Standard scales in dinosaur figures

[Halichoeres]

There was an interesting discussion in the Rebor Tusk + Kiss thread about why standard scales haven't emerged for dinosaur figures, after @CARN0TAURUS raised the subject. It kind of got lost in the other discussions there, so I thought it might be fun to discuss it more fully here.

One sage said that it is useless and foolish to collect by scale; we can dismiss this contrarian claptrap out of hand. Whereas there will always be uncertainty about the range of sizes that various taxa could have, and whereas some pedants are a bit too rigid about scaling all figures of species X to the maxilla of specimen AMNH[whatever], we generally have an idea of how big things were relative to each other, which is useful if you want a diorama, a home museum, or even just want to punch up an O-scale model train display. Some collectors don't care about scale, and that's fine, obviously people collect for lots of different reasons. But some want a size-cohesive display (or set of displays) and for them standard scales would be pretty useful.

Some pointed out the 1:40 standard that briefly existed among museum lines in the 1990s and early 2000s (Boston MOS, Schleich Replicasaurus, Carnegie). These were always pretty approximate, and in later years Carnegie kind of abandoned scale for practical purposes. As some pointed out, that abandonment is partly due to the preferences of retailers, who would rather have a shelf space marked 'small,' one marked 'medium,' and one marked 'large.' From a merchandising standpoint, having lots of different-sized products in a single scale is kind of a nightmare. But some of it is the target audience. My impression is that children and their parents tend to like things in a certain size range: portable, but not so small as to be lost, a comfortable size for play. I think that legacy dinosaur toy companies haven't really come to terms with how many of their buyers are adults now. I'm reminded of the era when Lego just kind of pretended AFOLs did not exist. But people are having fewer children now, and one thing that happens when you forgo or reduce breeding is you have a lot more disposable income for hobbies.

Anyway, I think there might be a few standard scales kind of emerging. Several companies that actually aim for the adult market are selling their wares as 1:35; almost universally, they are in fact 1:30 or even a little larger. I think the main reason for the bait-and-switch is just a bigger-is-better bias among collectors. A 1:35 Carnotaurus or Styracosaurus is pretty small! A 1:30 or 1:25 version is nice and hand-sized and has more shelf presence. Meanwhile, the BotM line has a significant selection of 1:6 and 1:18 figures (some err a bit large, but not egregiously); it wouldn't surprise me if other companies see the potential in making figures that are BotM-compatible. I think 1:40 is probably dead, which is a shame, since it has always been my favorite scale for large animals. I can learn to live with 1:30 for large Jurassic and Cretaceous animals. I also like 1:20 for Permian and Triassic landlubbers. For things like insects, small fishes, amphibians, etc., well, that will vary, some work best at 1:1 and some at 1:6.

What scale(s) would you want companies to coalesce around for your displays?

[stargatedalek]

My scales are;
2:1 for very small animals, a scale decently common for insects and occasionally small reptiles, birds, or rodents. Especially native or introduced "garden species" I find are very fun at this scale.

1:1 for "traditional" reptiles (even large ones, like green iguana), small fish, and very large insects, as well as plush birds. Animals in the right size range for fun handling, or setting up as if they were real pets for fun indoor dioramas.

1:12 is the scale I mainly collect prehistoric figures in. This scale goes with Figma's so I basically think of this as my "action figure scale". I'm more interested in smaller animals anyway, so the fact I could only spare room for a handful of sauropods or large theropods in this scale doesn't bother me.

1:63-65 is tabletop game scale, used by D&D, Pathfinder, etc., though I have to be choosy what I do get in this scale.

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

I don't concern myself with scale too much. I care more about the figure itself rather than how large it is, and always mix scales when arranging shelves.

I would still consider 1:40 as a standard scale, since it's been the most widely used among main manufacturers. 1:35 seems to be popular as well, though, with Invicta and the newer Safari figures. If I were to make my own line of dinosaur models, they would be in 1:40. Unfortunately this puts many mammals and other non-dinosaurs at a disadvantage, though.

