The World According to Tom

First a few questions which have come in:


"I was curious how Tom sculpted the beard on the Joseph nativity figure"


With hair I use several techniques depending the texture. The important thing the remember is you can’t really recreate most kinds of hair in small epoxy sculpture so you have to depict it by the impression it gives. In the case of Joseph I didn’t really have to think about it since I was basing the style on Renaissance woodcuts where fine close set lines are juxtaposed with clear space to get textural effects. I represented this effect in sculpture by forming the mass of the beard while the putty was very soft and cutting lots of fine parallel lines with my blunt exacto palette knife. I pushed this mass around to the shape I wanted thus stretching and to some extent smoothing and blending the lines. Then before the epoxy set too much I went in with a pin (the hook end of one of my tools) and teased out tiny loops. Rather like the technique for making chain mail but as random extensions of the wavy parts of the beard.

"When you are doing
armor, after you have done your initial shaping and smoothing of the
surface, do you later go back and trim it when the epoxy-resin/putty
has set to a specific point, or do you wait for it to cure completely
before doing a final shaping and polishing?"

I have tried everything I can think of with plate armor and not yet found a quick or completely satisfactory way to make it. It’s a pain. I nearly always make the plates smooth then add details with a separate piece of epoxy. I try to avoid trimming and polishing as it opens pores in the epoxy surface, though this is a good thing if I want to stick something to it. The most important thing is to apply the final coat of epoxy thin for control.

"do you do one layer and let it cure
completely before moving to the next?"

It depends how separate they are to appear. I’d always apply a paldron separately and I apply the knee and elbow pieces after I’ve made the underlying plates but not the segments in an arm piece or around a knee which lie very flat to each other.

Then some news about the Fox WWII line:

I am currently slogging my way through the three machine guns required to complete the release. I’m not sure if this is the most tedious and frustrating work I’ve ever had to do, it’s my experience the mind is not reliable in such judgments, I do know it seems like it. For those of you who don’t sculpt I can only describe it as being like having to go through your normal daily activities with boxing gloves on while being shocked with a tazer at random intervals. Nevertheless I have managed to get the American .30 caliber more or less done to an acceptable standard, that’s my thumbnail in the background.

Posted by Tom Meier at 07:44 | Comments (23) | Trackbacks (0)

The posting by Jim Ludwig of Darksword of the latest pictures of figures in the ‘Song of Ice and Fire’ range has brought up some interesting points about figures and photography I thought it might be useful to explore.

In figure #1 we see the difference in apparent proportions caused by different camera angles with respect to a figure. The level of the head and shoulders is the same but there is a gradual distortion as we go lower down until the hips appear to be in a quite different place. In a photo with no frame of reference it is difficult to tell the angle of the camera and how close to the figure the lens was. The effect is frequently to foreshorten the lower half of the figure without the viewer being aware of it.

The length of women’s legs is so regularly distorted in representations it is common, for men particularly, to think it normal for a woman’s legs to be a good deal more than half her height. In fact on average they are a bit less than half (see figure #2). High heeled shoes, which aid the illusion are a relatively recent invention, appearing for men in the mid 16th century (to help keep feet in stirrups) and adopted by women shortly thereafter, though in women’s case it was not to accentuate the legs, which were not exposed, but to increase overall height.

The third picture is a teaser for ser Loras.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Posted by Tom Meier at 12:39 | Comments (6) | Trackbacks (0)

Here is the outline of another of the classes I’ll be giving at Gencon and a picture of a 1/48 (35mm) figure I can’t say anything about.

1. Making small scale heads.

Why is there air - Ooook! Akkkk! Irrrp! … It’s yours - That’s just like my cat - 200mph


A: Representation and Perception of Features

Because I very rarely look like myself - You decide what color it should be

1. The limits of realism in scale

But what energy - exactly like that, but different - Pig Latin - Frog soup


2. Perception

I’m not shouting, I’m passionate - Balloon animals - mixed signals - Swimming, drowning, whatever

3. Structure and surface

‘Ow d’you cook it then - Falling water

B: Miniature portraits

Character portraits and individual portraits.

