Crescent Plastic Figures Question Difference, Erwin Sell ask me a question. He found that the same two figures would be different in length. It made him ask the following questions.
Crescent Plastic Figures Question Difference The Question
This is a very quick work question I have. For years I have noticed differences in same figures poses from apparently same mold set.
I took this Crescent Cowboys poses set as sample to show my curiosity.
If you look well there is a 2 mm least difference maximum high in one figure and versus others looks definitely more body thick build .
But the more apparently obvious detail are weapons,
If look well at revolvers they look different designed in barrel and style.
While turning figures ,the bases show same numbers and words just with minor location variation.
Here we have another example of this difference. This time I am using the Crescent Cowby firing pistol holding the other one down.
Notice the difference of the pistols in the cowboy’s left hand.
My questions are did they use two molds? Is this common pratice by firms from UK? I have noticed it with my vintage Lone Star,Cherliea and others. Interestly I do not see this difference in the cereal versions Crescent did for Kellogg’s.
I appreciate any update from UK collectors.
Thank you
Crescent Plastic Figures Question Difference My Thoughts
One of the questions that can be asked what type of mold was used. Marx used for their molds beryllium. What kind of material did Crescent use for their molds? The two mm difference hints of pantagraphing did the molds wear out?
It is something most people would not notice. For Erwin because his work he has done he would noticed this discrepancy. It is like I can tell by feel of a figure whether it is orginal or reissue.
A friend got this Matt Dillion figure. He handed to me and even before I flip it I knew the weight was wrong. On closer inspection I could see it was a resin copy. fortunately my friend had gotten with other things so he did lose any money.
So we have possible interesting mystery or not
Just by looking at it, the Matt Dillon seems to have a very worn and smoothed out look, almost like he was covered in a thick layer of paint. Marx figures mostly have much sharper detail. I am assuming the resin reproduction method does not pick up all the detail of the original. Also, the missing hand has a very clean break, which would be another giveaway. Soft plastic doesn’t snap off like that unless it is old and deteriorated like happens to some Timpo figures. Is this Matt Dillon made of the same kind of hard resin as used in Barszo figures?
I was just handed figure and before I could put it up to my eyes I could feel it was not original. Once I looked at it I could see the other problems with it.
The Matt Dillon figure looks like a home made copy in cheap casting resin. It is not difficult to make a rubber mold of any plastic figure, so there are probably many copy cat versions out there. It would be interesting to see this figure beside an original Marx Matt Dillon to show the differences in size and detail.
The Crescent figures are likely from two different molds. When steel dies are pantographed the finer details are added carefully by hand “chasing”, so some variations can occur.
could the smaller versions be copies? as a kid i had a series of painted ACW figures that i enjoyed. prominent was a pistol wielding officer in a sling. much later i discovered they were copies of crescent figures, made by, i think, blue box. they are smaller than the originals, markedly so, maybe in the 50mm range. still some of my favorites.
No all are original, I have plenty.
Crescent copies are much smaller of those made in HK are marked as well.
base indicate where made and number.
Clearly made by Crescent.
I have not record of Blue Box ever selling Crescent or copied then .
The copiers of Crescent , Cherilea ,Lone star from HK are generic made .
generally sold in bags
In few instances such Indian and African from LS, there were early well done copies in good detail with even match paint job but once you turn then have the made in HK bellow .
I have made in Spain -Pipero copies of British firm but bases are complete different too.
MEXICAN Crescent and Cherliea were copied by Pipero
Pipero was a kiosko cheap toys seller from Spain ,they copied own Spaniards line such Reamsa,Pech Hermanos as well other countries brands.
Best
The English manufacturers moulds were all made from brass, steel wasn’t used until the Deetail range came in, long after Crescent, Cherilea, Lone Star and all the smaller companies had bit the dust. It was much cheaper to produce a mould in brass and it was the material/process that had already been in use for 70 years to produce the moulds for hollowcast toy soldiers.
The process was that a master was made in Plastecine (a professional version of a modelling clay still available today but the original recipe for the professional version was lost in a factory fire) built around a wire armature. The master figure was half embedded in fine sand and a plaster of Paris cast was made of the protruding half, when this was set the second half of the mould was made, again in plaster of Paris. The two plaster halves were then sent to a foundry where the plaster halves were copied in brass using a process called spark erosion. The final stage was for fine detail to be engraved into the brass moulds.
All of the early English manufacturers used this process and having interviewed many of them they told us that after a production run some parts of the mould would wear more than others, brass being a relatively soft matrial, so they would have to be sent to the toolroom to be cleaned up and renovated. The whole process has been documented in detail in past issues of PW magazine.
It would make commercial sense for a company to make more than one copy of each mould in case the original might be damaged beyond economic repair but in all my researches I have never come across this practice among the English manufacturers, I think they felt the production runs and the product life cycle (for the UK market) were likely to be relatively short and didn’t warrant making back up tooling (remember we’re not talking about the mass market that Marx had in the USA, very little English product was exported).
The differences in details like the pistols may be as a result of the clean up/re-engrave process after a production run or it may just be down to using a different grade or composition of plastic pellets in the injection moulding process, even in modern production such as Replicants or Basevich the quality of plastic can lead to some loss of detail.
While we talk of two part moulds, most of them actually consisted of three parts, the third being a base plate which carried the makers name and copyright information this was fitted into the figure when the mould was set up for injection moulding so it’s positioning could change slightly from one run to another.
Thank you so much Brian!!!
It answer my questions and make sense.
Interesting I never knew they use Brass.
Spaniards used Bronze till very late too. But in their case ,they often switch to new mold of same figures once start changing from early rubber figures to plastic.
I may had miss it in PW as There few years I was not subscribed or before in early times I had few only.
The gun-revolver may had be changed in the cleaning-renovation work process may be then!
I appreciate your time and explanation of process. Very good information …
best regards…
You’re very welcome, I collect all types of toy soldiers (not just plastic) as well as books on toy soldiers and all types of moulds so I’m very interested in the manufacturing process.
If you look at the pics I sent of my Festus conversion, you may find an answer as to the Matt Dillon figure. My Matt figure was made by P&P Products, and is made of resin. Perhaps the figure in the pic…???? Incidentally, my Matt Dillon is pretty much the same scale/size as the original Marx figure.
Crescent had an issue with their Cowboys a 7 pose C42 was made and it looks like it was made in a second mold that copied five original poses.