Notes on Reviewing Miniature Figures

Hi, all.  Walter O'Hara here, the GO miniatures reviewer.  I've just received my first shipment of minis to review for the GO site.  As I was unpacking the box, I realized that there is such a wide variance in the size, heft, and quality of miniatures that would I need to establish an body of metrics for judging miniatures by.  Hopefully you're so awed by my casual use of the word "metrics" that you won't realize this is just a fancy-schmancy term for a "yardstick."   Can you tell I'm a consultant in real life?

The first rule of doing anything well is to see if there's somebody who thought of it first.  Fortunately, in this instance there was.  Mr. Toby Barrett, philosopher, gentleman, sculptor, ACW Naval Enthusiast (and, important to this article frequent contributor to the Courier Magazine) is the head of the one-man band operation known as Thoroughbred Miniatures.  If you haven't seen Thoroughbred ACW Minis, visit the website, they are a treat.   Toby often wrote for the miniature wargame magazine COURIER in the past, frequently expressing confusion and frustration with the incredible scale variance between two figures that purport to be cast in the same scale.  So, at editor Dick Bryant's suggestion, Toby developed what's commonly referred to as the Barrett Measurement Scale (BMS).  Toby's scale is quote widely in the hobby press, even if his initial goals in creating it were more modest than what has developed later.

The BMS measures a figure from the bottom of the foot to the eyes. The stand itself is omitted in the measurement, however, an over thick stand should be noted in any review. The eye level was chosen simply because it was impossible to establish the top of the head of figures due to the fact that so many different caps, helmets, and headdresses were being wore thus obscuring the top of the head. This measurement (in millimeters) can best be derived by choosing a figure standing reasonably tall and straight versus bending over. A second - and more abstract - value is assigned to the figures heft; light - L, medium - M, or heavy - H, and only describes how thin or chunky the figure appears. (These codes basically match what is used today in describing a man's build, light, medium or heavy.) Thus, a 26H rating means the figure is 26 millimeters in height from bottom of the foot to the level of the eyeballs, and is relatively a thick casting when compared to most figures....... 19L means 19 millimeters and a light or thin casting.....and so on. The heftiness rating is more arbitrarily derived. (Toby's words, from a recent email) 

We will adopt the BMS as a method of reviewing miniatures (hopefully) somewhat objectively.  To recap, the data elements we capture for reviews are:

Height (BMS): A numeric value derived from measuring the figure with a ruler (a number)
Heft (BMS): An subjective value that the reviewer assigns meaning how "chunky" the figure is (L,M or H)
Thick Stands (Y/N)? Does the figure come with a thick stand, thus affecting its overall height measure? (Y or N)

To this lot I will also add a few of my own:

Quality: Defined as the physical quality of the casting... any flashing that needs cleaning? Did the piece arrive intact?  Anything missing? (1-5 on where 5 means "Best")

Proportion: Is the figure proportioned correctly?  Are all body parts in scale with each other?  (1-5 on where 5 means "Totally in Proportion", 1 means "Disjointed and Wacky")

Line: Is this miniature part of a supported series?  Will there be more of them?  (narrative answer)

Sculpting: Is the figure animated correctly, based upon the description of what the figure is supposed to be doing?  Is the sculpture crude, or detailed?  Does the artist convey what the designer's intent? (narrative answer)

Painting: Any difficulties painting?  Are there painting resources included with the minis (or available separately?) (narrative answer)

That's that.  Hopefully the adoption of an objective set of metrics will make miniatures easier to review, not harder!