1. Fine tuning caricature

Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose

2. How the client sees himself

That’s not my butt - A picture is worth a thousand words or about 1/2 a Turkish lira


C: A brief introduction on general epoxy manipulation

Epoxy es nae fer pissin aboot, Jimmy - One big thing

1. Using epoxy, specifically Kneadatite.


I like Kneadatite - All you need is love, and some bits of wire (& if you are old, bifocals)

a. Time and planning.


How to eat an elephant - This looks like a good place to stop - symmetry in motion

b. Make epoxy’s peculiarities work for you.

Turn that frown upside down - It doesn’t matter I’m going to use it as a hammer - I’ve never seen anything like it

D: Techniques

Then bite their kneecaps - H. M. Womblebug - I can only see it’s eye

1: Thickness of epoxy

Ground effect - better living through chemistry - That’s close enough

2: Planning layers

It will look fine when it grows out - I shot the man working the machine - drink me


E: Demonstration of a method using the above principles


Postscript

The shoulders of guys of above average height.

Posted by Tom Meier at 07:57 | Comments (7) | Trackbacks (0)

I’m going to be giving some classes at Gencon this year. The last time I did this was at Origins a few years back and it didn’t work out very well. The problem was partly a lack of structure; I went into it with the idea of just answering questions, and partly the different levels of experience of the those attending the class. The beginners were bored by technical stuff they didn’t understand and the experienced sculptors were bored by simple beginner questions. Also no one seemed to know what they really wanted to know.

So this time I am going to give a more structured presentation of three classes, the first is for people with basic familiarity with the materials and procedures, it’s directed at common beginning problems. The latter two are ‘master classes’ addressing specific areas (faces and clothing) which seem to be difficult, even for sculptors of some experience.

Sculpture, even just the small portion I’m presenting, is a huge subject which a few hours is nothing like enough time to explain but I hope to be able to communicate something of value.

I’d like to give people who are considering taking a class with me some idea of what to expect. I can tell you it will not involve much demonstration of pushing putty. That is something you learn by practice and is perhaps the least difficult thing about sculpting. I have a bit to say about epoxy manipulation but not much. I expect everyone who attends to be familiar with the basics of miniature sculpting (what epoxy is like, what an armature is, how molds are made et) or to be content with confusion because I’m not going to explain stuff you can learn by reading one of the many introductory tutorials on the web.

Here’s an outline of the first class, the cryptic notes in italics are associations to jog my memory about what to say so you needn’t be worried if they don’t make any sense for you.

Introduction: Common problems with miniature sculpture.

An easy beginners guide to topological perception-cognition of lie transformation groups with respect to the neuropsychology of dynamic symmetry differential recognition and dialectical variance transformations - Don’t worry, it’s not nearly as interesting as it sounds - I’ll never forget what’s-his-name

A: A few things to keep in mind about epoxy manipulation and figure construction

Epoxy es nae fer pissin aboot, Jimmy - One big thing

1. Using epoxy, specifically Kneadatite.

And… it copies pictures from the funny pages - All you need is love and some bits of wire (& if you are old, bifocals)

a. Time and planning.

How to eat an elephant - This looks like a good place to stop - symmetry in motion

b. Make epoxy’s peculiarities work for you.

Turn that frown upside down - It doesn’t matter I’m going to use it as a hammer - I’ve never seen anything like it

2. Control structure, the armature.

Dem bones dem bones gotta walk around - I can see your house from here

a. Joints and measuring

Five easy spaces - Funny bones - Yes master, but when you look closer they’re all wonky

b. Gravity

The bearable heaviness of being - Waving or drowning- A good time to talk about camels

3. Control masses, fill.

a. Rigid, semisoft and soft masses

Knock on wood - In just seven days you can look like a condom stuffed with marbles - Ah is jus big boned

b. Gross muscle structure

It’s all connected - skin and bones - dynamo tension

4. Control surface, control depth

c. Blending

Avoiding the blivit - It’s just a figure of speech -
Where does this go

d. Detailing

When does it start feeling good - hooks and crooks - Take it easy, but take it

B: Fault as opposed to style:

