41a Jaguar D-Type #52

[Beestone]

I didn't get it!
But I am happy that I didn't get it: in Nicks listing the Code 7: #52 it says "dome head crimped". For my opinion this one has flat head crimped ...
Decals: the decals looks good - but the front decal has a crease or fold on the right at Position 5'o clock - this seems to me unbelivable. after 60 years the decals are very fragile and a crease should have turned to a damage ...
The decals are 100% - the car is not... the front decal is quite exposed and should show damages corresponding to the condition of the car ... and not a super fragile crease ...

Anyway, what says the community?

Jag, 1.jpg (60.99 KiB) Viewed 927 times

Jag, 2.jpg (77.38 KiB) Viewed 927 times

Jag, 3.jpg (85.11 KiB) Viewed 927 times

Jag, 4.jpg (70.44 KiB) Viewed 927 times

Jag, 5.jpg (77.84 KiB) Viewed 927 times

[GHOSTHUNTER]

The '5' in the front decal does not match the '5' shown on the example in Nick's article for this model, it is much heavier near top folds...!

Ghosthunter.

[Beestone]

I compared the 52 decals with other 52 decals on ebay on the 52a Maserati and the 19c Aston Martin: there seems to be a quite large range of 52 original decals regarding size and look of the letters ... I could not verify if the decals are original or fake. The only seller of 52 decals on Ebay at the Moment did not sell to the seller this car, I checked the recommendations (seller/buyer feedback) on Ebay.

[Idris]

We have previously determined that there are at least two different sizes of 52 decal.
Looking at your photographs, I would suggest that these are definitely not the earlier, larger decals. There therefore seems to be a timeline mismatch between the decals used (assuming they are original Lesney decals) and the axle heads. However, we do know from other models that older components occasionally came out of storage, resulting in unlikely variations. Nevertheless, you observations on the front decal definitely give cause for concern.
Who was the seller? (It will be interesting to see if he is already known to the Forum - for all the wrong reasons, that is!)

[GHOSTHUNTER]

My observation is not about the overall size of the decal, it is the upper section of the '5' that does not match the example in Nick's article for the rare vrsion of the Jaguar.

Ghosthunter.

[Idris]

My observation is not about the overall size of the decal, it is the upper section of the '5' that does not match the example in Nick's article for the rare vrsion of the Jaguar.

Ghosthunter.

Yes, I understand that. It just that I'm not sure how much we should read into that. Although it seems likely that there was only a single run of this variation, it is possible that there were two or more runs. In addition, we know that there are at least two different sizes of the decal, so it is also possible that there are slightly different printings e.g. as a result of sourcing from different suppliers over time. Then there is also the added complication of Lesney not keeping the different decal batches separate, meaning that visually different decals could be applied to consecutive models during production.
Having said all that, I think the balance of probability has to be that the mismatch in the forms of the 5 digit is significant.

[Beestone]

The seller was lupo151158 (461 at 100%) from Erfurt, Germany, the successful bid was EUR 122,90 on 22.7.2016.

Taking in consideration he unknown status of the decal (original or reproduction), the fold on the front decal as well as the flat headed axles instead of the domed headed refering to Nick's listing I decided not to bid more than 121,90 - and lost....

Well, anyway, that's life, I will never know for sure if I made a mistake to leave out this opportunity or even if this was a good oportunity for a #52 Jag....

[Idris]

The seller was lupo151158 (461 at 100%) from Erfurt, Germany,

Doesn't ring any bells.