Roughly figuring, that would be about a 1mm deviation for a 30cm globe.

I don't think anyone would notice, especially on a "bumpy" globe. It might be less than manufacturing tolerances.

Whilst perfectionists might appreciate the idea, the difference between a normal round sphere and Earth's spheroid shape wouldn't be noticeable in a desktop-sized globe, to the bare eye. And you could maybe detect mountain ranges by running your fingers on them, but not really by seeing them?

It would be for those of us who like to apply a fairly big caliper to our globes...

> And you could maybe detect mountain ranges by running your fingers on them, but not really by seeing them?

On a 30cm globe, the Everest would peak ~200µm above the globe's average surface (though it would possibly/probably be too small to even represent), the tibetan plateau would be ~100µm above the average surface. It seems detectable[0] but would require a pretty ridiculously smooth globe, I don't think a plastic-and-paper globe would work.

[0] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130916110853.h...

> The smallest pattern that could be distinguished from the non-patterned surface had grooves with a wavelength of 760 nanometres and an amplitude of only 13 nanometres.