1. Proportions

There’s not as much room as you think

a. The head, neck and shoulders

Three’s a crowd - Procrustes agonistes, - It hurts when I do this

b. The forearm and elbow

I’ll be a monkey’s uncle - Rollover - Where your lap goes when you stand up

c. Length of arms for different proportions

It goes round and round and it comes out here - Da Vinci and Spiderman

2. Clothes

Does this make me look fat

a. Cloaks

A multitude of sins - Winston Churchill’s pudding

b. Folds at joints

Ingenious fools - I want to be different, just like everybody else

c. Skirts

Well it has to go somewhere - A second helping

C: Extra Credit

1. Seeing what’s not there

Connecting the dots - M. C. Escher and you - the choir at the bottom of the sea

2. Vive la differance!

The power of cosmetics - Less is more and so is more

3. Looking real, realistic looking and looking realistically

Lots of numbers you won’t remember - how many dentists - a trip to the zoo

4. All you need to know about art

A&E spells re-dun-dan-cy - I’d be a fine soothsayer if I didn’t - The secret is to bang the rocks together

Here are some 1/48 heads, I’ve been making lots of WWII stuff but Jim Fox wants to save the pictures till they’re ready for release.

1/48 heads

Posted by Tom Meier at 13:32 | Comments (10) | Trackbacks (0)

So why aren’t figures made to scale? There are three classes of reasons.

-The creator would prefer to make them in scale but doesn’t.

This covers both deliberately making things out of scale for a compelling reason, such as durability or ease of manufacture and also just plain lack of skill or care in sculpting.

The compelling reasons used to be quite compelling, when figures were made of soft lead alloys anything smaller than 1/32 (54mm) really had to be distorted to have even minimal durability. Most companies since the early 1990s have switched to harder, stronger (and more expensive) non-lead alloys and the need for durability distortion has decreased considerably. While some distortion in non-lead alloy is required on 1/48 (35-36mm) and below for things like gun barrels and blade thickness it’s a fraction of what used to be needed in lead.

Lack of skill and lack of care can also have a compelling reason besides plain incompetence or laziness. Miniature sculpting for the wargame hobby pays very badly. Sculptors don’t really have the option of honing their skills and when they do they leave for the greener pastures of toy or gift-ware which pay two to three times as much. Lack of care can reflect the financial inability to spend enough time on the work. Getting a fine edge of finish on a figure can take two or three times as long as just throwing an adequate job together and you can bet you won’t be paid three times as much, nor will most customers be willing to pay much more for the figure. As with most consumer goods, marketing and price are the qualities which persuade most people to buy.

Larger companies which could more easily defray the higher cost of better sculpted models also have reason to keep the standard lower. They do not like to have key employees who would be difficult to replace. Businesses use the power of the labor market to keep wage costs down and maintain control of the workforce but for there to be a labor market there must be a pool of potential employees for every position, so it’s better from a management viewpoint to keep quality at a low enough standard so sculptors are disposable and easily replaced.

-The creator doesn’t want to make them in scale.

This is usually a stylistic choice, either because it’s thought to be more attractive to the consumer or to match existing products which were made in a distorted style for some reason. Not everyone wants scale model soldiers, some people prefer stylized figures. However I have to add, in my experience there are a lot of people who prefer realistic scale figures once they are exposed to them, particularly if they represent historical subjects, it’s just such models are rather thin on the ground for the reasons listed.

-The creator is confused about what scale is.

This is not uncommon and it’s one of the main reasons I’m taking the trouble to write these essays. There is an awful lot of misinformation out there and the correct answers are not obvious.

Here is another WWII figure in 1/48 (35mm) a U.S. Airborne.

Posted by Tom Meier at 10:49 | Comments (4) | Trackbacks (0)

Before I resume my essay on scale and proportion I’d like to let anyone who is interested in the 1/48 WWII figures know, Fox Miniatures, who will be selling these figures now has a preliminary site up for news, inquiries or just appreciation Jim Fox, who commissioned these figures is spending a lot of time and money to make this line the highest possible quality.
www.foxminiatures.com

Now back to the scheduled program.

