A Couple of Follow-Ups... old figures, old scales

Today's post is a bit of a quick revisit of a couple of recent topics. If there is a common theme, then it might be the subject of "the way we were", which will hardly be a first for this blog.

Old figures, old magazines - must get a cup of Horlicks...

First off, I received a very nice email from France, courtesy of Jean-Marc, which was sparked by the discussion of 5mm Minifigs troop blocks.

J-M included a reader's letter from the December 1983 issue of Military Modelling, contributed by Roger Styles, the main man at Heroics and Ros. Apart from the fact that he was obviously very close to the subject of very small figures, it is not lost on me that this letter is pretty much contemporary with the 1984 Claymore show which featured in my earlier post. It also emphasises my point that Peter Gouldesbrough's efforts to popularise the 5mm blocks were at a time when the blocks were OOP and - according to Mr Styles - 5mm as a scale was "moribund if not defunct".

I hand over to Jean-Marc at this point...

My [J-M's] remarks : 

1) I have never seen these 5mm blocks "in the flesh", only pics. But I have, in the past , looked for  them with determination.

2) As far as I know, the moulds are now in the US. [if they are, then one hopes they have the masters, because the moulds were shot to bits before the blocks went out of production - the problems of missing heads and generally unrecognisable artillery becoming major show-stoppers - MSF]

3) The 5mm blocks were produced in 1972. Heroics and Ros company was launched in 1973. 

4) By 1983 Roger Styles (owner and sculptor of H&R) considered that 5mm blocks had ceased to exist, a comment made in a letter to Military Modelling that I reproduce here.

MILITARY MODELLING DECEMBER 1983  (Readers' Despatch)

Question of scales     : 

Dear Sir,

We were most interested in Charles S. Grant's article on scales for wargame figures (Nov. 1983). Although we agree with his general remarks on 15mm and 25mm scales, we would like to correct some details about 1/300 scale.

There has been a tendency to call figures in this scale ''5mm''. This has its origin in the regimental blocks of figures which were produced by Miniature Figurines some 12 or more years ago. These have not been available, we believe, for some years.

The figures produced by Heroics and Ros have a different beginning. In the USA several firms began making model tanks some 15 or so years ago in a scale known as 1/285. In the UK, soon afterwards, model vehicles began to be made in '1/300 scale', The difference in the two scales is minimal, of course, and 1/300 was chosen because it is easy to understand and work to. One foot is almost exactly 300mm (304.8 actually), so that 1/300 scale means one millimetre on the model represents one foot in reality. Except in models of very large items indeed the fractional difference between 1/300 and 1/304.8 comes within an acceptable margin of error. Models of vehicles made in 1/285 are often considerably larger than those made in 1/300, but I am not aware of the reason for this.

Whilst several firms produced WW2 tanks in this scale, Heroics and Ros began to make figures of the same period to match. If 1 mm equals 1 foot, it follows that a model of a six foot man would be 6 mm in height. This is the scale that we have always worked to.

So when Mr Grant says ''5mm figures are very approximately 1/350 scale (although they are sometimes referred to as 1/300'' he is, we are sorry to say, confusing the issue more than somewhat. Our 6mm figures are very accurately 1/300 scale, as are our vehicles and equipments of all periods. The scale of 5mm is moribund if not defunct, and there is no-one working commercially in 1/350 scale to our knowledge. The wargaming hobby has been plagued by the scale problem since the early days. Terms such as''15mm''or ''25mm''are said to mean the height of a man from head to foot without equipment. Some men are indeed smaller than others, so variation in figure size is permissable, though this does not excuse the seven, eight and nine foot men that are often made in 15mm and 25mm scale. If figure makers adopted an accurate scale, as we have in 1/300, customers would know where they stand and each company's figures would presumably match, size for size all others.

Mr Grant brings up the point of painting 1/300 figures. He says ''painting is quick, there being little detail''. In fact our figures compare favourably for detail with larger scales, and have if anything, more detail than many 15mm figures. But painting is quick, not because the models cannot be made as colourful and striking as in other scales, but because there is less area of bare metal to cover. A whole unit of 1/300 figures may have less metal to be covered than one 25mm figure, and so takes less time to paint. Many of our customers paint them exquisitely, though, and take much trouble over them. As far as wargaming with the figures is concerned, there are no problems either for ''beginners'' or for old-timers. Conventional rules can be used by simply quartering all ground scales. The figures can even be based on single figure bases for Micro-Skirmish games. But the small scale allows enormous advantages on full-size tables. Unit sizes can be increased to give more realism, and units can be manoeuvred without falling off the edge of the table so often. I should point out that 1/300 scale is the choice of many wargamers, and they have been in existence as long as 25mm, and much longer than 15mm, and are still expanding into new periods.

