In a recent topic over at Hyperscale, there was a discussion of someone using the phrase “one true scale” in regards to 1/72nd scale. I offered this response, which I share now here, in the hopes of furthering the cause for modelers of all things esoteric, ridiculous, and other big words I can’t come close enough to spelling for even a spell checker to correct me.
Strictly speaking, they’re all “false scales”, I suppose. The one true scale is 1:1, because that represents the actual object. So the actual object is the only “true scale”.
Of course, “false scale” carries such a negative connotation with it, as if it were a liar or politician or an angry goat rampaging about causing mischief.
I propose we use the term “scale facsimile of the actual object in its original true scale”, or SFOTAOITOTS, which, for ease of use, should be pronounced sa-FO-ta-we-tots, with a soft “a” in the first syllable, hard o in the second, a soft a in the third syllable, a long e in the fourth, and a soft o in the fifth. The emphasis should be on the second syllable, unless you normally pronounce “DEcals” as “deKals”, in which case it is acceptable, but not mandatory, to shift emphasis to the third syllable.
Of course, this is assuming your given language is English, so other languages are left free to determine the proper pronunciation based on the given grammar rules and laws governing your particular language. However, adopting either of of the accepted English conventions as-is for use in your own language is fully acceptable, unless it’s not fully acceptable, and then, of course, it’s not acceptable, and you need to determine another way to pronounce it.
Now, of course, if enough votes were garnered, through a democratic process, to declare 1/72 scale as THE TRUE SCALE, then of course that would be acceptable also. However, a major obstacle to this would be the fact that all other scales would need to be reworked in relation to that.
For instance, in a system where 1/72 scale is the true scale, it would then be 1/1, so all objects formerly called 1/1 would then become 72/1. Modeling scales would need to be adjusted accordingly, as would all systems of measurement, which otherwise would be horribly out of scale by orders of magnitude.
I’m not sure the effect it would have on the garment industry. For sizes of a particular numeric size- say a US shoe size of 12, I suppose it would remain the same. However, if, for instance, a clothing size were expressed in inches, say the neck size on shirt, it would need to be recalculated to be within the new system. So a neck size of 14 inches, for example, would come out to 1008 inches, if my math is correct, thus relabeling would be needed.
Of course, this would also require a massive marketing effort, on a scale which has probably never been attempted. (And given the new paradigm in scaling we are proposing, it would be, at a minimum, 72 times bigger than any other previous attempt, at a minimum.)
All of this, I believe, would require a working committee, under UN auspices I suppose, to work out the many details. It will require a great deal of thankless work and effort, and probably many years of toil, but I believe the efforts could prove beneficial, on a scale we literally have never seen before.
I would love to help, of course, but I have a model to build. In 1/48 scale, as it were. (Though I’m not sure what it will be under the new system.)
Please do keep me appraised of the progress of this effort. I ask no reward in return. I am simply happy to contribute to the advancement of man’s quest for scalar happiness.