Everything there is to know about scale and proportion in gaming figurines:

Part 2: Size, Scale and Proportion

Making a scale model of a particular human being is no different than making a scale model of a machine, you measure the original, do the arithmetic and make the figure to scale. Complications come in when you set about to make a representative human being to scale because people vary in size and proportions and what constitutes a representative example can be a matter of opinion. Artists from Lysippus to Leonardo and down to modern times have eschewed a scientific study of what people are actually like and have imposed scientifically inaccurate ideal representations which are so common as to distort our perception of ourselves. It is only with the advent of modern ergonomics that anyone has bothered to try and determine the true proportions and degrees of deviation in human populations.

Most human proportions important to the matter of making figures are distributed through a population according to a bell curve. That is to say the measurement or proportion has a given average and a certain variance which is distributed so 70% are within one variation and 95% are within two. Overall height for young males in the U.S for example has a variation of about 2.75" and an average of 5’10" so 70% of adult men are between about 5’7" and 6’.1", only one in 40 is over 6’4" or under 5’4".

What’s important to representation is how deviations from the average are perceived. Artists who want to make a representative model need to determine when the proportions of a figure stop looking characteristic and begin to look peculiar or even deformed. To some degree this perception is subjective, if you are 6’4" you would probably not describe someone as tall unless they were at least 6’2", whereas if you were 5’7" you might well start at 6’. Likewise with small figures it’s what you are used to looking at, a common distortion like oversized heads or feet can begin to look normal, or at least skew your sense of normalcy, if you see it all the time. It’s common for small metal figures to have a head to overall height ratio of 1/5 (they are five ‘heads’ tall) or lower but in real life 1/7 to 1/7.5 is normal and anything below 1/6 is very unusual in an adult.

People rely on contextual clues to perceive irregularity. In real life the context is everyday objects of known size and comparison to other people but when we look at a scaled presentation of a person, as in a photograph or on a television screen, we loose many contextual anchors and when we make scale models like gaming figures, we lose even more. To a certain degree there are contextual clues in the proportions of the body, the shorter a person is the larger his head is proportionally on average but this is a very fine distinction.

With small figures a difference in proportions or size outside the normal range of variability is what causes figures to seem incompatible in scale. About two standard deviations is enough to be obvious. With figures this amounts to about a head ratio or 10% of height - that is, a 30mm figure with a 1/7 head will begin to look incompatible with figures over 33mm or under 27mm and/or a head ratio over 1/6 or under 1/8. The mass of the figure is not as important, since it’s normal for people to vary by 100% in weight provided there is little variation in the proportions of their bone structure.

The pictures today are another German SS and an American regular infantry sergeant.

Posted by Tom Meier at 09:04 | Comments (14) | Trackbacks (0)

Everything there is to know about scale and proportion in gaming figurines:

I welcome correction to the following essays. These are the facts as best I can figure them out (no pun intended) from my own experiences and with the resources available to me but I do not delude myself into thinking it beyond the possibility of error - I will, of course, require some proof I am mistaken.

Definitions: Scale is the ratio between a given object and a model of that object, it is expressed as a fraction e.g. ¼, 1/1200. Proportion is the ratio of one part of a thing to another, also expressed as a fraction, as in a model of a human with a head 1/7 of his height. Size is the comparison of an object to an established unit of measurement and is expressed as a number followed by the unit designation e.g. 25mm (millimeters) or .95" (inches)

Part one: History

In the beginning people made models of things which were smaller or larger than life size, the things they made models of were organic in origin, people, animals, plants and so didn’t have a set size and there was no need for them to be compatible with anything so there was no need for the concept of scale. There was, from early on a concept of proportion, though this was constructed out of an ideal imposed on subjective experience rather than scientifically observed reality. That is the artist or someone just arbitrarily decided normal people ought to be 18 times the width of their hand tall, or have a certain proportion in the ‘golden mean’ they didn’t test a statistical sample and arrive at the conclusion people are on average 18 times the width of their hand tall or have a hand to forearm ratio of 1 to 1.618 (in fact they don’t).

So the first toy soldiers didn’t have scale, they were just made whatever size the manufacturer found convenient, they weren’t presented as being a particular size, there was no reason to.

With the advent of accurate models of machines, model trains specifically, the need for a scale began. A given machine is an exact size and two machines to be used together must be in the same scale to be compatible and run on the same rails. The first modern toy soldiers, dating from the end of the 19th century were made to conform to model train scales. They are commonly referred to nowadays by a size designation i.e. 54mm, which was railroad ‘I scale’ that is 1/32. The referring to them by size is an anachronism, that is it happened after they were made and had become popular, when they were made they were not so designated.

