Newbie with unusual TR7

[SMS88]

cOO7rgi ´´Of course they were made by "professional model makers", being employed by Mettoy and getting paid for their work.
But why would anyone paint the interior of a promotion pre-pro to get approval from the customer? "So, that's how the finished model will look - except it won't be as good as we detailed the interior ..."

SMS88 wrote:I remember the Dinky TR7 was released with the 1:1 TR7 in sync with BL in the UK in May 1976 - I rushed to the local toyshop after weeks of anticipation to get one but I was unaware of the Corgi being on the market in 1976 and have seen no evidence to support that idea.This gold version could have been made for the release of the Rover V8 engined TR7 or just the revised interiors fitted with brightly patterned seats + door cards both in 1977 which is a more credible timeline for this gold Juniors model especially with its detailed interior reflecting a post 1977 variation


cOO7rgi´´Yes, you are correct, the TR7 was introduced in May 1976 in the UK and already in January 1975 in the US, long before the CJ TR7 was released. Based on the info regarding the gold promo in the book I assumed that the real car was launched in 1977 but this bit seems to be incorrect. The CJ TR7 was not announced in the 1977 Corgi catalogue but is shown in 1978 (without "NEW"), so we can assume that it was released sometime during 1977. (The Dinky TR7 was already available in 1975.) This rules out the possibility that the gold TR7 was made "for the product launch of the real car". However, production of the TR7 moved twice, from Liverpool to Coventry in 1978, and then to Solihull in 1980. Maybe the promo was done for one of these occasions.

cOO7rgi

We know that only 250 were made so no problem painting the seats to reflect the 1977 (for 78 model year?)new tartan contrasting interiors on the 1:1 cars. I suspect this gold Juniors model was produced to mark the launch of the V8 TR7 in the UK.
As I stated before, the Dinky was released in May 1976 on the same day as the 1:1 on the Uk market, not in 1975 or any other date, i remember it well, the US release of 1:! had nothing to do with the Dinky.

[Idris]

Wasn't the V8 TR7 known as the TR8, or was that simply an unofficial name for it?

[fixer]

As far as I'm aware they were known as TR8 officially and badged as such
What I don't know is did they have the stag or rover v8

[zBret]

As far as I'm aware they were known as TR8 officially and badged as such
What I don't know is did they have the stag or rover v8

The TR8 used the Rover V-8

The Triumph TR 7 and TR8 were targeted by Triumph ( British Leyland ) for the North American market
and the majority of them were sold there. "The shape of things to come" was their advertising slogan,
pertaining to the car's new unique ( at the time) " wedge shape " and a whole slew of wedge shape items
such as TVs and garages were incorporated into the advertising campaign.

zBret

[cOO7rgi]

We know that only 250 were made so no problem painting the seats to reflect the 1977 (for 78 model year?)new tartan contrasting interiors on the 1:1 cars. I suspect this gold Juniors model was produced to mark the launch of the V8 TR7 in the UK.
As I stated before, the Dinky was released in May 1976 on the same day as the 1:1 on the Uk market, not in 1975 or any other date, i remember it well, the US release of 1:! had nothing to do with the Dinky.

We haven't seen photos of the 250 - only two and only one of the two has a painted interior, the other in the book has not. And also the variation listing text, although having a different interior/window combination, so presumably another, third model, does not mention any hand-painted interior details.
Again, the question remains: Why paint the interior to get approval from BL when the production run was not enhanced in the same way.

I also doubt that the introduction of the TR8 (and that's what the "TR7 V8" was officially called) would be the reason for a "TR7 Gold Plated Edition" which is the text on the plinth. If BL wanted to celebrate the introduction of the TR8, why not ask Corgi to make one? The TR7 mould could have easily been modified into a TR8 with its bulged hood by removing material from the mould, just like Corgi did with the MGB to create the MGC. And also a different seat design seems a bit far fetched, seat patterns are constantly changed on all cars every few years, no reason for making a gold plated edition. Either there was no special reason at all, or the two changes of the factories seem a likely reason to me, with models given out to the new staff now responsible for the assembly of the TR7.