[andrewsaurus rex]

Interesting topic.  Unlike most popular model subjects (aircraft, ships, armour, model cars etc etc) animal figures, including dinosaurs has never really settled on standard scales.  This probably is because of the 'toy' aspect of model animal figures.  Most children don't care much about scale consistency with their toys.   Many will point out that model cars, model airplanes etc are also popular subjects among children and yet, they have very standardized scales.  And that is true.  But in the early days, they didn't have standard scales.   If you look at model plane, model car kits etc from the 50's and early 60's, standardization of scale was virtually non-existent.  It wasn't until large numbers of adults started to build and collect model planes/cars etc that standard scales appeared, due to the preference of most adult collectors to have standard scales.  So the lines that were built to a standard scale (Airfix was one of the first with its 1/72 line of aircraft kits) flourished and those that continued with oddball scales either standardized or died.

So it probably wouldn't be until collecting animal/dinosaur figures becomes a much more common adult hobby that the demand for standard scales will result in the same standardizations seen with other popular subjects. 

We are seeing the beginnings of it now, however, with a lot of the more expensive dino toy lines being made to standard scales, even if it is name only (ie a lot of 1/35 figures, ain't even close, as pointed out above).

[Faelrin]

I think I recall making a thread on this topic some years ago, since I always wondered why things like the mostly in scale Carnegie Collection, etc, stopped being a thing more or less.

My collection is a hot mess when it comes to scale, because I mainly just shoot for what I want, though I think for the non BotM and Jurassic stuff (which in itself is a mess when it comes scale at times, but it has a general separation of smaller animals, medium sized, and so on which is nice enough for me), I think I prefer anything from 1:40-1:30 for larger Mesozoic fauna, and probably 1:30 for extinct Cenozoic fauna. I think if I'm having several figures of animals from the same formation, I would ideally like them in scale with one another roughly, such as Hell Creek, Dinosaur Park, or Morrison formation fauna as examples, although that also is dependent on how many options there are for a particular animal. For anything else though I guess anything goes, such as the Safari Ltd Carnotaurus, in which I have no contemporaries for it to display alongside with, so whatever scale it is in doesn't matter as much to me, or things like the Safari Ltd Inostrancevia, and Scutosaurus, that aren't completely to scale, but still pair well together, if the Scutosaurus was a younger or smaller animal for example.

I also make an exception for smaller Anomalocaris figures among my collection of Cambrian fauna (mostly the Safari Ltd and Favorite sets, with a few exceptions in between), because an in scale one would probably be too big for my shelves lol, so there's that as well.

[MLMjp]

Always been a scale guy, even when it was a kid. Back then, my "scale standard" was playmobil human figures and my dinosaur figures had to be in-scale with them, since I wanted "authenticity" in my "dinosaur adventures".
Most of the stuff I had back then were chinasaurs of the cheap kind, and sometimes a stand out like the JP3 Animatronic Spinosaurus.

Fast forward to present day and and I´m still in that in-scale mindset. I like my figures to be comparable as to how these dinosaurs would be in real life if they were together. My scale has shrink from playmobil size to being between 1:40-1:30. I had made some exceptions, for example for certain smaller species I have allowed some figures a bit out of that range, like the Safari toob Velociraptor for example is larger than 1:30, but I want to display a Velociraptor alongside other dinosaurs that looks relatively in scale.

Separated from the main collection I also have some larger figures of smaller species such as the Safari Velociraptor, Microraptor, Psittacosaurus and Coelophysys, unfortunately I haven bougth anymore of those in the past few years.

My scale rule acts as a way of restricting my purchases, which is helpful when you have limited budget. So I have no plans of throwing scale out of the window when it comes to collecting and I will always be disappointed when a pretty figure is not the right scale. That's just the way I work. The ideal for me would be if companies made smaller species in 1:30, their majority of figures in 1:35, and the big, large sauropods in 1:40. But that doesn't always happen...specially with the latter. I´m pretty aware with how the market is today and how certain things won't be made in certain scales (BIG sauropods). But I have no plans to change my mindset, so I´m always pre-disposed to be disappointed by a sauropod figure small size (doesn't stop me from complaining, though).

