Lead Adventure Forum

Miniatures Adventure => Pulp => Topic started by: Trysop on June 25, 2008, 11:45:58 AM

Title: Size Comparison of Pulp and Copplestone minis
Post by: Trysop on June 25, 2008, 11:45:58 AM
Hello all,

I was wondering if any of you who have seen both first hand, and ideally side by side, could advise me on the compatibility of the Pulp Miniatures and Copplestone Back of Beyond ranges please.

Both have minis that I am thinking about getting for a tomb robbing / archaeological expedition game I would like to do but I just want to be sure they match up ok in terms of size and general compatibility.

Thanks for your help.
Title: Re: Size Comparison of Pulp and Copplestone minis
Post by: Doomhippie on June 25, 2008, 12:35:45 PM
Copplestone is a bit larger. But they still go well together. If you are picky, you won't be happy. For me both are okay together.
Title: Re: Size Comparison of Pulp and Copplestone minis
Post by: Johnnytodd on June 25, 2008, 07:46:03 PM
Here's a photo of Pulp's US Navy sailor and a Copplestone aviator.  The Pulp figs (at least the sailors) are noticeably smaller than the other Copplestones I have seen:

(http://usera.imagecave.com/john_pierson/pulp.JPG)
Title: Re: Size Comparison of Pulp and Copplestone minis
Post by: Trysop on June 25, 2008, 08:00:36 PM
thanks for the side by side picture, it is very helpful.

I am afraid that I am one of those people who is a bit to anally retentive about mixing manufacturers sometimes, I don't mind a bit of size variation but when there is a noticeable difference across the ranges it can be frustrating for me, so I usually end up sticking to just the one manufacturer for a project which can be rather limiting.

I am not sure what to do now both have bits I like....

I shall have to ponder some more  ;)

Cheers for the help :)
Title: Re: Size Comparison of Pulp and Copplestone minis
Post by: Mosstrooper on June 25, 2008, 08:27:57 PM
You could always mount the smaller figure on a slightly thicker base to bring them both to the same height .
Title: Re: Size Comparison of Pulp and Copplestone minis
Post by: whisperin_al on June 25, 2008, 09:20:47 PM
I also have Pulp and Copplestone but as I use them for skirmish gaming rather than massed battles I find any size difference disappears when they on the table.  For massed units I would recommend sticking to one manufacturer as, despite real people being different sizes and shapes, variability can look at little odd.  Of course a consistent basing scheme can disguise a multitude of sins!
Title: Re: Size Comparison of Pulp and Copplestone minis
Post by: Captain Blood on June 25, 2008, 11:16:36 PM
I confess I only have a couple of Pulp figures, but large amounts of Copplestone.
For me, the Copplestone figures are a class apart - but I appreciate it's largely a matter of personal taste.
It's not just the size difference - they are stylistically very different. Interestingly, both sculptors have a rather 'cartoony' / caricature approach, but whilst Copplestone's figures look like they belong in a graphic novel, Pulp's are more pure comic book. The Copplestone figures are more varied and dynamically posed. The Pulp figures are generally in more staid postures and more chunky in appearance.

Pays yer money and takes yer choice. Personally, I don't think they mix too well, but I'm another of those anal types that prefers to keep a similar look and size to any figures sharing a tabletop. 
Title: Re: Size Comparison of Pulp and Copplestone minis
Post by: joroas on June 26, 2008, 12:01:20 AM
I just bought a load of Steve Barber prohibition Wars and realised they are a head shorter than Artizan and Pulp.  I forsee a trip to EBay and an order to Canada shortly.
Title: Re: Size Comparison of Pulp and Copplestone minis
Post by: Wirelizard on June 26, 2008, 01:57:28 AM
I've got half a dozen Copplestone figures and forty+ Pulp Figures; the Pulp ones are slightly chunkier, but not much. Both are well within the range of normal human variation, really - can't see why you wouldn't mix them on the table.
Title: Re: Size Comparison of Pulp and Copplestone minis
Post by: dodge on June 26, 2008, 05:18:05 AM
I've got half a dozen Copplestone figures and forty+ Pulp Figures; the Pulp ones are slightly chunkier, but not much. Both are well within the range of normal human variation, really - can't see why you wouldn't mix them on the table.

