On the back of Nick’s topic on the identities of planned models 76 to 80, I’ve been looking at the 1960 and 1961 releases, and trying to work out what Lesney’s original plan was.
As already identified by Nick, the 1960 releases which were not model upgrades were:
4c Triumph Motorcycle
10c Foden
17c Austin Taxi
25b Volkswagen
27b Cadillac
46b Pickfords Removal Van
The 1961 releases which were not model upgrades were:
3b Bedford Tipper
7b Ford Anglia
21c Commer Milk Float
29b Austin Cambridge
30b Crane Truck
36b Lambretta
40b Leyland Coach
57b Chevrolet Impala
Now it seems reasonable to assume that 46b was originally supposed to fill the 17c slot, which means that the five other replacement (as opposed to upgrade) models from 1960 were all originally to be numbered in the 76 to 80 range (see here) for full discussion).
Looking at the 1961 replacements and the substitutions which actually occurred (which I have taken to be an indication of models scheduled for replacement) , 3b would have been a replacement for 40a, 7b for 30a, 21c for 29a, 29b for 36a, and 40b for 21b.
That would then have left the following models needing upgrades/replacements:
3a cement mixer
4b Tractor
7a Horse-Drawn Milk Float
10b Mechanical Horse and Trailer
25a Bedford Van
27a Bedford Low-Loader
46a Morris Minor
57a Wolseley
and the following models looking for a home:
30b Crane Truck
36b Lambretta
57b Chevrolet Impala
(Note: On the old Lefora forum, I suggested that 72a was originally planned to be a replacement tractor in the no. 4 slot, but had to be given its own number because the Centurion Tank (which ended up as part of Major Pack M3a) proved too expensive to put into production as a Matchbox car. This also explains why management decided that the no. 4 Tractor could be replaced by the former no. 78 Triumph Motorcycle.)
That still leaves seven models to be phased out and only three replacements with no obvious substitutions present.
So, what was going on? Was the idea to add new models with new numbers to the series and phase out those models for which no upgrade was possible/desirable? Surely not, because the result would have been gaps in the numbering sequence, and the system would have become more and more chaotic every year. Could it perhaps be that 30b, 36b and 57b represent models originally planned for release with numbers in the 81 to 83 range? No idea!
Where does all this get us? In reality, probably not very far at all. However, I’ve found it an interesting exercise, and perhaps these public musings will trigger further insights with other members.
What might have been.....
Re: What might have been.....
Every bit as plausible as the alternatives with #7b Anglia as #79 and 10c as #81 or 10c as #79 and 7b as 30b
Putting the 72a in place of the Chieftan shows Lesney didnt mind having a gap in the range for a month or two back then even if the 40 years book told us that huge unsold stocks of the 4b were responsible for this decision.....
One day I expect old paperwork will come to light in an ex employee or deceased old timer collection which settles the debate once and for all.
Putting the 72a in place of the Chieftan shows Lesney didnt mind having a gap in the range for a month or two back then even if the 40 years book told us that huge unsold stocks of the 4b were responsible for this decision.....
One day I expect old paperwork will come to light in an ex employee or deceased old timer collection which settles the debate once and for all.
Re: What might have been.....
That’s not quite what I meant.SMS88 wrote:Putting the 72a in place of the Chieftan...
There is a wealth of renumbering bosses on the baseplates of the models released immediately prior to the 72a Tractor. I think that mass renumbering has something to do with a late decision to pull the Chieftain Tank and the resultant desire by management to plug the gap in the numbering sequence. (It may also be that disappointing sales of military models meant that non-military subjects had to be moved up the release order in order to maintain the higher cash flows inevitably generated by new releases.) I am not suggesting that the Centurion Tank was to have been released as no. 72.
Re: What might have been.....
Given the discussion above regarding the Centurion tank and the Fordson tractor, I have been brave (some might say foolish) enough to risk going onto the old Lefora forum in order to retrieve what i wrote about to renumbering of the later "A"-series releases:
"Martin’s idea of a block of military models has grown on me: 61 and 62 could indeed have been swapped with 65 and 66, but how about the higher numbers?
How about this as a scenario?
