16c Scammell Snowplough

[Idris]

The NAMC’s “Catalog of all Series Matchbox Models” (second edition) has two variations not listed by Nick: 16-3c (closed steps/no hole/red and white decal/11.5 x 45 BPW), and 16-3G (open steps/hole/orange and white decal/11.5 x 45 BPW). However, since the intermediate open/closed steps casting is not listed, these are most likely mis-identifications of known variants.
The AIM's “1-75 Series Regular Wheels” catalogue (second printing, 1983) also has two variations not listed by Nick: 16-3d (open steps/hole/red and white decal/11.5 x 45 BPW), and 16-3e (open steps/hole/orange and white decal/11.5 x 45 BPW). Once again, with the open/closed steps casting not being listed, these are most likely mis-identifications of known variants.
Stannard does not list any variation not already catalogued by Nick.
Houghton is almost identical to Stannard, but contains a strange deviation, with variation 16c-7 being open steps/hole/red and white decal/11.5 x 45 BPW instead of open steps/no hole/red and white decal/11.5 x 45 BPW Since the Stannard entry (which matches Nick's variation code 8) is missing from Houghton, I suggest this could be a typo. However, there is also the possibility that it represents a correction to Stannard's listing. Can anyone clarify?
U.K. Matchbox examined the model in vol. 3 no. 10 (Dec. '79) p196 and also has two variations not listed by Nick: variation 4 (open steps/hole/orange and white decal/11.5 x 45 BPW), and variation 5 (open steps/hole/orange and white decal/11.5 x 45 BPW). However, with the intermediate open/closed casting missing from the table, these probably represent mis-identifications of known variations.

Simplifying the above, and looking at Nick's variation table, open steps always come without the baseplate hole, closed steps always come with the baseplate hole, and open/closed steps can come with either. Has any Member an open steps model with the baseplate hole, or a closed steps model without?

[yellowfoden]

Has any Member an open steps model with the baseplate hole, or a closed steps model without?

Hi there Hugh,
Yes, I have the both steps open , hole in base variation.
Antonin also has this same casting but decal colour was not shown.
Dan has same but missing decal and features in the casting show ( and see also next line where he shows it again in this thread)
Member joembox also has one and we spoke of here

My notes also show Jason has a model with chassis brace and johnboy has shown a pic in the past with centre windscreen strut thickness difference. If John and Jason see this perhaps we can group all this info here.

I will add a second photo when the sun comes up to show blade decal colour.

Bert

[johnboy]

Good notes there Bert, this must have been some time ago. I've dug these out and taken a new photo and the model on the right with the thin middle pillar is a nj code 5, both steps closed with the baseplate hole.

[nearlymint]

Hi Bert,
I think it might be this one you refer to, model on the right does not have a brace supporting the bracket for the pin. Also in this picture I show a dark orange tipper on the left model.

16c

P1010014.JPG (89.98 KiB) Viewed 3147 times

J

[Brad Pittiful]

i have one like Jason pictured with out the braces

also have open steps with hole in base like Bert pointed out

also my open/closed steps models have hole in base and red striped decals

[yellowfoden]

16c Scammell
Here is the photo of the 16c with open steps and hole in base on right to show the decal colour and a comparison model on left as promised above.

Thanks John,
Yes that was the comparison shot I was thinking of with the thin pillar. This centre pillar is quite delicate and yet not often seen broken out on this model.

It looks to be associated with the cab component with the closed steps both sides. This is interesting because thinner means more metal in tooling or perhaps a new mould. But the castings of the cab component that I have seen with closed steps the detail is not a crisp as earlier castings, which you would normally associate with a new mould.
I have looked at way too many of these and starting to see snow flakes which are pretty rare in this part of the world.

Thanks Jason,
In the thread where you showed the brace/no brace model you mentioned you weren’t sure where the braced one fitted into the codes.
It looks like the brace at the tipper pivot point started at NJ code 4. In studying Dan’s photos in the casting show I can see the brace on his model with left step open right closed. Brace only applies to any model with hole in base.
I was thinking at one point there may be crossovers relating to hole in base and the pivot brace. So far it looks like when the model number 16 was moved, the hole in base cast they added the braces at the pivot point at the same time.

Here is another image as an item of interest where original text with the top half of SNOWPLOUGH is seen on the flat portion of the base plate next to the raised platform. Remnants of this text can be found on almost all variations.

