Hey Milton. Nobody is dismissing, loathing or in any other way denigrating your piece. We are all in agreement that it is probably one of the most exciting things to emerge in quite a long time.Batterseaboy wrote:Precedence is what is needed, show where this is common practice, using retired molds for apprentices to practice on, otherwise you are just guessing, in any event that is what I have, like it, loathe it, dismiss it whatever. you don,t like the thunderbird that,s your opinion. I think it's amazing that's why I shared it I,m kind of disappointed with your short shrift dismissal of it but hey hoo that's life. I won,t bother posting any other MB pieces that I have so this is me checking out have a good one
Milton
It is the way of this forum to explore possibilities. We enjoy batting around ideas and theories and welcome opposing views. After all, we are all collectors of Matchbox toys to have fun. Finding something so new to talk about after 56 years is, you must admit, about as fun as it gets!
There are several theories as to how your casting came about and others may emerge - none of which can be proven. Unfortunately there is so much we don't know for sure about Lesney's production processes. But discussing and debating them in no way belittles the importance of your find.
Your request for precedence applies just as much to our several theories as it does to yours. There doesn't seem to be any for any of the ideas proposed.
Who knows which of us 'right'? Nobody knows for sure, and it is unlikely that a definitive 'truth' will ever be found. That doesn't mean the item is worthless (I would hazard that it is actually quite valuable to the right collector) or in any way uninteresting. On the contrary - it is a fascinating discussion point that I am sure all of us are very grateful to you for raising.
Martin
