>>10888845>"Scale" is actually surprisingly complicated.It's not.
It's only complicated if you don't give a shit, like ML, various Japanese companies, and McFarlane.
That Spiderman is only as tall as he is because of body reuse, which is what people like to call "scale creep" for the ML line.
DCC had a pretty consistent scale for various lines (across various styles) and Toy Biz did as well (at and to a point). Hasbro's Star Wars line has (had?) a pretty consistent scale. Why? Because they all focused on having a single style, but mostly because larger budgets to give more characters unique bodies.
And yeah, style will make their proportions all different, making them look taller or shorter, but most companies solved this issue with the creation of bucks in the 1900s. Today, it's seriously not that hard with digital sculpting or just planning shit out. In the 90s, they started accounting for every little bit of space that can be used for the molds, so they're already planning shit out with those measurements.
>>10888879Scale has been a thing since forever with toys (minis, dolls, cars from early 1900s and earlier than that). 3.75" was big in the 80s and early 90s, where toys were based on that height instead of 1/18. 5" became the prominent scale for the 90s. In the 00s, there were various military vehicle toy companies who pushed their 1:18 military action figures pretty hard, before GI Joe made a come back.
Whether any of these lines actually said it on the package is rather moot, because internally and in marketing, they were 1/12, 7", 3.75", 5", 1:18, etc etc scale.