Models 61 – 66 are far enough advanced for the baseplates to have been numbered when Marketing successfully suggests that it would be better to break the military models up into smaller blocks. As a result, no.s 61 (the Jaguar) and 62 (the Citroen) are swapped for no.s 65 (the Ferret Scout Car) and no. 66 (the General Service Lorry). This then leaves no.s 63 and 64 at their original positions, hence they do not need renumbering.
At the same time, a decision is made to introduce a civilian vehicle at no. 69 (the Commer Van) and at no. 72 (see below), leaving military vehicles at no.s 67 (Armoured car), 68 (Radio Truck), 70 (Centurion Tank), 71 (Austin Tanker) and 73 (RAF Refueller). No.s 67 and 68 do not need renumbering and the rest are insufficiently far advanced for their baseplates to have been numbered.
However, the Centurion Tank (pencilled in at no. 70) is subsequently found to be too expensive to produce as a Matchbox model and so is dropped. The highest numbered model which is almost ready for release (the Thames Estate Car) is renumbered from no. 72 to replace it. The tank’s baseplate is subsequently completely retooled for use as part of M3a, so obliterating its short history as no. 70.
Lesney now has a problem: models numbered up to 75 are fast approaching release but there is a gap at 72. So how about if the 72a Fordson were actually originally meant to be 4c (a reasonable assumption given Lesney’s ‘taxi rank’ model replacement/upgrade system)? The model is insufficiently far advanced for the tool to have been numbered, but it can be completely quickly enough to fill the now vacant 72 slot.
Shortly afterwards, the problem of what to do about replacement of the aging 4b Tractor is solved when the decision is taken to limit the range to 75 models, so enabling no. 78, the Triumph Motorcycle and Sidecar, to be renumbered to 4c.
The only problem I can see with the above (apart from an almost total lack of evidence), is the apparently random distribution of the military vehicles. I am suggesting that the block of vehicles originally stretched from no. 63 to no. 71 inclusive, but that was changed to 61 – 64, 67, 68, [70 – deleted], 71 and 73 which strikes me as being a strange choice of numbers.
As regards schenk’s idea of the range stopping at 60, I think the arrangement of 61a – 66a argues against that. If what we now know as 61a, 62a, 65a and 66a had already been numbered in an alternative sequence, it would have made more sense to split the four military models into two groups of two (i.e. have a civilian model at no 63 and a military model at no. 65). The fact that this wasn’t done, plus the lack of renumbering bosses on 63a and 64a (implying that they were always at that position) indicates to me that it was always the intention to continue numbering beyond 60."
Having reread it, I still stand by my conclusions
"Martin’s idea of a block of military models has grown on me: 61 and 62 could indeed have been swapped with 65 and 66, but how about the higher numbers?
How about this as a scenario?
Models 61 – 66 are far enough advanced for the baseplates to have been numbered when Marketing successfully suggests that it would be better to break the military models up into smaller blocks. As a result, no.s 61 (the Jaguar) and 62 (the Citroen) are swapped for no.s 65 (the Ferret Scout Car) and no. 66 (the General Service Lorry). This then leaves no.s 63 and 64 at their original positions, hence they do not need renumbering.
At the same time, a decision is made to introduce a civilian vehicle at no. 69 (the Commer Van) and at no. 72 (see below), leaving military vehicles at no.s 67 (Armoured car), 68 (Radio Truck), 70 (Centurion Tank), 71 (Austin Tanker) and 73 (RAF Refueller). No.s 67 and 68 do not need renumbering and the rest are insufficiently far advanced for their baseplates to have been numbered.
However, the Centurion Tank (pencilled in at no. 70) is subsequently found to be too expensive to produce as a Matchbox model and so is dropped. The highest numbered model which is almost ready for release (the Thames Estate Car) is renumbered from no. 72 to replace it. The tank’s baseplate is subsequently completely retooled for use as part of M3a, so obliterating its short history as no. 70.
Lesney now has a problem: models numbered up to 75 are fast approaching release but there is a gap at 72. So how about if the 72a Fordson were actually originally meant to be 4c (a reasonable assumption given Lesney’s ‘taxi rank’ model replacement/upgrade system)? The model is insufficiently far advanced for the tool to have been numbered, but it can be completely quickly enough to fill the now vacant 72 slot.
Shortly afterwards, the problem of what to do about replacement of the aging 4b Tractor is solved when the decision is taken to limit the range to 75 models, so enabling no. 78, the Triumph Motorcycle and Sidecar, to be renumbered to 4c.
