What makes a different casting an accepted variation?

[Miller]

While i examined my models, i learned a lot about all the single things, that make a variation. So there are ridges, edges, recessed or raised parts, numbers, die numbers, wheels and their sizes and colors, paint shades and build dates.

Is there a kind of hierarchy that determines, which detail will be recognized as a variation and which does not?

The reason, why i´m asking this, is the difference in handling the cast/toolbox number between the 38a Honda motorcycle and trailer and the 73c Mercury commuter station wagon

The toolbox number on the trailer quadruples the number of variations from 8 to 32. On the Mercury Commuter the cast number isn´t even mentioned in the desciption or the photos! Why?

[GHOSTHUNTER]

Hi Roland.

Your question is a very good one and pulls in several Grey areas. Taking your Two pictures as an example, Tooling numbers (seen on many components within the Lesney product ranges), are not considered by every one as a version of a model or a variation of a model from the preceding model that may have a higher or lower tooling number.

If where the tooling number is cast, there may be differences against a preceding model, that may well be seen as a different version of a model or a variation of a model.

At some point in a model's production period, it may be necessary to move the tooling number because a strentghening brace might be need in the same spot and if that brace can be seen with destroying the model, perhaps we can easily see it inside the wheel-arch, then that is often classed as a version or variation against a preceding model.

Does that make sense...

Ghosthunter.

[Miller]

Not really - the die number never moved on the trailer

[GHOSTHUNTER]

Not really - the die number never moved on the trailer

Perhaps not on the trailer, but on other models in general they may have had to move it.

You also have collectors chasing all tool numbers. The 'Models of Yesteryear' model number Y-5 Talbot Van has Two rear doors that open and if I remember correctly, there are Two sets of door castings used to go on the model giving rise to Four tooling numbers between them. This means a collection of Vans on display may all look the same until that collector points out the rear doors are different, different tool numbers...

I don't personally know the trailer you speak of, I know of it as part of the range, it is not one of the models I collect, but we do have members that have collected several examples of the trailer so lets hope they come here and share their views on it.

Ghosthunter.

[ChFalkensteiner]

In my humble opinion different die numbers should never constitute "main" variations, simply because there are so many parts on all Matchbox models made from the mid-1960s onward which feature different die numbers (sometimes visible without dismantling the models, sometimes not) that it is totally impossible to catalogue them all as variations because of their sheer volume. So to avoid inconsistencies in catalogue listings, it would be better to omit them all.

They can be mentioned in side notes or footnotes, and it should be up to each individual collector's preference how far he or she wants to go with distinguishing die numbers for his or her own collection. Sometimes parts coming from different dies differ not only by that cast number but by some other additional aspects such as differently shaped or positioned casting lines or texts or the like. In such cases it is tempting to catalogue those differences as main variations, but again I think this should be avoided.

Unfortunately most published catalogues contain such inconsistencies, and this includes my own listings. I am constantly working to eliminate those inconsistencies and to introduce for each and every model a clear distinction between actual casting changes (which should be regarded as main variations) and differences resulting from different dies being used concurrently (which should not), but it is a cumbersome and lengthy process which may not be completed by the end of my lifetime. Nonetheless I still have fun trying!

[kwakers]

Hello Miller, and a warm Welcome to our Forum! I will attempt to explain the above answers with some slightly complicated Lesney variation history. Nick's online variation site was originally based on Mike Stannard's original 1985 Lesney regular wheel Guide, plus some additional models Nick had run into that were not listed there. Christian, (ChFalkensteiner) as a leading detail collector had also added a bunch of casting and component variations to his own collection that were also unlisted in Mike's very detailed 1985 casting Guide. Thanks to Nick's work online, and later with Christian's encouragement, I believe all his additions are now contained within Nick's online Guide. After six plus years of we Forum members/collectors such as you and I sharing additional details on models we have, had, or recently found that are different from Nick's codes, Nick's free online Guide has grown to the definitive work anyone can still access online free of charge. We have all kept with the simple format from Mike's original 1985 work that was never meant to include different component casting numbers at all on any of our Lesney variations. Ghosty may have confused you a little with his example of casting change progression (as it may SOMETIMES correlate to visible casting numbers), but we simply have chosen to continue ignoring casting numbers on all Lesney components. At times when there is a physical difference noted on a Lesney component such as the #42 Studebaker Wagon windshield now being discussed on one Post, the casting numbers on those windscreens may be compared with each other, but never used in the final coding of these Wagons with their (now) 4 different style windshield units. We will eventually figure out in what order or timeline each style windscreen left the factory, and in which codes each came in. Nick's variation list on that Wagon could double in the number of codes noted there if he feels these windshield differences are noteworthy. If not, Nick may choose to add only a windshield footnote in his listings and keep the codes the same as they are today.
There are no "Rules" here, but Christian and Ghosty above have given you some limits that Nick has on his definition of a "Code". It is Nick's lifetime of hard work that has brought us all here to enjoy our mutual hobby together. I have added variations in our own collection that Nick does not list in his codes, but does mention at his site. The 12C Land Rover is listed as coming both with and without an inside transmission tunnel molded into it's interior. EVERY veteran U.S. collector I show a tunnel version to has never noticed that, or even heard of them noted anywhere at all. Nick does not code his models with or without this major floor difference, but I have 6 different codes with tunnels and 10 different without tunnels listed in our own collection. This Rover with or without the small base pip behind the tow hitch is recognized in codes as it was in Mike Stannard's 1985 Guide, but NOT the major interior floor tunnels Mike had totally missed....
With that example of my being quite a 'Rogue Yank Collector' Miller, you can now enjoy cataloging as many Bike Trailer casting numbers as you wish in coding your collection of them. We all enjoy this hobby together, but on many different levels of detail as we may choose for ourselves. Cheers!.....kwakers