Now to the (off-topic) Dinky TR7: The 1975 date comes from Ed Force's Dinky Toys book:
"211-G Triumph TR7 98mm 1975-1979
[...]
1. Metallic blue body, gray interior and bumpers (1975).
2. Red body, gray interior and bumpers.
3. Red body, black interior and bumpers.
4. Yellow body, black interior and bumpers (1979)."

But I understand that not every information in any book will be correct, and with you insisting that the Dinky was released on the same day as the 1:1 in the UK, I have also checked Mike & Sue Richardson's Dinky Toys & Modelled Miniatures:
"211 Triumph TR7 Sports Car - Colours: Metallic Blue-Green, White or Red - Introduced: 1976 - Deleted: 1980 - Metallic Blue-Green in 1976 only, White issue was British Leyland promotional. Red issue has Pale Grey bumpers and interior till 1978, thereafter Black."

So this book supports your claim that the Dinky was introduced only in 1976.
And in the main text: "There are two versions of the TRIUMPH TR7 (in addition to the Rally Car), the first of which was available only briefly, painted a metallic blue and in a box slightly larger than normal. The date on the back of the box, 1975, is the date of the car not the model. Meccano made a great deal of fuss about the introduction of this vehicle in the vain hope it would signal a turn in the fortune of Dinky Toys."

So, with this text I would agree that the Dinky was introduced with great fanfare and highly possible at the launch date of the real TR7 in the UK. But - maybe it was released in the US already in 1975, as was the 1:1 TR7? Ed Force is American, the Richardsons British - so could the different date be related to an earlier release in the US? There were two different Dinky catalogues for 1976, a UK and a US edition. Both show the - red - TR7 on the front cover and on page 10.

UK edition:




US edition:



What's interesting to note is that the TR7 is shown in red, not blue-green which was the first version according to both books.
And, that the TR7 is marked as "new" in the UK edition but not in the US catalogue. This seems to support that the model was released in the US in blue-green already in 1975, just as the copyright date on the box says - that this date belongs to the real car, not the model, as stated in the Richardson book, seem quite unlikely. The copyright is always related to Dinky's designs (model and box) and not the real car.

Here is the baseplate of the medium Green model I posted earlier on page 1 of this thread...

'corgi' here in lower case letters..JPG

...and here is an issue presumably from 1981 (1981 copyright date on the box), still with 'CORGI JUNIORS' on the base.

1981 COPYRIGHT date on this issue..jpg

'CORGI JUNIORS'.jpg

So the dating of these models by the baseplates is variable, I did not offer a date of issue for the Green model, choosing to say "later issue" indicating the model was issued at a time when the original look and image of...'CORGI JUNIORS' was no longer important to Corgi, the novelty of having a Junior range of models additional to their regular sized models was not new anymore, so the deletion of the name...'JUNIORS' on the models would happen and the date period of the early 1980's seems feasible here, but of course old stocks of components will show up on models made after this, as has happened with Matchbox on numerous occasions.

GHOSTHUNTER.

Thanks for the baseplate photo - the corgı (with dotless i) logotype was introduced in 1981 and used till 1984, in the first year of the new Corgi company "Corgi Toys Ltd." I think that more than one mould were used and one of those maybe damaged and repaired, and the current logo used for this one mould while the older Corgi Juniors text continued on the other mould(s). This base variation is not mentioned anyhere while other baseplate differences (like "Chevrolet Van" and "U.S. Van" used at the same time) are well known.

[SMS88]

cOO7rgi´´We haven't seen photos of the 250 - only two and only one of the two has a painted interior, the other in the book has not. And also the variation listing text, although having a different interior/window combination, so presumably another, third model, does not mention any hand-painted interior details.
Again, the question remains: Why paint the interior to get approval from BL when the production run was not enhanced in the same way.´´

This is a very easy question to answer - because the model with the painted interior was handbuilt by a modelmaker and not assembled on the factory floor. The production run was not enhanced in the same way because as the handbuilt proves, it was considered but rejected after pre-pro stage but the fact that 2 tone interior was on the handbuilt pre-pro proves that the gold issue was planned AFTER or for the launch of tartan interiors.

