discussion Scale indicator, which way is correct? eg: / or :

[pjgtech]

When you (and others) are stating what scale the model is, some have it like this...

1/35

and some have it like this...

1:35

So which is the "correct" way, and if so why?

....or does it really not matter.

As I don't know which one is the "correct" one, I tend to flip / flop and switch between using both, but the OCD in me wants to know which way I SHOULD be doing it!

 

[Steven000]

The "/" comes from math and the ":" from technical drawings, I prefere to use the "/" but the ":" seems the be the standard if you want to get serious

 

[pjgtech]

The "/" comes from math and the ":" from technical drawings, I prefere to use the "/" but the ":" seems the be the standard if you want to get serious

Well thats no good, get off the bloody fence man!

 

[davecov]

I've been using "/" for over fifty years when it comes to model scales, even though I did get a GCE in Technical Drawing and I ain't changing now!

Dave

 

[Tim Marlow]

I end to use both interchangeably, mostly because I simply don’t think about it. However, as I usually do figures my go to is mm……

 

[pjgtech]

When I did technical drawing at college, then later my C&G in AutoCAD, and later still when I did floor plans on CAD as a Surveyor, few years back, I'm pretty sure we always put the scale using ":", eg: 1:50 or 1:100, etc.
Just was not sure if there was an accepted convention for scale model kits, but looks like there is not, so....

 

[yak face]

I tend to use / rather than : , no real reason . On the kit boxes most makers use the slash , as far as I can tell only Airfix use the colon and then at certain periods they have used the slash too .

 

[stillp]

A colon indicates a ratio, a slash indicates a fraction. For a static comparison there's no difference.
Pete

 

[pjgtech]

A colon indicates a ratio, a slash indicates a fraction. For a static comparison there's no difference.
Pete

Hmm, interesting, so a ratio compares quantities or sizes or parts, whereas a fraction (generally) represents a part of a larger whole.
So, (arguably) IMHO the ratio is a better description of a scale model, as it is comparing the size of the (generally smaller) whole scale model, to the whole real thing.
Whereas, we are not really describing a part of a larger part, eg: we may be building a half or 1:2 scale plane, but we are not literally building half of the plane!, eg: the front half, or the rear half, or the top half, we are building the whole thing, but at half scale or 1:2.

Based on the above I think the ratio - : - is the better way to describe scale rather than the fraction.

 

[Neil]

Just to throw a spanner in the works. I see there is a thread started for a Matchbox Lynx - and the box art in there shows 1-72

 

[pjgtech]

Just to throw a spanner in the works. I see there is a thread started for a Matchbox Lynx - and the box art in there shows 1-72

Yep, thats mine,..... but I didn't want to mention it, Lol....

 

[stillp]

Hmm, interesting, so a ratio compares quantities or sizes or parts, whereas a fraction (generally) represents a part of a larger whole.
So, (arguably) IMHO the ratio is a better description of a scale model, as it is comparing the size of the (generally smaller) whole scale model, to the whole real thing.
Whereas, we are not really describing a part of a larger part, eg: we may be building a half or 1:2 scale plane, but we are not literally building half of the plane!, eg: the front half, or the rear half, or the top half, we are building the whole thing, but at half scale or 1:2.

Based on the above I think the ratio - : - is the better way to describe scale rather than the fraction.

Well, you'd never build 1/72 of a Spitfire, but every dimension of the Airfix kit is 1/72 of the original. Both : and / are correct for a model.

 

[PaulTRose]

I tend to use /........ Dont know why, always have and im too old to change now...... And on my keyboard both symbols are next to each other lol

 

[davecov]

There was a time when Airfix did without the "1/" completely:

I doubt that anybody would think that the contents would be 600 times greater than the original subject...

Dave