And then there is the Jurassic World figures by Mattel, sure, some figures are a bit smaller than they should (Triceratops, Edmontosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus...) others too big (Mononykus, Coelurus). But man, the fact that these have a more or less consistent scale is basically a dream come true (and you have the excuse "its JW so it size doesn't have to be exactly like in real life"). I would have been the happiest kid on earth if I had my JW Mattel collection as a kid, which is why I can't stop collecting them as I'm literaly living my childhood dream.

[Skorpio V.]

I think if I'm having several figures of animals from the same formation, I would ideally like them in scale with one another roughly...

This! One select or relative scale for everything throughout wouldn't be sustainable, for me at least. The same goes for displaying too many related animals in segregated groupings. I would much prefer to display contemporaneous animals in scale next to each other, as opposed to similar animals in-scale next to each other. This allows different scales for different environments, like having Morrison Formation being closer to 1:30 while I could have Hell Creek sit at 1:40 This gives a shelf heterogeneity, while still having purpose to it!

E.g. I'd rather display a Pachycephalosaurus next to a T.rex in the same scale as opposed to a Pachycephalosaurus next to a Dryosaurus in the same scale.

[stoneage]

When Carnegie came out with the 1/40 scale that was it for me.  The idea is to have everything relative to each other.  Although Carnegie wasn't always in scale their were better then Schleich.  Basically I try to get dinosaurs close to 1/40 or 1/35. Mammals and Triassic figures I prefer either 1/40 or 1/20.  Stuff before that is rather small except for Dunkeosteus so I just do the best I can.  My hope is to display as close to scale to each other as possible, realizing I will make exceptions.  Sometimes I would display 1/5 or 1/15 generally together as best I can.  I hope to get things going soon when I get new shelves and will have to consider how to display each period or thing as best I can, according to how much space I have available.

[CARN0TAURUS]

Interesting topic.  Unlike most popular model subjects (aircraft, ships, armour, model cars etc etc) animal figures, including dinosaurs has never really settled on standard scales.  This probably is because of the 'toy' aspect of model animal figures.  Most children don't care much about scale consistency with their toys.   Many will point out that model cars, model airplanes etc are also popular subjects among children and yet, they have very standardized scales.  And that is true.  But in the early days, they didn't have standard scales.   If you look at model plane, model car kits etc from the 50's and early 60's, standardization of scale was virtually non-existent.  It wasn't until large numbers of adults started to build and collect model planes/cars etc that standard scales appeared, due to the preference of most adult collectors to have standard scales.  So the lines that were built to a standard scale (Airfix was one of the first with its 1/72 line of aircraft kits) flourished and those that continued with oddball scales either standardized or died.

So it probably wouldn't be until collecting animal/dinosaur figures becomes a much more common adult hobby that the demand for standard scales will result in the same standardizations seen with other popular subjects. 

We are seeing the beginnings of it now, however, with a lot of the more expensive dino toy lines being made to standard scales, even if it is name only (ie a lot of 1/35 figures, ain't even close, as pointed out above).

I could've sworn that Airfix was known for 1/76 scale models but I could be wrong.  I brought up the dinosaur figure industry needing a Tamiya like company to come in and bombard the market with a set scale and take the lead.  Kind of like how Tamiya created the 1/35 military modelling scale and everyone fell in line to compete.  1/72 had long been used by plastic airplane kit manufacturers, I believe 1/72 scale traces it's roots to British war room use during WW2?

But even going beyond set scales why don't we have standardized lines based on animals that lived in the same area during a specific time period?  Companies would all produce early, mid, and late ______ era.  They would still be able to create distinctive lines if they each chose to create obscure never before done species.  But at least children could learn from these lines  about the different eras and what animals coexisted.  Educators, children and collectors would all benefit.  By virtue of having era specific lines a manufacturer would produce the same series in 2-3 different scales to satisfy children, schools, and collectors all at once.  For example, someone might want to collect the late "Cretaceous Morrison Formation Line" in 1/72 scale while some else prefers to collect it in 1/20 scale.  By virtue of having multiple scales of the same line companies could pay once for a sculpt and reach different types of buyers with the different sizes. 

