James Bond DB5 Dilemma

[Fox]

I only find the large card sign missing. What is the other piece ?

[GHOSTHUNTER]

I only find the large card sign missing. What is the other piece ?

Hello Fox, what I meant by "missing Two features" was the 'Prompt' arrow on the plynth (what the model is sitting on), for the instructions and the dark 'Shadow' behind the ASTON MARTIN D.B.5 words on the front of the box, making that one a First issue or at least the earliest version I know.


In terms of missing items from the box, yes, the "large card sign" is missing and it is actually a folded 'Flyer' type catalogue.

GHOSTHUNTER.

[cOO7rgi]

To come back to the original question of how to recognize an original or remake:
If the car is marked with Made in Gt Britain it is always a good sign.

Remakes are marked with Made in China - or on the newer releases without the country of origin.

Here a comparison of the #270 baseplates - above the early (1968-) and late (from around 1974?-76) variant with tyre slashers (note circular and oval bulge near the rear rivet; different greys are found throughout the whole production run), the 270 with Whizzwheels (1977-78, painted silver instead of grey), and the re-release 96655 from 1995 - note Made in China and then-current Corgi typeface.




And borrowed from Fox the new CC04203 without Made in China, and with changed but already outdated Corgi logo (the dog is now in a circle in place of the O), plus a Zindart factory date stamp.

[Fox]

Is the card contained in the box or could it be a spare piece related (such as a dealer sign) ?

[cOO7rgi]

The Model Car Maker to James Bond leaflet was inserted in the space where the secret instructions are. But not all 261 came with it - I think this was an afterthought and not found with the very first examples. But these leaflet can be found on ebay - they were also printed in different languages, I have a German one. From the models pictured one could determine the date of this leaflet more precisely but I am too lazy to do this.

[GHOSTHUNTER]

Shown on the folded 'Flyer' is 1 model introduced into the range in 1963, 3 models in 1964 and 6 models in 1965. On the reverse of this, is a collectors checklist and the bottom right corner shows...METTOY PLAYCRAFT (SALES) LTD. 1966, hope that helps.

GHOSTHUNTER.

[cOO7rgi]

Thank you, and it confirms that early models (introduced October 1965) wouldn't contain this leaflet from 1966. I also think that in 1967 this leaflet was no longer included.

[GHOSTHUNTER]

Yes, I agree that the leaflet was not used during 1967, because the 'CLASSIC' cars range in the checklist listing have been printed with catalogue numbers that were not used by Corgi on the models packaging because Corgi screwed-up the numbering system for this range and had to change the printing of these numbers on the boxes, which also affected any other printed media that included them...the 'Flyer' leaflet we are talking about here, but no other versions of this leaflet have been seen with the new numbers for the 'CLASSICS' range, so we can assume Corgi dropped the idea and did not include it anymore with #261, the Aston Martin DB 5.

GHOSTHUNTER.

[Fox]

Oh, many thanks !

I got one like this ! Gonna put it in the Aston Bond box \o/

[cOO7rgi]

Yes, I agree that the leaflet was not used during 1967, because the 'CLASSIC' cars range in the checklist listing have been printed with catalogue numbers that were not used by Corgi on the models packaging because Corgi screwed-up the numbering system for this range and had to change the printing of these numbers on the boxes, which also affected any other printed media that included them...the 'Flyer' leaflet we are talking about here, but no other versions of this leaflet have been seen with the new numbers for the 'CLASSICS' range, so we can assume Corgi dropped the idea and did not include it anymore with #261, the Aston Martin DB 5.

GHOSTHUNTER.

And which numbers are wrong? - on my German leaflet the numbers are as in the books, so I assume them to be correct - I don't have any Classics with their boxes. But maybe this was printed later than the English version (which may have been printed in a corrected version too?).