OFFICIAL "How to tell scale" Thread

[foxilized]

Hey! I have a catalogue of the Carnegies and there it says the Spino figure is 1:70 !!!!!

How's that?

[brontodocus]

Sept 2, 2010 13:38:34 GMT foxilized said:

Hey! I have a catalogue of the Carnegies and there it says the Spino figure is 1:70 !!!!!

How's that?

In the 2010 catalogue the new Carnegie Spinosaurus is listed as 1:40 scale. Is your catalogue from last year? I remember something like that but can't find my 2009 catalogue at the moment. Anyway, they didn't mean to say the new Carnegie Spino was 1:70 scale.

[sbell]

Sept 2, 2010 15:15:33 GMT brontodocus said:

Sept 2, 2010 13:38:34 GMT foxilized said:

Hey! I have a catalogue of the Carnegies and there it says the Spino figure is 1:70 !!!!!

How's that?

In the 2010 catalogue the new Carnegie Spinosaurus is listed as 1:40 scale. Is your catalogue from last year? I remember something like that but can't find my 2009 catalogue at the moment. Anyway, they didn't mean to say the new Carnegie Spino was 1:70 scale.

The catalogue I have--right in front of me--says 1:70, but I am pretty sure that is a typo. As for the size, the figure is listed at 14.75" long and 6.25" high. So do the math (using 1:40) and it turns out that they assumed ~49' in length. Or 98' long and the 1:70 is correct (imagine the size of that skull!?).

[foxilized]

Yeah my catalogue is 2010 too. The 1:70 must definitely be a typo because the length they claim the Spino was is 46-56 ft, as they say in the info card.

[brontodocus]

You know what's really strange? With my last shipping from a German shop two weeks ago I received the 2010 catalogue I was looking at just after foxilized wrote 1:70. I have another one from the same seller which I thought would be identical and there it's 1:70. That one is from a parcel about two months ago. So it seems they already corrected it. Other than that, they seem both identical (unless we find something else like this).

[rsknol]

Hi,

keep in mind size estimates for Spinosaurus and several other dinosaurs having been going up. Liopleurodon is another that has suffered size inflation. peolpe want to see big dinos. We do not have complete skeletons and some partial finds "attributed" to both animals are real big. So which is the artist using? For a strict museum figure we perhaps should only use estimates from reasonably complete figures? Then we would have few figures. I like 1/40 scale and if it is less than the max size of 1/4o scale estimate then I think it is compatiable.

thanks randy

[primeval12]

is there an esyer way???

[lyleblosser]

Just my own two cents here about measuring.

I have found it easier (for me) to use a cotton string or piece of yarn with some of that "sticky tack" (or even some masking tape). I secure one end of the string to the tip of the snout, then work my way back toward the tail, placing the string (with additional tape/tack as needed) along what I'm perceiving as the vertebral column central location. Then once I get to the tip of the tail, I use a final tape/tack placement to mark that. Then I can remove the string, straighten it out, and lay it on/beside a ruler to get the length. (I know I am disregarding the extra length that is added by involving some extra distance due to the curve of the animals rib cage for certain animals, but that, in my opinion, is minimized if you measure as close to the top of the back as possible. And that's really only for a few animals like ouranosaurus, as discussed previously.)

This is much easier (for me at least) than trying to use the ruler directly. It's even slightly easier than using one of those flexible fabric measuring tapes although I suppose you could use one of those in a similar manner, if you can get tape/tack to stick to it, to save the step of laying it next to a ruler. My difficulty is because my flexible measuring tape has a laminated surface and keeping the thing secured as desired is problematic.

Once I have the measurement, then I use one of the scale formulas as discussed above to calculate the scale of the beastie.

[sfstudios]

Jun 28, 2010 22:04:38 GMT brontodocus said:

I thought it'd be better to show an illustration of what I mean:

The red line goes from the snout to the tip of the tail following the vertebral centra. Obviously, if this line was stretched out it would not be far longer than the direct line but I guess about one head length longer. And it's also why I think I won't be able to measure without some error and why I prefer to have skeletal drawings at hand. And: In this case it is also obvious that I'm not talking about huge differences between direct line and length along vertebral centra. There are probably many who find it neglectable, since often it's only like 10% more than the direct line but I won't neglect that.

THIS IS CORRECT AND SIMPLE ,YES BRONTO THIS IS EXACTLY HOW YOU MEASURE AND ANIMALS TRUE LENGTH. THANKS.