Early use of the term “semi-scale”

I don't see what's contradictory about it.  

The post belongs in HONGZ or 2rs though. Not Hi-rail where scale thought isn't even "necessary" let alone a contradiction of purpose.

That is similar to the original meaning of the term "semi-scale" that was used for some  Lionel products in the prewar era.

When the 700E scale Hudson was produced, it had scale flanges and ran only on O72 T-rail track.

The 763 was introduced with the large flanges to run on tubular track. It became known as "semi-scale". It also had a slight reduction in amount of detail as compared to the 700E.

The same is true of the 0-6-0 switcher which was produced with scale flanges and then also as a "semi-scale" model with the large flanges.

Lately, the use of the term "semi-scale" has been applied instead to products that have been selectively compressed in multiple dimensions to run on tighter curves.

Meanings change over the years. Some argue that "semi-scale" is a contradiction in terms; it is either scale or it isn't scale! But, the term is useful for those searching the market for similar size products that look good together on a small layout. 

"Traditional" size has come to have a similar meaning, but no one term is used consistently by all manufacturers to describe selectively compressed items that are smaller than scale and look better on small layouts with sharp curves.

Jim

Lionel used the same term with their OO line up in the prewar era.  The less detailed version of the sets and Hudson were called "Semi Scale"    Detail was more like a 773 on the semi scale Hudsons vs a mini 700e on the detailed ones.  But the basic casting and length of the model was the same.   Just as on the O scale NYC Hudsons.   AD

We are certainly in a hobby that loves contradictory terms.

Tri-Ang made under-length carriages in OO for use with #1 (15” radius) curves, although they had no particular name. 

In recent years Hornby have been producing a “Railroad” range which is less detailed and cheaper