28c Jaguar Mk. 10

[Idris]

Neither the NAMC’s “Catalog of all Series Matchbox Models” (second edition) nor the AIM's “1-75 Series Regular Wheels” catalogue (second printing, 1983) contain any variations not already listed by Nick. The same is true of Stannard.
Houghton has a highly plausible unlisted variation as 28c-6, namely the 9 x 36 BPW version but with unpainted engine. If confirmed, this would be added to the end of Nick's table as variation code 6.
U.K. Matchbox did not examine the model.

Looking at Nick's table, I see that codes 1 and 2 (the three-line base variants) are in the wrong order, since the development off the braces in the engine bay clearly shows that the BPW version pre-dates the GPW model. In addition, the BPW version is a single example of a pre-production, so does it really belong in the list at all? Furthermore, given the holes in many of the baseplates, there is a strong suspicion that the GPW variant was used for promotional displays and (for those examples without the hole) for salesman's samples. As such, should this still be included in the list, or should it be relegated to a footnote?

[kwakers]

Our GPW Jaguar was found used locally in the northeastern United States in 1968 with its tow hitch having been chewed on by a hungry child Hugh. It still is in nice original shape with its original distinctive 3 line base, and it does not have that show stand base hole in it at all. I have seen a second 28C GPW Jaguar on E Bay that was listed for sale in a 1964 period Gift Set, and those couple that I have seen on E Bay selling singly that were "originals" (and not Fakes) also did not have holes drilled in their base. The E Bay Seller/Forum member Mercman with the Gold pre-pro 46 Mercedes also had one of those original #28 GPW Jags. in his large collection that he sold several years back. At that point he and I did some comparisons and notes on those GPW Jags known to exist or for sale at that point in time. Your statement "given the holes in many of the baseplates" applies to Nick's model ONLY as far as all the original GPW models I have seen for sale Hugh. Because we knew of more than 10 of the genuine 3 line GPW Jags in collections worldwide, aren't they just to be considered a very rare early base casting and wheel variation of that (soon to be) very common 1964 released Jaguar model? Why should Nick's listings now become less definitive than Stannard's from 1985 were? That is simply my opinion on the matter as an owner of an apparently store bought & lightly played with example of that GPW model. As a matter of fact from my own study and knowledge of those sold, the existing GPW Jags I have seen are in played with non-mint condition versus all of them being a "Special" rare Mint variation that left the factory and were all held by veteran collectors since they were new 42 years ago. Your "Strong suspicion" of "Display Only" does not fit any I have seen offered of this rare variation Hugh.
I cannot exclude Nick's BPW oddity from his own listings Idris, that is simply a cruel suggestion. You Devil you! It should be placed as Code #1 as you have stated because of it's odd radiator support casting that predates the models we know as "commons" today.
Knowing that if Nick found one in the U.K., there should be at least a couple of others surviving worldwide with that odd underhood casting just like his. Because of their black plastic wheels, they may not be as easy to smoke out as our distinctive GPW models unless they are carefully checked by those knowing tread count variations and/or who are still searching for a Holy Grail 3 line finer BPW base variant (Which SHOULD exist...???). I would give Nick's a Code one and I am still keeping a sharp lookout for a new mixed code 2 (First Rad. Suppt./GPW) or a mixed code 3 (3 line base with fine BPW) that should exist, based on what we have discussed here on our Forum. kwakers

[Diecast]

I agree with Hugh, the order of the codes "1" and "2" should be changed, because the variation without front engine brace was produced before the variation with thin brace. I also agree with Dick, a variation with the BPW and three lines should be preserved in the Nick´s list. I propose to introduce CODE "0" for all known Prepro models.
Antonin

[GHOSTHUNTER]

If 'O' is introduced for 'Pre-Pro' models it will likely run to 'O1', 'O2', 'O3' and 'O4' etc, etc, because there are usually several produced before a final model is chosen.

Ghosthunter.

[Diecast]

If 'O' is introduced for 'Pre-Pro' models it will likely run to 'O1', 'O2', 'O3' and 'O4' etc, etc, because there are usually several produced before a final model is chosen.

Ghosthunter.

Good idea Ghosty, there are several Prepros sometimes. "01", "02",.. would be a solution.
Antonin

[Diecast]

now a short summary:
front engine braces:
a) no brace
b) thin brace
c) thick brace

[Diecast]

rear rivet brace (visible against light):
a) no brace
b) with brace

[Idris]

If 'O' is introduced for 'Pre-Pro' models it will likely run to 'O1', 'O2', 'O3' and 'O4' etc, etc, because there are usually several produced before a final model is chosen.

Ghosthunter.

Good idea Ghosty, there are several Prepros sometimes. "01", "02",.. would be a solution.
Antonin

Perhaps P1, P2, P3.... might be more logical (and clearer).

[Diecast]

base plate (easy to seen):
a) without protrusion
b) with protrusion

[Diecast]

Different colours by three/four lines variations