1:35 Scale models compared to 1:40 Scale models

[Takama]

Ok i seen on some threads that a lot of models released these days are in 1:35 scale instead of 1:40 that the companeys claim them to be in.


Can anyone give good examples of two models of the same species that are in the two different scales?  For instance, Can i see a picture of a 1:40 Scale T.Rex next to a 1:35 Scale T.Rex

[DinoLord]

Personally I consider 1:35 and 1:40 the same for display purposes. Any differences between the two, even for figures of the same species, would be miniscule. Keep in mind that in real life animals are often quite variable in size. Add in the consideration that many species are probably not known from specimens that had attained maximum size, and one sees how scaling is a very approximate method at best (not to mention nuances of caliper usage and interpretation, etc.).

[Dinoguy2]

Ok i seen on some threads that a lot of models released these days are in 1:35 scale instead of 1:40 that the companeys claim them to be in.


Can anyone give good examples of two models of the same species that are in the two different scales?  For instance, Can i see a picture of a 1:40 Scale T.Rex next to a 1:35 Scale T.Rex

Just put the Carnegie or Invicta T. rex next to the Battat one which is closer to 1:35 based on skull length scaled to Sue.

[Halichoeres]

Seconded, on both counts. The difference between 1:35 and 1:40 is within plausible natural variation for most animals. Also on the Battat / Carnegie comparison for the rex. The Papo rexes are also around 1:35, the new CollectA is around 1:30, and the Rebor is probably a little bigger than 1:30 (check out the comparison thread). At 1:30, the CollectA is annoyingly large next to the rest of my 1:40-ish shelf. The base exacerbates it, making it tower over its neighbors.

[Dinoguy2]

Personally I consider 1:35 and 1:40 the same for display purposes. Any differences between the two, even for figures of the same species, would be miniscule. Keep in mind that in real life animals are often quite variable in size. Add in the consideration that many species are probably not known from specimens that had attained maximum size, and one sees how scaling is a very approximate method at best (not to mention nuances of caliper usage and interpretation, etc.).

I agree on displaying them together. In my head, my collection is a 1:35 collection and the 1:40s are just slightly smaller individuals. And my 1:50s and 1:60s are also usually within natural range of mature size variation for many of those species! I can also sort of justify adding the occasional 1:30 for smaller species, though I agree it looks pretty jarring for the larger ones.