76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, Mystery solved?

[Diecast]

Why stop at 75 ?

It is a very good question with very hard answer. It was, at least, the second attempt to stop the numbering. The first was by Nr.60. ( the base plate was renumbered to 61 from 1a?)

Do you have any evidence for that statement, Antonin?
I remember when we discussed this model (on Lefora, I think) and ended up lumping it in with the widespread renumbering which occurred from 61a onwards (as evidenced by the numerous retooled platforms carrying model no.s). I do not recall us discussing a possible limit to the size of the series at 60 models.

Unfortunately I have no proof Hugh. Only logical deduction, judging from the amount of base plates with raised panels for the number (after Nr."60"). Something strange must have happened around the number "60". The number "60" is divisible by many numbers and is therefore ideal for a large number of different types of the displays.
Antonin

[Idris]

Unfortunately I have no proof Hugh. Only logical deduction, judging from the amount of base plates with raised panels for the number (after Nr."60"). Something strange must have happened around the number "60". The number "60" is divisible by many numbers and is therefore ideal for a large number of different types of the displays.
Antonin

It's certainly an interesting idea, and the fact that 60 has a large number of factors is a good argument. (As we discussed on Lefora, 75 is actually a really poor number to choose: for 60, the non-trivial factors are 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, and 30, whilst for 75, there are only 3, 5, 15, and 25.)

[matchboxuk]

Odell did not contemplate ending the range at 60 models. He did this only when the range had reached 75 and was planned to go further in terms of numbers.

The raised platforms on models from #61 onwards raises an interesting question. Maybe a model was planned to be a particular number but manufacturing problems would have possibly meant models released out of order and so the baseplates were altered. (My guess would be #64 given the problems experienced in the casting of #13c). Odell had always had a liking for military vehicles and he had a prolonged argument with Smith about the number of military models in the range. He later accepted that he had been wrong to insist on so many military vehicles but he argued models of military models seemed to be selling well for Dinky Toys. At least Smith got his way with the Centurion Tank which would have been sold at a loss had it been included in the miniature range and so it was to become part of the third Major Pack.

Nigel

[Idris]

The raised platforms on models from #61 onwards raises an interesting question. Maybe a model was planned to be a particular number but manufacturing problems would have possibly meant models released out of order and so the baseplates were altered. (My guess would be #64 given the problems experienced in the casting of #13c). Odell had always had a liking for military vehicles and he had a prolonged argument with Smith about the number of military models in the range. He later accepted that he had been wrong to insist on so many military vehicles but he argued models of military models seemed to be selling well for Dinky Toys. At least Smith got his way with the Centurion Tank which would have been sold at a loss had it been included in the miniature range and so it was to become part of the third Major Pack.

The question of why so many of the first-series models beyond 60a were renumbered is discussed here (which also contains a link to the original Lefora thread).
Rereading it, I see that the idea of a proposal for the range to stop at 60 was proposed by Antonin, and then discussed and dismissed (by me!).

[matchboxuk]

Many interesting points are raised in the previous discussion and I would be interested to hear other views.

- I would point out that I cannot find the comment in the 40 years book that there were vast quantities of 4b unsold and I do not remember saying this. Odell did say that you could not order specific miniature models from Lesney. You received what you were given, such was the demand for the Matchbox series. There would have been no problem with adding a few more 4b Tractors to a shipping carton. Anyone who complained might find their next shipment delayed. (It was different with Major Pack 3 as this series included several slow sellers).

- If sequence of issue had been a major factor, why then was the #75 Ford Thunderbird issued in the US in September 1959? This was a considerable time before the issue of all models numbered 67 to 74. The card shop displays that were so popular in the US would have had gaps for these numbers for more than eight months. Indeed 73a and 74a were not released in the USA until July 1960. Why was there a delay of issue for the Ford Thunderbird in the UK until May 1960? Maybe it was thought that the US market could swallow all Thunderbirds being manufactured but surely being fitted with plastic windows and with a two tone livery, demand would have been as high elsewhere?

- I did make the comment that Odell proudly boasted that it was only a matter of 16 weeks between having an idea for a new model and getting it into the shops. It does seem strange that so many models had their bases recast to take account of a change in model number. Given Odell's cavalier attitude, one wonders why it was considered to be worth the effort.

- Vast quantities of boxes had to be ordered for new models and one wonders at the expense of destroying those produced with "wrong numbers".

Nigel

[Idris]

Vast quantities of boxes had to be ordered for new models and one wonders at the expense of destroying those produced with "wrong numbers".

Good point!
To the best of my knowledge, the only 'wrong number' box to have survived is the no. 80 for the Volkswagen Beetle which was released as no. 25. In that case, I understand that they were originally only known from uncut sheets (of mixed numbers), but that several boxes have since been cut out and glued.
What is interesting is that the 25b VW does not have a renumbering boss, implying that box manufacture, at least sometimes, preceded final tooling. That being so, it is reasonable to assume that boxes were printed for at least some of the renumbered models but that they have either not survived or, if they have, knowledge of them has not made it into the public domain.

[matchboxuk]

I remember that at an early MICA Convention a collector from Lincoln, whose name escapes me, had come into the possession of two uncut sheets of the #80 Volkswagen. They were only for that model and were very large sheets - A1 or A2 size. He had cut a few boxes from one of the sheets and sold these separately. I was interested in bidding for the complete sheet but I was easily outbid. These sheets had been found in a skip at the printers who had produced the boxes. Maybe other boxes had been produced in this way.

[Idris]

I remember that at an early MICA Convention a collector from Lincoln, whose name escapes me, had come into the possession of two uncut sheets of the #80 Volkswagen.

That's interesting, because I have seen an uncut sheet with the 80a box mixed in with other boxes. (Mixed boxes is something I have also seen on uncut sheets from the second half of the 1960s.) Could this difference have something to do with the way the two 'house' printers, Pembroke Abbey and Bowater Scott, approached their Lesney orders?

[Idris]

...the Ford Anglia was Ford´s model to replace the Ford Prefect so the 7b may have originally been planned as 30b ...

We know that Lesney sometimes trialled the colour for the new model on the last issue of the model to be replaced, the 23b/23c caravans in metallic green being the obvious example. Can we therefore read anything into the last of the 30a Ford Prefects being pale blue and the Ford Anglia also being issued in pale blue (albeit a different shade)?

[350tvr]

May I ask a possibly stupid question? Did no one ask Smith or Odell what actually happened? Or were they unable to remember?

Thanks
Mark