The only problem I can see with the above (apart from an almost total lack of evidence), is the apparently random distribution of the military vehicles. I am suggesting that the block of vehicles originally stretched from no. 63 to no. 71 inclusive, but that was changed to 61 – 64, 67, 68, [70 – deleted], 71 and 73 which strikes me as being a strange choice of numbers.
As regards schenk’s idea of the range stopping at 60, I think the arrangement of 61a – 66a argues against that. If what we now know as 61a, 62a, 65a and 66a had already been numbered in an alternative sequence, it would have made more sense to split the four military models into two groups of two (i.e. have a civilian model at no 63 and a military model at no. 65). The fact that this wasn’t done, plus the lack of renumbering bosses on 63a and 64a (implying that they were always at that position) indicates to me that it was always the intention to continue numbering beyond 60."
Having reread it, I still stand by my conclusions
Re: What might have been.....
Its obvious to me that the Centurion tank was always going to be 72a not 70a.And as I said on the old thread - the pair of vans #69a + 70a would always have been together consecutive numbers just like the pair of luxury cars 65a + 66a.
Unlike idris, it looks to me as if military vehicles would originally have been planned as #63-67 and #70-73 with the #70 Thames originally #68 , the #68 radio truck planned for #70 and the tank at #72. How do i reach this conclusion? Because both the #68a + #71a used the same master model for the chassis cab and both were copies of Dinkys ergo both planned at the same time keeping model making costs down so they cant be from separate batches of newly approved models. The tank must be 72a because it was so delayed coming out its obvious a new casting replaced the tank.
The timing of the decision to make the 4c Tractor into 72a MUST be after or at the exact same time Lesney had decided to abandon their previous model replacement taking over old number strategy because having a gap at #4 is not acceptable in store displays.So that means the tractor was numbered 72 AFTER 76-80 had been allocated as previously discussed.
Unlike idris, it looks to me as if military vehicles would originally have been planned as #63-67 and #70-73 with the #70 Thames originally #68 , the #68 radio truck planned for #70 and the tank at #72. How do i reach this conclusion? Because both the #68a + #71a used the same master model for the chassis cab and both were copies of Dinkys ergo both planned at the same time keeping model making costs down so they cant be from separate batches of newly approved models. The tank must be 72a because it was so delayed coming out its obvious a new casting replaced the tank.
The timing of the decision to make the 4c Tractor into 72a MUST be after or at the exact same time Lesney had decided to abandon their previous model replacement taking over old number strategy because having a gap at #4 is not acceptable in store displays.So that means the tractor was numbered 72 AFTER 76-80 had been allocated as previously discussed.
Re: What might have been.....
That also works.SMS88 wrote:...it looks to me as if military vehicles would originally have been planned as #63-67 and #70-73 with the #70 Thames originally #68 , the #68 radio truck planned for #70 and the tank at #72....
Re: What might have been.....
In order to save members brains, I have put the two proposals into a visual format. The first figure shows how the actual and suggested numbering relate to one another, whilst the second shows the original distribution of the military models:
- Attachments
-
- Renumbering 1.jpg (32.46 KiB) Viewed 1001 times
-
- Renumbering 2.jpg (18.07 KiB) Viewed 1001 times
Re: What might have been.....
Neat tables idris !
One point that occurred to me when thinking in terms of the bi-monthly or quarterly authorise new model meetings is that the 65a-66a-69a-70a were more likely than not authorised in the same meeting which would imply that these 4 models would have been the 1st planned #61-64 prior to the decision being taken to break up the number block of 10 consecutive planned new military models. There is no reason not to suppose that provisional numbers could change more than once
Perhaps we should have an opinion poll here to see how many members think the Centurion was intended to be #70 or 72 and how many think the Ford Thames has #68 or #72 under that #70?
One point that occurred to me when thinking in terms of the bi-monthly or quarterly authorise new model meetings is that the 65a-66a-69a-70a were more likely than not authorised in the same meeting which would imply that these 4 models would have been the 1st planned #61-64 prior to the decision being taken to break up the number block of 10 consecutive planned new military models. There is no reason not to suppose that provisional numbers could change more than once
Perhaps we should have an opinion poll here to see how many members think the Centurion was intended to be #70 or 72 and how many think the Ford Thames has #68 or #72 under that #70?