Valuable Error Piece!

[Idris]

IF MW were always cast on a sprue with body or baseplates and we know that there were never enough with the correct model number to complete all examples of the smaller MW toys Lesney must have made up the shortfall of wheels by scrapping body castings for which no wheels would be available without re-filling moulds making new castings of bodies with wheels.There would only be 4 slightly different wheels with each numbered #20 if we are to prove Nick´s statement.If there are more than 4 different wheels cast with #20 that would prove that moulds which made dozens of wheels on one sprue were in use.

We don't know "...that there were never enough with the correct model number to complete all examples of the smaller MW toys..." All we know is that occasionally incorrectly numbered MW were fitted. This might have been because they'd run out or (as seems more probably given Lesney's stock-keeping habits), they couldn't find the right ones.
It does not seem credible that Lesney would destroy capital by scrapping body castings for which no correctly numbered wheels could be located. Especially so given that the shortfall would only become apparent at assembly, i.e. after the bodies had been painted, meaning that they could not simply be thrown back in the melting pot, and that the models could be completed simply by borrowing similar wheels from another model (which is what appears to have been done).
If MW were indeed initially cast together with the bodiyshells, then there would be four (potentially) slightly different wheels for each body mould, i.e. a duplex mould would produce two bodies and eight wheels.

[motorman]

I would imagine the process that inserts the wheel must take quite a bit of force to get it there, and it may well have been more common but the wedged in spare wheels could have been removed by quality control before the casting went for painting.

Nick i can't possibly see this happening in reality.

Firstly it would have been a totaly mind numbing job that the average assembly line worker would resent being tasked with and therefore not a "What the F**k" attitude would be adopted to the task, resulting in a poor return of error pieces being put back into the bin for recycling.

Secondly it would take a very skillful person, nae a superhero, with particularly accute vision, to identify the odd error piece amongst the many correct models hurtling down the production line which is inconceivable.

And thirdly it would in my view be perceived as a waste of money for a member of the workforce to be tasked to locating error pieces on this mass produced model when they could be doing something more productive with their time........like making Friday Specials!!!!

Just my thoughts

[Tinman]

People always talk about quality control on this and that assembly line (including discussions here about the Lesney line). It congers up a vision of one or more people inspecting each individual item going down the line.

In all the manufacturing assembly lines I am familiar with, that's not how it's done. Quality control is often only one person (and not always the same person every day). They inspect one out of a selected number (like one out of 50 or 1 out of 100 or even one out of every 1000 items going down the line (frequency depends on the product and it's function).

If they find a defect on an item they pick up, they do a brief random check at a greater frequency to make sure it's statistical anomaly. If everything is OK, they go back to checking at normal count intervals. This means that a certain amount of statistical anomalies pass through the line and either go to the next stage or are packaged for assembly.

[kwakers]

While some of the 'spare wheel' examples have the wheel centered, as though deliberate, George's model being so off-center when it was painted is proof in my mind the variation is certainly a very random occurrence. The 'wheel trapped during tumbling' explanation still seems quite logical as the definitive last word. I have never noticed a different wheel number appearing on this 20A, but I will now always check both for that and the telltale behind the cab paint missing from now on.
Spares behind the cab were common enough in the U.S. to have had one side of the behind cab holder actually hinged to fold down as a track for the wheel and tire to travel down when released for use. While the underside holders were used on most factory delivered chassis, these behind the cab spares were installed by body builders at a customer's request on large trucks where space was intentionally left for them.
That being said, perhaps a batch of these spare wheels could have been deliberately tried before the addition of the brace, but after the brace was added, the extra support the spare might give in there wasn't needed at all.
Sadly, I missed Nick's latest sales because he did not mention them here?? kwakers

[Taniwha]

The numbered MW tend to all be slightly different sizes I find. So the couple of MW models in my collection with one incorrect wheel seem to sit a bit funny - I have a 44a with an odd wheel (#51) and the odd wheel is slightly smaller, causing the model to sit unevenly. I always just envisaged odd wheels just slipping into the wrong bins before assembly. I can't imagine workers looking around for a similarly sized wheel when they were one short though - surely they'd just grab whatever was nearest.

Also interesting what Joe says about quality control - what Joe describes is how I always imagined it would be. Especially in the late '60s, with a million models a week rolling off the line.