IDK, just speculating but to me it seems this industry is like a chicken with it's head chopped off just running around with no sense of direction.  The way things are now nobody is taking that lead and creating a template for others to follow.  Everyone just comes up with stuff to make all willy nilly, there doesn't seem to be any uniformity except perhaps what some person or group of people think might sell the best?  IDK, seems like even clothing companies, jewelry companies etc...they all have like schedules and produce lines that fit different budgets and seasons etc...

[Georassic]

I collect any scale from about 1:10 down to about 1:60, though I sometimes go a few notches larger than 1:10 for special figures or unusual taxa. I display them on shelves grouped by 6 scales: up to about 1:12, ~1:18, ~1:25, 1:35, 1:40, and ~1:55.

For figures that fall between those ranges, like many 1:30 PNSOs, I use inferred common sense when choosing its display shelf. If the larger scale seems excessively large for what is known of the animal, I display it at the smaller scale. For scaling, I typically use known skull length or the best estimated total length along the animal's spine. I measure the figures with a flexible cloth-like tailor's tape to get an accurate measure.

Like other folks, these size/scale limits help define my limited spending ability, and I have a couple other quirky limits (only non-marine Mesozoic or earlier) that define my collecting "box."

Within that box, I'm collecting accurate (or fairly accurate but collectible) figures of every taxa I can, in each scale. So for some taxa, I have two or more figures, almost always in different scales, each displayed on a different shelf with like-scaled figures.

All that to say, I like having quality figures in a range of scales.

[MesozoicJohn]

This is a great thread!

My favored scale is 1/35th, it allows good detail with out taking up to much shelf space. I am happy to collect model Dinosaurs that vary a little in scale however because unlike tanks, aircraft, trains etc, animals vary in size during growth and in 'full' adult size so there is a fair amount of wriggle in my humble opinion. The other tings I take into account are, many dinosaur sizes are estimates and I doubt very much that the biggest ever specimen of any Dinosaur has been or ever will be found.

CARN0TAURUS, Airfix produced the majority of their aircraft and AFV kits in 1/72nd scale.

John

[Shonisaurus]

Honestly, for dedicated and highly or moderately specialized collectors (not my case) scales in the collections of dinosaurs or other prehistoric toy animals are a justified priority.

In my case I prefer that the figures are not to scale and that they are large, some not excessive like the theropods but others like the sauropods, although the time of the large PVC sauropods is over and they would only mean collecting vinyl sauropods with the production costs for the toy dinosaur companies and the economic risk that it would entail for them.

I like as said figures without scales. Now I am admiring the dinosaurs that I bought from Duna of UKRD and honestly I really like those dinosaurs from an old but not vintage dinosaur company whose rubber figures do not differ much in size from each other but with a considerable size that is attractive above all for children.

Above all I have in mind figures from Chinese companies such as Nanmu or W-Dragon that make massive figures of prehistoric animals in terms of size such as their brachiosaurus or mosasaurus and even theropods such as their tyrannosaurus rex or giganotosaurus in my case as I always say and it is my identity signature "big is beautiful".

The figures of small prehistoric animals would mean that many of them would be discontinued in a short period of time, as happened with Schleich dinosaur figures, for example, because for children these figures are not attractive, although for collectors it is a great satisfaction to collect them. .

It should also be added that the larger the size, as a general rule, the greater the economic cost, and that even for people with large wallets, it implies an economic cost that they sometimes do not want to make.

I am more in agreement with a standard size like UKRD blue nails dinosaurs or its initial variant of earth color for example, standard size without scales.

[andrewsaurus rex]

CARNOTAURUS:  Airfix was one of the first, if not the first to pioneer a standard 1/72 scale  plastic kits for aircraft.  But I think a company preceded them in making wood model assembly kits of aircraft also in 1/72.

Airfix is also known for their 1/76 line of armor kits, which they label as HO/OO, referring to two popular model train scales.  OO is pretty close to 1/76, being 1/76.2.  HO is pretty far away, as it's 1/87 scale.  However, Airfix has never been very good at rigidly sticking to 1/76 for their armor kits and they still tend to vary from about 1/69 to 1/77.

