A question of SCALE...

[DakotaDinos]

What line adheres to a particular scale most faithfully? That is, what line does the best job at keeping all their figures in scale with each other?

[postsaurischian]

That would be Battat, Invicta and The Antediluvia Collection by David Krentz.

[Takama]

What line adheres to a particular scale most faithfully? That is, what line does the best job at keeping all their figures in scale with each other?

Almost All lines fail to adheare to the scale they claim to to.

CollectAs So called 1:40 Scale models are all way too big, and maney of them would be a lot smaller if they actully stayed true


About the only Line Avalible now that adhears to it Perfectly is Battat

As well as InvictA, and the Antediluvia Collection as Postsaurischian said

[Roselaar]

I think the Invicta Troodon is a rather awkward exception tho their scale rule then.

[stargatedalek]

The blue whale is also a rather notable exception.

[Takama]

Yes i forgot about those two


Just goes to show how often Companeys adhere to the scale

[Halichoeres]

So far, the Australian Age of Dinosaurs line has been on scale 100% of the time, but other than that...

Several Battats (Edmontonia, Euoplocephalus, Nanshiungosaurus) are significantly larger than 1:40. Carnegies miss in both directions, but probably average slightly too large. CollectA's standard figures are more often 1:40 than their deluxe figures are.

[Kayakasaurus]

My Protocasts line is pretty small, but all my models are in 1:40 scale.

[Mirroraptor]

Tamiya 1/35 line.

[BlueKrono]

I find it interesting how obsessed people on the DTF are with scale. I would think the fragmentariness of some fossil remains would make it more difficult to get the scale spot on than extant animals. Unknown tail vertebrae could easily add a foot or more in either direction on the bigger dinosaurs. There are often conflicting size estimates on any given species, even from the last 10 years. Only those rare species where we have a large number of specimens are we able to come up with a reliable average size of the animal.

[AcroSauroTaurus]

My in-progress figure line will be 1:35.

[danmalcolm]

I find it interesting how obsessed people on the DTF are with scale. I would think the fragmentariness of some fossil remains would make it more difficult to get the scale spot on than extant animals. Unknown tail vertebrae could easily add a foot or more in either direction on the bigger dinosaurs. There are often conflicting size estimates on any given species, even from the last 10 years. Only those rare species where we have a large number of specimens are we able to come up with a reliable average size of the animal.

For me it's not really a matter of a model being exactly a certain length/scale, but I like my collection to feel like a cohesive whole. My papo brach is not technically to scale with my tyrannosaurus, a to-scale brach would be 40-45 cm tall and mine is only 32. But it looks ok, because it could be a smaller/younger specimen, and it's still significantly larger than the tyranno. A 20cm tall brach would absolutely not look or feel like it belonged with a 14cm tall tyranno. My velociraptor is 8cm long, which is on the large side compared to my other dinos, but at least it's not a 18 cm figure rivalling my carnotaurus in  size. I want each of my models to be able to stand next to the rest and not look out of place.

[Jose S.M.]

I find it interesting how obsessed people on the DTF are with scale. I would think the fragmentariness of some fossil remains would make it more difficult to get the scale spot on than extant animals. Unknown tail vertebrae could easily add a foot or more in either direction on the bigger dinosaurs. There are often conflicting size estimates on any given species, even from the last 10 years. Only those rare species where we have a large number of specimens are we able to come up with a reliable average size of the animal.

I'm not so obsessed with scale either, just I didn't want very out of place size differences, but I throw away any rule I have if the figure is worth it, like the new safari Tyrannosaurus and Diplodocus, they are out of scale with each other but I love them. I think I will solve the size variation problem when I have my new shelves, displaying things in a way that helps to not make so obvious the scale differences.

[Halichoeres]

 

I find it interesting how obsessed people on the DTF are with scale. I would think the fragmentariness of some fossil remains would make it more difficult to get the scale spot on than extant animals. Unknown tail vertebrae could easily add a foot or more in either direction on the bigger dinosaurs. There are often conflicting size estimates on any given species, even from the last 10 years. Only those rare species where we have a large number of specimens are we able to come up with a reliable average size of the animal.

Yeah, I like to imagine my shelves as sort of a natural history museum in miniature. So I like each shelf to be relatively cohesive, to give a sense of relative size of animals. You're right that size estimates change frequently (even different estimates of the amount of cartilage between vertebrae can really alter the length over the many centra in a sauropod), and for many things we'll never know how large they were. It still bothers me to have a 20-cm Dunkleosteus next to a 6-cm Pteraspis, though, because to me each shelf is a tiny diorama.

[Takama]

This is all why i was a little disapointed in the increase in size of Safaris newest models.

ITs not that the line was to scale with eachother, its just the fact we have a Tyrannosaurus that TOWERS over a Cacaradontosaurus when they should be the same size

[Halichoeres]

This is all why i was a little disapointed in the increase in size of Safaris newest models.

ITs not that the line was to scale with eachother, its just the fact we have a Tyrannosaurus that TOWERS over a Cacaradontosaurus when they should be the same size

That's such a nice Carcharodontosaurus, too, I would have bought it in a heartbeat if it had been 50% larger.

[sauroid]

we have to bear in mind that not all specimens of the same species were exactly the same size (due to age, sexual dimorphism and position in a population i.e. alpha/omega) so minor discrepancy in scale is negligible.

[Lanthanotus]

we have to bear in mind that not all specimens of the same species were exactly the same size (due to age, sexual dimorphism and position in a population i.e. alpha/omega) so minor discrepancy in scale is negligible.

I want to add to this...

... not only in paleontology but also in biology about recent animals, often maximum sizes are given for certain species, though especially those maximum measurements are often enough of doubtfull source (e.g. hunting trophies) and for sure do only affect a small number of individuals within a population. Particulary in bigger species, where development of size takes a considerable longer time and a hell of a lot more ressources than in smaller species, the margin of size (lenght, height and mass) within a species is considerable.

Just an example from my own scientific work....

... the measurment given for the Australian Varanus gouldii is given in literature sources as 1.6 m. While this sure means "up to 1.6 m" it suggests, the species' individuals would usually grow up to this size. Out of more than 25 measurements of adult specimen only one individual exceeded 1 m in totla lenght, most did not even exceed 80 cm. More than 40 more specimen could be observed and their size estimated with help of landmarks (plants, stones, road signs), none of these exceeded an estimated metre in length.

There's comparably sure evidence that individual specimen may grow to peculiar sizes, however, the average size for specimen of V. gouldii is much smaller.

[Dinoguy2]

I find it interesting how obsessed people on the DTF are with scale. I would think the fragmentariness of some fossil remains would make it more difficult to get the scale spot on than extant animals. Unknown tail vertebrae could easily add a foot or more in either direction on the bigger dinosaurs. There are often conflicting size estimates on any given species, even from the last 10 years. Only those rare species where we have a large number of specimens are we able to come up with a reliable average size of the animal.

My problem is that companies almost always mess up by making things too big, rather than too small. Size estimates are for maximum known size and though the fossil record is in fact incomplete, the average size of these animals (I.e. the size you'd almost always encounter in the wild) would be smaller. In fact I've basically just started thinking of my 1:40 collection as 1:30 with a 1:30 scale human in there to make my display not look like it's made up of 100% Godzilla sized monsters