Scale? Size? Painting Standards?

 A while ago I participated in an online forum discussion about differences in heft, height and the like between figures sold in the same range by one well known manufacturer. While the original poster couched his comments as if alerting newcomers to the firm/range it soon became clear it was little more than a moan that one figure was not a clone of the other. Now, I'm long in the tooth and probably set in my ways, but in respect the this old saw I'm probably and surprisingly rather liberal. That may be because some projects of recent years, especially the FRW drove me that way because of figure availability. Indeed 11 different manufacturers have figures in this collection. Recently my excursion into Pendawar has also drawn me to other manufacturers besides the core from Perry Miniatures.

Different firms and sculptors have always taken different approaches to the scale/size issue, they want you to buy their figures after all. When did 25mm figures stretch to 28mm for example? How did they measure the figures when deciding? And of course, neither is a scale either, but rather a size. Some folk seem always to be consumed by angst when considering figure size comparability. It's easy to see why you might worry for example when mixing Crimean War figures from Britannia, Great War Miniatures and Wargames Foundry in one unit. The differences would go beyond the range people might accept. But, in different units in the same game I think folk could be more comfortable.

Why? Well we see the game as a whole at playing distance, often standing above and back from the troops on the tabletop. When painting figures though we see them close up, warts and all, where differences seem to be exaggerated. A recent acquisition here in GHQ have been two new units for my ACW Union army, respectively from Crusader and Sash & Sabre. The rest of my army is almost exclusively by Dixon Miniatures, quite different size, heft and style. Very noticeable side by side but invisible on the tabletop ~

Dixon Miniatures on the left, Sash & Sabre on the right, 1st Corps mounted officer, I think, to the rear. The point I'm hoping to make is that unless your hobby is mainly painting wargames figures then the way to view figures is on the tabletop battlefield in a game.

Of course we all have preferences and favourite firms/sculptors/styles and that is to be expected, but to worry unnecessarily over toys in a game takes this to a new level of pointlessness. Scale or Size, call it how we may, is a subjective view from an individual perspective; to try to bring others to your view is like herding cats, difficult and ultimately pointless. Buy and play with what pleases you, there are no Gaming Police waiting to pounce!

This extends to painting styles and standards too. One visitor to GHQ once asked me to teach him to paint like I did. Once I'd recovered from the shock of anyone thinking my efforts worthy of replication I was forced to admit that it was the product of almost fifty years of trial and error compounded by changing fashions in the hobby and new paint products. In short, just keep on trying, abandoning what doesn't work and building on what does as you go. Helpful, well no I'd guess, but the only way forward nevertheless. The web is awash with examples, styles and tips all helpful in their way, but equally daunting perhaps to many. Hence the rise of the 'Dip' shading method of recent years promising more nuanced results without the necessary artistic talent and time.  The answer for many I'm sure, in fact Phil and I were using it on medieval figures in the early 1980's using Sepia Artist's Ink as the wash!

What I am hoping my reader has got from this is that this is a hobby and meant to be fun. There seems little point to me in wasting time and effort in unnecessary worry on issues beyond the individual's control. As my father was wont to say, if anyone comments adversely put it down to their ignorance and manners. Your toys, your games, your hobby after all is said and done.