Following-on from the policeman and - like
the previous post - re-shot after everything had been brought together; it's
the Guards, from Cavendish, Hong Kong
and possibly Kentoys (Having used Kentoy earlier, I'm adding the 's' for
this post - they used both!).
The earlier shot had the figures out of
what I suspect is the correct order of issue, but - if more than one Hong Kong
maker is involved - not necessarily? The figures marked '1' above are the Cavendish sculpt (Charles C Stadden's
work, or George Musgraves?) They have a distinctive plume on the right of the
bearskin.
The Hong Kong figures of which there are
two distinct versions (and a sub-variation discussed below); numbered '2' and
'3' above are all manufactured in polystyrene.
The updated shot gets them in the 'right
order' and adds a Cavendish original as the first figure on the left, which,
although better painted has a brush-slip hidiosity for a white rifle-sling!
Now, if the Kentoys sculpt is a Norman Tooth effort (as claimed by Mr Tooth in
his interview for the eponymous PW
special on the firm) and the figure numbered '1' above is a Stadden sculpt
where is the Musgrave design; the PW
special having listed three?
Might it be that the reference to the Stadden
'sentry' was a crossed-wire with the band's officer (marching) and the sentry
above is Musgrave's work, the quality of the sculpt could be either Stadden or
Musgrave, but the PW special isn't
clear and/or doesn't show all three together, while I don't know of another?
As the '2' and '3' are copies of the 1,
almost certainly originating in the copyist-shops of a certain British Crown Colony,
I seem to be short a sculpt (and any copies of that sculpt), for the
Tooth-Stadden-Musgrave line of evolution given in the PW Cavendish work?
The 1b's are made of a dense polymer more
akin to polypropylene than ethylene and seem to be quite 'new', also the painting
is more HK than Cavendish in style? The
[other] HK copies are all polystyrene while Kentoys
and Cavendish tended to use chalky
polyethylene's, leaving one with a question mark over the 1b's, as to where
they were produced, did Michael Martin or Tony Kite ship the tool to Hong Kong
quite early - allowing - more easily - for all the copies? Or has/had the tool
resurfaced over here in recent years?
The sub-piracies 3a and 3b have some minor
differences; sharper fur on the flatter-topped bearskin of 3b and strange
painting of the cuffs of the same figure, which may point to a third (or
fourth) source in HK, the others being: 65mm copy of Tooth's figure, copy of
Stadden/Musgrave (?) sculpt ('2'), and the sub-piracy ('3a'). My '3b' is
damaged but from the paint you can see he's got the same shorter version of
bayonet as the '3a'.
Three '2's, the one damaged being attached
to a sentry box which is also a Cavendish-via-Kentoys sculpt, although there are so
many of these (Kentoys & sub-Kentoys sentry boxes) out there, they'll
need a similar comparison post one day.
The Norman Tooth design, here in the 65mm
HK form, is similar to Timpo's
guards' styling (and I may have described it as such in the past, but A) I was
only a few years into this big-scale malarkey, B) I seem to be getting the hang
of it now and C) nobody corrected me at the time!), but Tooth sculpted some of
their (Timpo's) stuff as well.
The 'Grand Parade'! I think the Cavendish 'Tooth' is the damaged one on
the far left (gloss painted-base), then a matt-painted base from Kentoys, followed by the 65mm Hong Kong
clone of Tooth's sculpt third, a Cavendish
Stadden/Musgrave (? For what it's worth - I think it's Musgrave), the two odd
ones, four '2's and finishing with the two 3's on the far right.
No comments:
Post a Comment