Vulcanized rubber mold spin-casting technology made it much cheaper to make small castings and the beginning of modern model soldier war-gaming called for ever larger armies and so figures got smaller. Again, model railroad scale or no designation of scale or size by the manufacturer was the rule. It was about this time however that many hobbyists to refer to model soldiers by size, 30mm, 54mm, this was probably because many figures were made by manufacturers ‘just the size we make um’ and the people in the nascent wargame community needed a way to communicate about the various manufacturers’ compatibility. The first to self-describe their figures by a size rather than a scale as far as I can determine was Jack Scruby, a hobbyist who began to manufacture smaller figures specifically for war-gaming in 1957 and called them 30mm. They were about 30mm overall height, soles of feet to the top of the head.

In 1964 Hinton Hunt has the distinction of making the first line of figures egregiously misrepresented as to size, they were marketed as ‘20mm’ but were actually about 25mm tall to the top of the head, (20mm was their approximate measurement to the chest).

Jack Scruby made a compatible line he called ‘25mm’, to reflect their true size and it was in this size Minifigs later made their figures, which came to dominate gaming (which was all historical at that time) by the early 1970’s when the fantasy gaming explosion hit.

The first relatively widely used fantasy figures were made by Minifigs, though many others swiftly followed suit. Fantasy has the peculiarity of having many non-human imaginary creatures of no set size, as well as exaggerated humans. At first fantasy figures were relatively restrained, made to be compatible with existing historical figures, (which generally had certain minor distortions for better durability in the soft lead alloy they were then cast of, thicker ankles, bigger hands and wrists) but the tendency in fantasy was always to increasingly exaggerate proportion and size. The changes in the materials used to make figures at this time only added to the tendency. Fantasy gamers quickly grew to outnumber historical gamers several times over as the average age of miniature gamers dropped. There was ever more economic pressure, changing the way figures were designed, from models trying to reproduce reality preferred by older historical gamers to the fanciful caricatures designed to appeal to the imagination of younger fantasy fans. Eventually the caricature style which originated with fantasy found it’s way into historical figures and the line between scale model figures and cartoon-like toy figures which had briefly begun to define itself, was blurred.

Which brings us pretty much up to date.

Here are some pictures of the new Goblin standard pack, I will be molding it in the next few days.

Posted by Tom Meier at 21:03 | Comments (11) | Trackbacks (0)

From time to time Carin comes up with an idea of something for me to sculpt. I’ve got to admit I don’t often find these ideas practical or interesting and have refused so many the weight of it began to lie heavy upon me if you know what I mean and anyone who is married almost certainly does.

So when she came up with an, ahem, rather unusual and not impracticable idea I weighed my options and considering the project she had in mind wasn’t the sort that takes long or involves much effort I decided to whip it up.

So here it is… an anime Japanese schoolgirl with a hamster gun.

She’s about 1/24 or 2.5" (60mm) tall. We’ll probably be auctioning her off.

Posted by Tom Meier at 20:46 | Comments (8) | Trackbacks (0)

The French and Indian war figures I tried to cast in with a master mold didn’t work, so they will not be available for at least another month. The Iroquois had registration problems, probably because of the mixed weight of figures around it, only a few were acceptable and I never did get a good casting of the French officer. In the one pictured you can see the left lapel of his coat did not fill properly. The ranger worked pretty well but I’ll wait till the bugs in the others are fixed to release him.

The picture is product with a rather heavy coat of spray primer, this is what they will look like except for the French Officers coat.

Also pictured, my sculpting tools. These are what I do nearly everything with on figures 54mm and below. The only other tools I have are some circle punches, a sharp hobby scalpel and some pliers and clippers.

Posted by Tom Meier at 09:26 | Comments (13) | Trackbacks (0)

Dennis Chang wrote:

"I'm not sure if ANY complaints or disappointment has anything to do with the fact that it comes as a prepaint vs a kit. I had thought it came as both?"

There are several reasons why the ‘Ruby Ford’ diorama is not suited to being sold as a finished piece or shipped once assembled.

