turn into a discussion of model railways anyway?
Oh, wait, it was me

Or, sorta kinda in answer to Gern, or is it Dave's question, why 'Steve'? That's him on the sig image, my (former) international cult hero alter-ego

Oh, you want to know WHY?

It's a secret. Really rather dull, but still a secret

 

[Steve-the-Duck]

Hi and welcome Chris, nicely varied subjects you got

Ah yes , 'varied' is my middle name

Oh. No. Wait.
My middle name is '-the-'

ACTUALLY, many years ago I came across the idea of 'thematic' collections - rather than 'ooh, that's pretty - I'll have one of those!', or, to show my age, building each Matchbox kit in numerical order as released, but to collect/build by trying to keep to a theme - then I found a complete set of the old Supermodel Italian aircraft at a particular old model dealer in soutg London and so...
Now I've got most major Regia Aeronautica types, many, many lesser types, foreign bought and war prize 'planes - basically anything that flew with the fasces roundel, and here's my main proviso, so long as they flew in Squadron service. War prizes allows me to justify the odd Blenheim IV or Beaufighter IF too. Still haven't found a 1/72 Albacore... A DECENT Albacore - I may be a modelling masochist but two old Pegasus biplane kits was too much...
How many of my RA collection have I finished though...?
Hmm, I did find a thread here about the difference between a builder and collector...

 

[Gern]

It's a secret. Really rather dull, but still a secret

OK Chris. I can respect that. It's the old story innit:

"Two people can keep a secret - but only if one of them is dead"

Gern or Dave - either one is OK and both are better than 'Hey you!' Although even that is better than what most of my students used to call me!

 

[Jakko]

"Two people can keep a secret - but only if one of them is dead"

I prefer the U2 line: “A secret is something you tell one other person.”