Cheers,
Gavin

[SMS88]

IF MW were always cast on a sprue with body or baseplates and we know that there were never enough with the correct model number to complete all examples of the smaller MW toys Lesney must have made up the shortfall of wheels by scrapping body castings for which no wheels would be available without re-filling moulds making new castings of bodies with wheels.There would only be 4 slightly different wheels with each numbered #20 if we are to prove Nick´s statement.If there are more than 4 different wheels cast with #20 that would prove that moulds which made dozens of wheels on one sprue were in use.

We don't know "...that there were never enough with the correct model number to complete all examples of the smaller MW toys..." All we know is that occasionally incorrectly numbered MW were fitted. This might have been because they'd run out or (as seems more probably given Lesney's stock-keeping habits), they couldn't find the right ones.
It does not seem credible that Lesney would destroy capital by scrapping body castings for which no correctly numbered wheels could be located. Especially so given that the shortfall would only become apparent at assembly, i.e. after the bodies had been painted, meaning that they could not simply be thrown back in the melting pot, and that the models could be completed simply by borrowing similar wheels from another model (which is what appears to have been done).
If MW were indeed initially cast together with the bodiyshells, then there would be four (potentially) slightly different wheels for each body mould, i.e. a duplex mould would produce two bodies and eight wheels.

What evidence can idris offer for the existence of duplex moulds prior to 1960? The Triumph MC is the earliest 1-75 that I am aware of that exists as twins! What evidence does idris have that there ever were 2 different #20a bodies produced as twins per filling of the mould especially if Nick tells us he believes that MW were cast alongside the #20a body? I dont have any,indeed the 40 years book tells us that each new generation of casting machines designed by Jack Odell were able to take bigger capacity tools. I have never seen any photos of open 1950s 1-75 series tooling but you can bet that IF MW were cast alongside bodyshells then baseplates would have been too for all MW castings that needed them which might actually be the way they went before going for twin & triplet castings we know well on post 1964 models

[Idris]

What evidence can idris offer for the existence of duplex moulds prior to 1960?

None whatsoever, but can you prove to the contrary?

[SMS88]

What evidence can idris offer for the existence of duplex moulds prior to 1960?

None whatsoever, but can you prove to the contrary?

No need to prove something not seen doesnt exist -if idris wants to claim variations exist then show us the variations you are claiming - as far as most of us are concerned uncoded variations are not assumed to exist,they must be proven to exist
I cant see any casting differences between any pre-1960 1-75 series that cannot be accounted for by tooling modifications - if any exist as they do on all well known mid 1960s onwards twins perhaps any member who believes there were twins pre 1960 might offer us any evidence of casting differences that survived all tool modifications of any pre 1960 1-75 series?

[Idris]

This model was covered in U.K. Matchbox, Vol. 6, No. 6, (Feb. 1983), p208, and the relevant text reads "...Several collectors have reported examples found with a 'spare wheel' behind the cab, where such a wheel has been jammed between the rear of the cab and the backboard of the body of the lorry and having been so done before the model had been painted, so that the 'spare wheel' has also been painted in the body colour...not many were so produced".
A follow up was published in Vol. 7, No. 1 (Apr. 1983), p23 which reads as follows "Graham Ward has written to state that he considers that the.....'spare wheel' is a genuine and intended variant. He has had several pass through his hands, and all have the 'spare wheel; in the same position - is on the left side of the model between cab and headboard. This would be something of a coincidence if this variation was due to random accident. However, Ray Bush disagrees as he has seen two models with the wheel on the right side, again emphasises no knowledge of such a variant intended by Lesney personnel questioned and logic dictating that if a spare wheel wheel was intended it would have been so fitted after the model had been painted and no before - but the matter rests."

It would therefore seem that there are more than just three in existence.

[SMS88]

Graham Ward sounds like a sensible fellow ! Can any member here point to any other examples of either loose components or loose flash or loose sprue sections being trapped on or inside any castings in crevices like the 20A ? If we are to take the possibilty of wheels trapped on #20a as accident rather than deliberate then there must be similar examples of other MW castings having painted trapped ´´extras´´ ............
It really doesnt matter which side the spare wheel is on,as long as it has been painted on the truck. If they were deliberately fitted it would have been done by hand as fast as possible, left or right side same difference to the workers.........