I generally agree with wirelizard having amounts of both types.

However my friend has a red standard bearer from copplestone that looks like a giant compared to the german seebattalion from pulp. Luckily they may not need to be on the table at the same time but that just shows the varaiation in a single manufacturer beacause that standard bearer also looks large compared to my copplestone chinese.

I try not to worry too much.
Title: Re: Size Comparison of Pulp and Copplestone minis
Post by: Poliorketes on June 26, 2008, 07:52:46 AM
Size of minis isn't that great a problem, but size of weapons is. Especially the Thompsons and BARs from Copplestone are much larger, up to one third (!)
Title: Re: Size Comparison of Pulp and Copplestone minis
Post by: Trysop on June 26, 2008, 08:18:28 AM
I am glad to see that it isn't just me who is wracked by scale comparison doubts when it comes to mixing minis from different manufacturers  :)

Poliorketes, good point about the weapons, its is very likly that is what can make similar scale and sized minis look "odd" together even when comparible in size and proportion, but that is not very obvious at a first look.






Title: Re: Size Comparison of Pulp and Copplestone minis
Post by: Ray Rivers on June 26, 2008, 08:53:32 AM
I agree with ya'll that the Copplestone minis are by far the best in quality, oweing almost certainly to the little bit extra size they have over just about all the rest.  Their range is one of my favorites.

Having said that, the range is kinda limited, at least for my purposes.  So I really have no choice but to mix manufacturers.  On my present project I have minis from Copplestone, Pulp Figures and Foundry.

The way I have found to deal with the problem, as said before, is to vary the base size to give the illusion of parity.  I base Copplestone figures on washers (and file down the thickness of the figures metal bases), while for the rest, I put them on standard plastic bases.

Here is a recent shot of a couple of my mini's: the left from Pulp Figures and the right from Copplestone:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v732/lavaslair/Terrain2.jpg)

The thing to note is not the chunkiness of the figures (female Pulp Figures are thiner then the males) but the height differential, which with my system, I have done away with.

I'm happy with the way my collection is turning out, and have no problem mixing manufacturers.
Title: Re: Size Comparison of Pulp and Copplestone minis
Post by: Ray Rivers on June 26, 2008, 09:05:58 AM
Here's a photo of Pulp's US Navy sailor and a Copplestone aviator.  The Pulp figs (at least the sailors) are noticeably smaller than the other Copplestones I have seen:

I know it may be a pain in the butt, but if you file down the metal base of the Copplestone mini, you reduce the height by about 1 1/2 mm's making the difference in height much less pronounced.
Title: Re: Size Comparison of Pulp and Copplestone minis
Post by: Trysop on June 26, 2008, 11:47:32 AM
I must admit that I am kind of surprised as to how much of a difference building up (or filing down) a base could make in levelling out the minis scale differences  :o

I will have to pay a bit more attention when I come to prepping my minis in future and see if any would benefit from this treatment to help get a more consistent look when using different manufacturers.

Glad I asked on here for some help, thanks everyone :D
Title: Re: Size Comparison of Pulp and Copplestone minis
Post by: Ray Rivers on June 26, 2008, 05:10:39 PM
Make sure you get a large metal file, where with one stroke along the flat edge a visible reduction to the base can be achieved.  Sand paper is a waste of time.

Personally, I first bevel the base all along the bottom such that it 1) gives me a clear  mark of how much metal I want to remove overall and 2) makes it far easier and quicker to remove the rest of the bottom and still leave it flat (because there is less surface after it has been beveled).

You can remove easily 20% of the bottom of the base by beveling first because the bottom of the base is a right angle and when this is dragged along the file, it comes off in a flash.

If you know what I mean... ;)