[kwakers]

I just read Nick's listing on these #38C Trailers Miller, and he does use the toolbox casting numbers to try and make recognizing his (ONLY??) three different types of bases easier to tell apart. The numbers are not the reason these three bases are different from each other, the different axle channels and also the lack of, or the presence of raised blocks are major casting changes on this Trailer's base. But,.....I now see the source of your confusion when Nick has unexpectedly shown and given casting numbers on both this Trailer, and also on the Motorcycles that came on top of them.....
Somehow in his listing only three different Trailers on this #38C, Nick has eliminated 3 other base types that Mike Stannard had both pictured and coded by in his 1985 Guide. I have examples of Mike's other 3 Trailer bases in our collection that Nick has at sometime eliminated, so I don't quite understand his very limited codes right now on this Lesney Trailer.
On the #73 Mercury base, the early single interior positioning posts may have proved ineffective, so another post was added on each side to better hold the interior in it's proper place on the factory assembly line. The year of 1968 on the base of this one must have bothered management upstairs because it was changed to that elevated Mercury on it's base very soon after the model was released. I will note this one's base casting numbers in my own notes Miller to see whether each were found with both base wordings on them. It is a little too detailed even for me, but may be interesting to check on now that you have mentioned it here...... kwakers

[Miller]

Thank you Gentlemen for the time you spend with your answers!

First of all - my post wasn´t meant as a criticism! I´ve been reading here for some time before i got registered and I have read a lot of threads, where variants were discussed. I appreciate all the time, efford and work invested here from Nick and all of you. Its just me trying to understand the reasons, why a fact leads to a variation on one casting and not on another one. But now i see a light at the end of the tunnel (and i hope, its not an oncoming train )

Let me lead this to another question, that came up to me. The 23D Trailer Caravan has two bodies. I read the description of both to identify my examples and compared them. I found out, that the porch railings of the later ones are different shaped than the earlier ones. I searched the forum and found this fact discussed in some posts, but its not mentioned in the description?!

As i worked my way throught every single site of the variation guide, i found some more of this little gaps and i hope, i can contribute to get them closed.

[GHOSTHUNTER]

Hi Roland.

I hope we have given you some answers about what you originally asked us. It can be difficult explaining something of this nature to a new member, until He/She has got to grips with how we do it here.

I am glad you have experienced a lot of the posts by your earlier visits before becoming a member, that is good.

Regards "why a fact leads to a variation on one casting and not on another one". The are members here with models that have not been recorded on Nick's code list, simply because there needs to be more than One example to confirm it does exist as a full production model from a Lesney factory.

Sometimes what looks like a casting variation on part of a model has turned out to be tool ware after several members have looked at the model in close scrutiny and agreed as such.

Just remember this, we don't know everything about Matchbox models here, its just that we are further down the line than many others and we have some of the most respected and authorative toy and model experts as members, so you are certainly in good company...

Ghosthunter.

[ChFalkensteiner]

Somehow in his listing only three different Trailers on this #38C, Nick has eliminated 3 other base types that Mike Stannard had both pictured and coded by in his 1985 Guide. I have examples of Mike's other 3 Trailer bases in our collection that Nick has at sometime eliminated, so I don't quite understand his very limited codes right now on this Lesney Trailer.

The reason for this may be the fact that those further trailer base casting variations listed by Stannard directly correspond to the different die numbers.

As far as I have found, Stannard's bases C and F only come with die number 2, whereas Stannard's bases B and E only come with die numbers 1, 3 and 4. In fact there are some small casting differences between 1, 3 and 4, which could be described separately and lead to even more different base codes. Those are less obvious than the differences on the die number 2 base, so more difficult to describe properly, but nonetheless they are there.

Furthermore, Stannard's base D seems to be the same as E with the rear ejector rings just being less visible, and there are more "variations" in ejector ring visibility between the extremes of D and E.

So D and E may be regarded as being actually the same, and for the other differences, it seems to be easier to list the different die numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 instead, as those are easier to check than casting differences which are hard to describe - that is if you want to list those differences at all.

However, as indicated above, I think such differences between dies used concurrently should generally not be listed as main variations, as for consistency this would have to be done for many more models.