Assembly: the overall figure design and placement of joints was for ease of casting and to limit the effects of mold distortion, that is to say, to make the figures in the minimum number of parts consistent with a good looking, easy to cast figure, rather than for assembled strength, ease of soldering or disguising solder joins. The whole design from start to finish was created without taking factory assembly into account because I was told Testors were making larger resin figures for the gift market and the 54mm figures would be sold as kits.

Shipping: aside from the inherent delicacy of the extremities, the fairly heavy figures have only two points of contact with the very large heavy base, a grievous flaw as this makes the ankles the point of stress when the object is dropped unless it is packed so that it absolutely can not move in any direction, problematical given the complex shape of the object. In other words if the box the figure is in is dropped, even if the figure does not contact the side of the box and have something break off or get dinged, the side of the figure which is closest to the point of impact of the box will stop but the rest of the figure will spend it’s momentum by stressing the figure, if this stress point is the ankles or some other weak point, they will bend. The only certain way to avoid this is to pack the figure so that it can not move at all, as with small foam beads. I suggested this to Testors but they didn’t want to because it makes a mess when you open the box.

Here are some pictures of the French Grenadier caricature I showed the head of earlier, it’s 1/35, about two inches (50mm) tall to the top of it’s head.

Posted by Tom Meier at 09:41 | Comments (7) | Trackbacks (0)

To clarify a few points and answer questions:

‘Valiant’ is Valiant Enterprises Ltd. of Madison WI, they are, as far as I know doing molds and casting for Testors.

Testors did eventually do a demo with the 1/48 figures I made but it was the year after I had to rush to get them done. That first invoice by the way was paid in 30 days.

A headache yes but only in degree, that is to say I went in expecting it to be difficult. With the exception of most of the work I did for Hasbro who had a sculptor in charge of the design department (imagine that!) with enough clout and moral fortitude to go to bat against and so limit executive silliness, work for large companies with tiers of organization is always a problem.

I am out of pocket, so to speak, for a rather substantial amount of work, partly because I was trying to get the project going and took it on myself to make studies and samples which may turn out to have been a waste of time. I’m not upset about it just a bit disappointed. The only part that bothers me is to read of all the dissatisfaction people have had with the ‘Ruby Ford’ because of it being sold as a finished piece rather than a model kit.

The French and Indian war figures will be $5 each but the supply will be very irregular as I’m just going to throw them in master molds to fill up space so they’ll be available in fits and starts 20-30 at a time.

Here’s a picture of the half finished Ser Loras in 1/32 (54mm), the famous forget-me-not cloak is not complete and so not pictured and also one of the non-combatant Night Watch guys in 1/48 (35mm), he’s not meant to be any particular character.

Posted by Tom Meier at 10:59 | Comments (9) | Trackbacks (0)

Here’s my history with Testors and the situation as I understand it I think it’s an instructive story from several perspectives.

A couple of years ago Mike Butterworth from Testors contacted me about making 54mm and gaming figures for George R. R. Martin’s ‘Ice and Fire’ series of books. He said it was to be a large project, wanted to buy at least half my time and would pay the going rate for toy work. To be exact when I speak of Testors below my only contact with that organization until recently was through Mike Butterworth.

I was unfamiliar with the books but my wife had read them and said they were good and the characters were basically middle ages costume with fantasy elements. I subsequently listened to them all on tape and agreed with Carin’s assessment, a good read by any standard and outstanding in the fantasy genre. The best part from the view of making larger sculpture was the very strong characters.

From this point my main problem was trying to understand what, exactly I was supposed to make. This is a very common situation. I have worked for companies large and small for over thirty years and the main difficulty I have is always figuring out what the customer actually wants. In the best case, as for example most of the work I’ve done for Hasbro, you are told very specifically what to make and given materials enough to get a clear idea of a project which is sculpturally feasible. Another acceptable situation is where you are given little guidance but the customer relies on your judgment and is content with whatever you make. In the latter case I still try to figure out what they want but I’m generally successful and it’s an interesting problem.