Back on topic, another problem with standardizing dino toy scales is the huge range in sizes with dinosaurs.  It's a tough problem with other subjects as well.  Ships vary from 35 foot PBR river patrol boats to 1100+ super carriers and oil tankers.  That's about a 30:1 ratio.  Tough to do both small and large subjects to the same scale.....so you get models too huge to be practical, at least for mass marketing or too small to be of interest to most people.

Airplanes are a bit better with the 12 foot long Bede Microjet towards the low end and the  235 foot long An-225 at the upper end.  That's about an 18:1 ratio.  Still a lot but 1/72 has managed to come out with mass produced models of both subjects and many in between.

With Dinosaurs you have say, compsognathus towards the lower end of size and huge 150 foot long sauropods at the upper end.  That's a 70:1 ratio or more.   And this huge size spectrum makes it very difficult to think about standardized scales for this hobby,  since the tendency of most collectors is to want to stick to one scale.

I collect animals only to 1/18-ish scale.  If I can't get it in that scale I don't get it at all.  I suspect I am very unique in this collecting habit and from my observations, most people don't really care much about scale, when it comes to animal figure collecting.

[Halichoeres]

Thanks for your perspectives, everyone!

I think the 'toy aspect' is definitely part of the reason there aren't standard scales. That might change if it persists as an adult hobby, although considering how popular wildly out-of-scale "1:35" figures are even among adults, I'm not optimistic. However, I've noticed an awful lot of PNSO's recent offerings end up around 1:30 scale, enough that it seems potentially conscious on their part.

@Faelrin
You may well have made such a thread, but if so I had forgotten. Sorry if I'm rehashing. I would also like things from roughly the same place and time to be in scale, but it's pretty hard to accomplish!
The giant vinyl Favorite Co Anomalocaris might be in scale with my other Cambrian figures, but yeah, the other ones just aren't going to be.

@Skorpio V.
Yeah, I wouldn't want a single scale for everything. Some environments work better at different scales, like the Chinle or the Texas Red Beds would probably be best in 1:20, and Gogo Reef would work better in maybe 1:6.

S @stoneage
Yes, this is me too. For large animals like sauropods, tyrannosaurs, and hadrosaurs, 1:40 is my ideal. A fair few of Safari and CollectA's offerings still fall in this range, even though they aren't typically heralded as such.

@CARN0TAURUS
I think the reason companies don't make the same sculpt at different sizes is that it's so expensive to make the molds, and for a multi-scale approach they'd have to make multiple molds for each sculpt. I'd predict that this would cannibalize their earnings: if I make a figure in one scale, some people might buy it even if it's not their preferred scale, for lack of other options. Each new scale I add has diminishing returns because the pool of people holding out for their ideal scale gets smaller. It's a whole different ball game with 3d prints, however!

@Georassic
Very similar approach to mine, except that of course I focus pretty heavily on aquatics, and my 1:55 shelf only exists to house animals that aren't available in a larger scale. That means it's mostly sauropods and trees.

@MesozoicJohn
Agreed, there is always a bit of wiggle room. Very difficult to preserve large animals in their entirety, so except for some taxa with a lot of specimens like Tyrannosaurus or Camarasaurus we don't have much idea of variation within populations or species.

@Shonisaurus
I think this is common and a big part of why standard scales would be hard to establish. Enough people don't care about scale (which is fine, of course!) that there will always be an incentive to just have the biggest figure of ___________. And of course for retailers having everything around the same size is much more convenient.

A @andrewsaurus
There's quite a lot in 1:18 lately, so not a bad one to stake out. Tough for really large animals though! The PNSO Huanghetitan is in this scale, and although I like the figure, if someone made one half the size I'd trade down lickety-split.

For myself, I think I'd have to say I'm more scale-conscious than scale-guided. There are some things I won't buy, like gashapon-sized sauropods, regardless of how nice they are. But I'd rather have an excellent sculpt that's larger than my preferred scale than a subpar one that's right in my preferred scale. That's why in the last few years my dinosaurs in particular have been slowly but surely increasing in average size, as older 1:40 renditions get replaced with 1:30-ish ones.