If the TR7 V8 is not the reason for this gold model then beginning production at Canley in 1978 could well be because it was seen as a management victory over the regional job creation poilices of the then Labour government (after closing the strike-riddled political football Speke )

http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/cars/tr ... ph-tr7tr8/

In London at least, from Easter 1976, toyshops and newsagents that stocked Dinky commonly displayed a vinyl A5 Dinky flyer stuck to the glass of the shop´s front door featuring a blue-green TR7 toy on a white background and words to the effect ´´on sale here on TR7 launchday´´. The models I saw in London were all red with light grey bumpers in standard boxes - the htf in UK now metallic blue-green in larger boxes may or may not have mostly been exported to USA which could possibly have been in 1975 if Ed Force saw them then - clearly a separate production run with separate box design so maybe export only!! Dinky had changed UK launch colour to red by May 1976 - I remember searching through a dozen or more red ones in Universal Stationers of Harrow looking for the blue green version from the posters before paying out the £1.05 RRP!

[Idris]

This is a very easy question to answer - because the model with the painted interior was handbuilt by a modelmaker and not assembled on the factory floor. The production run was not enhanced in the same way because as the handbuilt proves, it was considered but rejected after pre-pro stage but the fact that 2 tone interior was on the handbuilt pre-pro proves that the gold issue was planned AFTER or for the launch of tartan interiors.

How can an unproven hypothesis prove anything? The answer is that it can't!
You cannot simply make a suggestion, then claim it as proof, and then talk about that suggestion as if it were fact!

[SMS88]

This is a very easy question to answer - because the model with the painted interior was handbuilt by a modelmaker and not assembled on the factory floor. The production run was not enhanced in the same way because as the handbuilt proves, it was considered but rejected after pre-pro stage but the fact that 2 tone interior was on the handbuilt pre-pro proves that the gold issue was planned AFTER or for the launch of tartan interiors.

How can an unproven hypothesis prove anything? The answer is that it can't!
You cannot simply make a suggestion, then claim it as proof, and then talk about that suggestion as if it were fact!

I refer idris to the photos shown here at beginning of the thread showing gold screws in the base which prove handbuilt and painted seats which prove a modelmaker painted those seats although no proof of the date of painting or hand assembly is available. Wolfgang has told us that the standard gold model he has seen did NOT have painted seats and was not on a plinth

[ogedei_voidoid]

This is a very easy question to answer - because the model with the painted interior was handbuilt by a modelmaker and not assembled on the factory floor. The production run was not enhanced in the same way because as the handbuilt proves, it was considered but rejected after pre-pro stage but the fact that 2 tone interior was on the handbuilt pre-pro proves that the gold issue was planned AFTER or for the launch of tartan interiors.

How can an unproven hypothesis prove anything? The answer is that it can't!
You cannot simply make a suggestion, then claim it as proof, and then talk about that suggestion as if it were fact!

I refer idris to the photos shown here at beginning of the thread showing gold screws in the base which prove handbuilt and painted seats which prove a modelmaker painted those seats although no proof of the date of painting or hand assembly is available. Wolfgang has told us that the standard gold model he has seen did NOT have painted seats and was not on a plinth

Did it not occur to you that maybe they were painted after it left the factory ? Without provenance and seeing more of them youre just guessing, maybe correctly, maybe not, but without cast iron proof its just guesswork.
You have no proof it was done at the factory. All the painted seats prove is someone painted them, but as for who, no-one knows for sure right now.

[Idris]

Have we ruled out the possibility that this could actually be a silver model which was heated in the microwave and then left to soak overnight in a mixture of Brasso and orange juice before being rubbed vigorously with a greasy appendage?