Difficulties occur when the customer doesn’t know what they want and is uncommunicative, wants a contradiction or something which can’t be produced in sculpture, changes their mind or has an organization afflicted with the thumbprint syndrome. The thumbprint syndrome is when managers must approve work and demand changes (their thumbprint) for no other reason than they must be seen to have had some input to justify their salary.

So with Testors I set about trying to grasp exactly what they wanted. The first thing I checked was who and how the figures would be approved, since this turned out to be George Martin I opened a channel of communication. He turned out to be almost too easy to work with, my only difficulty being he was so agreeable it was hard to read his stylistic preferences. He wanted 54mm figures of his characters to be a sort of modernized version of his collection of classic toy knights.

That was the easy part, figuring out what Testor’s wanted was the trouble.

After being asked to reserve a huge block of time I got no order. I was sent some useless scrap (working instructions, models, artwork et.) with no parameters but not given any work order. I was required to invest an absurd amount of time trying to figure out what I was supposed to be doing. Finally I decided it would be less trouble just to make something in the hope that with an actual model to look at Testors would come to some sort of conclusion, I was often called on to make objects for Hasbro just for the executives to pass around at meetings to help them make up their minds, though of course these were ordered by Hasbro.

So I made the figure of Jon Snow and Ghost. The design being a mix of ideas to give an example of different options. Everyone seemed to like it but it didn’t help to resolve anything. Then I got a call to hurry up and make as many 1/48 gaming figures as I could and have 100 samples of them for Gencon in two months. I worked around the clock ( I had my own work for Gencon as well) to make ten figures and cast the samples. My understanding was, there was to be a demo of a skirmish game, but that didn’t happen.

There followed more months of dithering and confusion I made some studies of heads for characters, a horse and other bits (without direction from Testors) in the expectation of these giving me a useful jump when things finally got going.

Then it was decided to start making 54mm figures in kit form as dioramas and individual figures in metal starting at the beginning of the story and working forward. Robert and Reahgar at Ruby Ford is the most appropriate early scene so I made a somewhat compromised diorama (because of the required dual use). I also made the master sets because Testors were unsure at the time who would do the manufacturing.

Then I didn’t get paid for four months, during which time they changed their mind and decided to sell the ‘Ruby Ford’ as a finished pewter diorama, a purpose for which the design was unsuited.

I was finally paid for ‘Ruby Ford’ and told to send on the ‘Jon Snow and Ghost’ study I had done earlier.

Then I wasn’t paid for that for three months… but in the mean time, told to make more 54mm figures (a foot version of Ser Loras at the Hand’s Tourney) and some more 1/48 Night Watch, (halfway through which I was told to switch emphasis from fighters to non-combatants). I made five 1/48’s and half finished Ser Loras and stopped when payment for the Jon Snow and Ghost diorama hadn’t come after 60 days.

Finally I was paid for Jon Snow and Ghost and asked to hurry up and modify the Ruby Ford to make it easier for it to be soldered together (such changes would help some but not solve the fundamental problem of it not being designed for the use). Since the changes were not any fault of mine I required to be paid and given the recent difficulties I told them I expected a purchase order or some other assurance payment would happen in a reasonable time. No such order has been forthcoming and so there it lies.

Since then Mike Butterworth has left Testors and I have been contacted by a consultant retained by the company who seems knowledgeable and efficient (though I still haven’t gotten an order to rework ‘Ruby Ford’). A few days ago I was asked to forward the original ten 1/48 figures to Valiant and despite the situation as regards unpaid outstanding work I did.

My sympathies to all those frustrated by dealings with Testors, I don’t know who’s to blame for the situation but I think it’s clearly not me and as far as I can see it’s not George.

Here’s another 1/48 French and Indian War Figure, an American ranger. With a bit of luck I may be able to do some kind of limited release of these later this month.

Posted by Tom Meier at 14:04 | Comments (9) | Trackbacks (0)

I thought I’d drop a line on the situation with Testors for everyone who has been waiting on the Ice &Fire figures. They have had another shake out and the whole project and situation is again uncertain. I don’t think the work I’ve done will be wasted but there is no telling how long it will be before they are produced in some form. Sorry, but I have no influence on the situation.

For all the people who have asked about the Nativity set this could be good news as I will have more time to work on it. Please be aware however that a single 1/32 figure can take more than a week to complete and I still have lots of other commitments.