R. B. Styles, Heroics, & Ros Figures.

Apart from the fact that his letter is an unashamed plug for his figures (and quite rightly so), Mr Styles is in some danger of getting us all back into the eternal "how tall is a man?" and "height or soles-to-eyes?" debates, which in turn will get us back into the traditions of the German flats industry and all points south. J-M mentions in passing that Styles is wrong about the existence of 1/350 as a viable scale, since Helmet Products made 1/350 aircraft from about 1975 - some visible here.

The important point (if there is one) is that the letter gives a manufacturer's view of scales from the same period as the Claymore show I referred to.

Since I am nothing if not persistent (or, alternatively, since I am a relentless bore when I feel the urge), I have come up with the original article by Charles S Grant, from the November 1983 issue. It seemed that it must have said something fairly controversial, judging from Mr Styles' response. So here it is - in fact it is pretty bland (with all due respect) - it also reminds me, now I come to think of it, why I stopped reading Military Modelling a couple of years before this - too many interests covered too thinly, too much vanilla, too much courtesy offered to the advertisers.

Still on the topic of very small men, I received an email from the Jolly Broom Man (who is also in France, as it happens), with some pictures of his 6mm Baccus ECW troops. I like them - they have a determined, jaunty look which is very pleasing - don't mess with these boys!

JBM was inspired by my guest picture of Steve Cooney's Hinton Hunt ECW cuirassiers to make the point that headswaps in 6mm scale are a daunting idea - though I'm sure someone has done it. In fact, if anyone has ever done it, I would suspect it might have been my good friend Lee, which gives me an excuse to show some old photos of his 6mm Baccus ECW troops, which have subsequently moved on to a new owner (and I, for one, miss them!).

To enlarge the view to 20mm, I was encouraged by Stryker to give a progress shot of the batch of vintage Der Kriegsspieler Napoleonic French infantry I am currently restoring. I am rarely embarrassed about publishing photos of my armies, but I produce these with some trepidation, since they are really just a recruitment exercise, and not really the sort of thing I would choose to expose to the risk of supportive criticism and the tender mercies of Dr Raul and assorted other worthies and reluctant friends of mine at a certain American-based miniature modelling forum whose name I am not fit to mention. Perhaps I shall be spared this time.

I am working on generating 5 line battalions from these old DK figures. These are heavily converted, old figures (certainly 12 or 13 years older than the magazine I have just been discussing), and the paint needs a bit of attention, to correct yellowed whites, faded reds and the general ravages of time and the spares boxes. I have still to source a full complement of command figures. I have retouched half of the fusiliers (who are now mounted on their bases, just to keep things tidy and organised), the other half of the fusiliers are in the official Next in Queue box, and the flankers are waiting for the next shift after that.

These photos may give an idea what is involved. Some of the chaps who have been finished are in the picture at the top of this posting. Some thoughts:

(1) Retouching is always - repeat always - more work than I think it's going to be, partly because I change my ideas on what I'm going to do once I see the effect of the new painted bits

(2) A half-batch of 30-odd fusiliers seems a lot when you're painting them, but they don't look like very many when you stick them on the bases!

The second half of the fusiliers are ready, in the Next in Queue box - scheduled
to start on Monday evening

The flankers and various command odd-bods are in one of the big store
boxes, along with the finished chaps, who don't cover much of the base area yet!

***** Late Edit *****

I received a rather apologetic email from Steve C, who supplied the big shipment of DKs, lamenting that he might have given me a huge amount of work to do to get them into shape; somewhat shamefaced, I've been re-reading my post, to check I hadn't accidentally been rude about them!

It is kind of Steve to get back in touch with me, but I have to emphasise (to him and everyone else) that I bought them knowing exactly what they were, am very pleased with them, and really wouldn't have started on the job if I hadn't thought they were worth the effort. I'm sorry that I sometimes express myself imprecisely - enthusiasm rather than malice! - and I shall attempt to be more careful in future. Thanks again Steve - no worries, mate!

********************