Bert

[kwakers]

We have been down this road too many times Hugh. If the American "Bibles" AIM and/or NAMC have a variation printed in them, it was a code that Harold and/or Bob had seen in person, not just picked out of the air. I helped with some models out of our own collection with both Bob and Harold's Guides, but they insisted on seeing and verifying any code they did not have in their own collections. In Bob's NAMC Guide, if the variation has two periods next to it, that means he had one in his personal collection. If the code is shown with only a single period next to it, that means he did not own that variation at the time that edition of his Guide was printed.
I can also confirm from our own collection the open cab steps, hole in the base, and ours also having a red and white decal on the blade.
Our darker shade Dump body model has closed steps, an open base hole, and also has a red and white decal on the blade.
I do not have the one side open and the other side closed steps because our "Bibles" might not have had them listed in the 1970s. Those have been discussed here in our Forum over the years and they have 2 Stannard codes with odd steps that way, having either of the 2 different decal colours, red/white or orange/white on their blades...... I need both versions....
kwakers

[Idris]

I appreciate what you say, Dick, but there are some other considerations:
1) Where an important variable has been missed (e.g. intermediate steps casting on the 16c, the fourth base on the 16d), it is possible that previously catalogued variations which appear to be missing from Nick's listing could actually be mis-identifications of known variations.
2) Martin's Maxim requires that some (but admittedly not all) variations require a second example in order to verify them.
3) Tinman might well disagree, but I do wonder whether our ability to spot fakes is better these days than it was back in the 1960s/1970s. certainly our knowledge of what came out of the factory during the RW-era has moved on significantly.
4) I see two distinct families of catalogue listings. NAMC and AIM, whilst not identical, do tend to be similar, whilst Nick's and Houghton's listings are obviously directly derived from Stannard (who appears to have ignored NAMC and AIM and whom we know regularly ignored striking colour differences, e.g. 17c in red and maroon). In addition, there is also Leake (which is more of a high-level variation listing, but has its uses when checking differences between the two listing groups) and UK Matchbox (where early listings clearly draw on NAMC and AIM, but later listings are 'home-grown').
5) Cataloguers and printers do make mistakes. (We had one of these with the 61a, where NAMC suggests that a model exists with only the front right toolbox filled in, whereas everyone else catalogues the rear right toolbox as being the first to be filled in.)

So, rather than taking anything on trust, I prefer to err on the side of caution and simply flag up the fact that there are previously-catalogued variations which are missing from Nick's tables in the hope that a Member will be able to confirm the new variation's existence.

[Tinman]

I'm in agreement with Hugh's commentary. I have seen models in collections of noted collectors that were not real. They were good enough to fool those collectors. However, upon close inspection, unmistakable signs of tampering turned proud moments of "sharing" into embarrassment for the model's owners. Over the years since, most of those people have become much better at inspecting models and discovering tampering on their own.

I recall one collector whom had plenty of disposable income for the hobby. This allowed them to build up a nice collection filled with rare and hard to find models. He used to post photos of them on the old mcch and everyone loved seeing his collection. I became involved with his collection because he wanted his models inspected, authenticated and graded for insurance reasons. Virtually every rare and really hard to find model in their collection was a fake. That collector quietly left the hobby.

Overall, I do think serious collectors are better educated today and make fewer mistakes with regard to fake and tampered models. That said, there are still some serious collectors out there that have difficulty spotting certain details.

I've not seen a guide yet that didn't have errors and typos. Charlie Mack's guides carry over the same errors from one publishing to the latest one. Some authors have recorded models that cannot exist because of casting issues that could only mean a repaint of a model that was cast too late in the time line for the rare early color. Even Nicks listings still have errors, omissions and questionable items.

The existence of some variations solely depend on the opinion of the guide's author. That opinion may or may not be correct. I recall constantly being at odds with Mark Curtis (owner of the defunct mcch forums) about his opinions of certain models. If a model wasn't listed in his Stannard guide, he often denounced the model a fake.

Then there is the issue of certain people who do possess great knowledge of the hobby. The issue is because some of those individuals have crossed the line and generated fakes and passed them on for profit. In my view, once that happens, they are forever tainted and their knowledge becomes tainted and useless. I simply cannot place any trust in their opinions (regardless of their alleged knowledge).

It's my personal opinion that a variation (variations in general) can never be discussed too much. Something interesting always turns up just when you least expect it.

[Diecast]

There are three unlisted variations (I have mentioned it yet)
a) with two large triangular braces and without a rectangular brace
b) with two small triangular braces and without rectangular brace
c) with two small triangular braces and one rectangular brace
I am not sure if there is a variation with two large triangular braces and with a rectangular brace. The sequence seems to be illogical, but according the open/closed steps variation it should be correct.

Antonin