The pictures today are of a French officer for the French and Indian War line I work on from time to time to amuse myself and hope to one day enjoy with my son. It’s 1/48 or about 35mm tall.

This line will not be made for some time unless I win the lottery, which is highly unlikely as I don’t buy tickets.

Posted by Tom Meier at 09:45 | Comments (10) | Trackbacks (0)

A few words about chainmail in answer to an e-mail enquiry:

"I'm encountering a problem getting my chainmail finer and cleaner and was
wondering if you could provide a few pointers or suggestions."

The method I most commonly use for chainmail is to make a foundation so the final coating of epoxy is a consistent thickness which depends on the size of the rings, too thick and you run into the problems you describe, too thin or inconsistent depth and you don’t have enough material to form the ring and have it settle in place. You want enough material so it settles but doesn’t blur or bleed into the previous row.

I find a tool with a slightly bent, flattened end (again diameter depending on the size of ring you want to do) gives the most control.

"I'm assuming the bend in the tools just makes it easier to use"

Yes, it makes the angle more comfortable and easier to see the ring form as you make it.

"Are there any techniques to make it easier or is it just practice?"

Both, the techniques take time and so the ideal is to dispense with them eventually so you have more time for pulling rings. Try applying the putty in strands which you then blend, also a very fine probe like the point of a needle pushed through the final coat in places will tell you how thick it is and you can correct it before you start pulling rings.

The important thing about practice it to get the best feedback for the time spent practicing. Design practice so the feedback shows you the error clearly, as it occurs and you will learn most quickly.

The pictures are from a Nativity and Epiphany set I plan to make over the next couple years in 1/32. It’s not available this year unfortunately.

Posted by Tom Meier at 20:44 | Comments (10) | Trackbacks (0)

The perennial question of how to measure figure for comparison has cropped up again over on the Miniatures Page so I thought I’d give an exhaustive examination here where there is more room.

To start let’s roughly examine ‘normal’ human proportions, by this I mean the rage into which at least 98% of people fall. According to statistics gathered by the U.S. army for the purpose of designing equipment the average modern man is about 5’10" (1.7m) his height is about seven times the height of his head with the ‘normal’ range being 6.5 to 7.5 his hands are about 4" across the palm with a normal range of 3.75 to 4.5" though this can vary with development a surprising amount. The normal range for hand proportions is about 15 to 19 hands equals overall height.

I’d like to make it very clear I am not in any way saying these are the proportions in which small figures SHOULD be made, there are several very good reasons for departing from them but they are useful as a baseline.

Other proportions; ‘normally’ the bones of the thigh and leg are roughly the same length and the bone of the upper arm is about the length of the forearm bones plus half the width of the palm. There is a good bit of variation in proportion of overall leg length to height (though not as much as many people seem to think)but the hip joint is roughly the average mid point for European males (women actually have slightly shorter legs on average).

Now the problems of measurement and comparison. It’s easy enough to say measure this and compare to that but the fact is accurate measurement requires some skill and no little understanding.

The fist problem is where to measure to. It is not very accurate to measure to the middle of joints because of the way joints move, see the illustration ‘elbow’.

This leads to the problem of position, see illustration ‘posture’. The best way to measure is to add up the lengths of the component bones and joints but this requires some understanding of anatomy and frankly, if you can do that you can probably estimate just as accurately. Head position is important as well when considering how a figure’s eye height relates to overall height, another reason why measuring to the eyes makes no sense since it introduces more potential inaccuracy and requires as much estimation as measuring overall height. The eyes are approximately in the middle of the head, it varies about an inch (see illustration ‘proportions’)and depends on what you consider to be a head held ‘level’ ,since the head pivots at the back, and also on the shape of the skull.

As far as compatibility goes it is not the ‘heft’ of the figure, the diameter of the limbs and torso or even within reason the height, which makes two figures look wrong next to each other it is the difference in proportions, particularly the relative size of the head and hands. A figure with thicker limbs will simply look stout but one of similar height with a 1/5 head will look wrong next to a 1/7 head.

Here’s another German as well.

Posted by Tom Meier at 11:08 | Comments (8) | Trackbacks (0)