Not One for the Win Column

All my Spoon Tomato seedlings are either dead or dying for no discernable reason, and I didn’t get picked from the waitlist for Goldfinch, so I am putting Tuesday in the “bad day” column and moving on. 

(I am more bummed about the tomatoes than Goldfinch – I spent actual money and time on those!)

I don’t care if I get called out for price shaming on this, but seriously, I need to rant right now. Prices are completely out of control not just for the Silver, but for just about… everything right now. Who are all these people buying $1000 Alborozos? 

Speculator markets like the one we’re apparently in the middle of are scary, dangerous, and never end well. I want no part of this.

This is also why I am not optimistic about getting picked for the True Blue Exclusive Event: people like me who actually want to participate in the event are going to be outnumbered by the resellers.

(I kind of wish there weren’t any exclusive items for these events at all, beyond the one model and the one Stablemate. But I know I am dreaming.)

One of the side effects of this speculator’s market is the sheer abundance of White Boxers that have come up for sale. The White Boxer is one of the few Traditional Breyer Dogs I don’t have – and at the prices they are currently going for, it’s going to stay that way.

Years ago it was assumed that only a small quantity of White Boxers existed – I think the number that floated around was 25? – but that’s since been disproven by both documentary evidence and the sheer number of them that have turned up over the years. 

Scarce? Yeah. Eight hundred dollars worth of Rare? Nope.

Some of the pricing on these Boxers is a consequence of misinformation still being circulated. That was the case with the Buckskin Lady Phases for years, as well.

Collectors, for the most part, now realize that not all Buckskin Lady Phases are the same, and “rare, extremely limited quantity” label attached to her referred to her slightly (but noticeably) different Model Horse Congress and VaLes Bead Trailer runs, not her later and actually pretty numerous JC Penney’s Christmas catalog run. 

But the White Boxer? It looks like I am going to have to continue biding my time until (a) I get lucky, (b) this nutso speculator’s market we’re currently trapped in finally abates or (c) the hobby finally comes around to the idea that it’s not THAT rare of a model in the first place, and moves on to something else.

Preferably something I do not want, or already have.

(I know, also dreaming.)

Squishies

Had a close call earlier this week; I had to make a quick pit stop after work (bran muffin-induced emergency) and found myself in a Tuesday Morning – and ooh, they had some mighty fine high-semigloss Stablemates Mystery Foal Set variations!

They were quite tempting, especially since my attempts last week to track down the Walmart Specials – not to buy, necessarily, but just to see “in the wild” – met with abject failure. Every store I happened to find myself in during my work travels either looked liked it hadn’t been reset yet, or had already been plundered for all the gold. It was nice to see a store with actual models on the shelf, for a change.

Fortunately I managed to escape the Tuesday Morning unscathed, but tomorrow is payday and I’ll be in the same part of town….

…and they had an intriguing Classic Haflinger Mare that is bothering me even more than those lovely little Stablemates. She was seriously squished, kind of like my Woodgrain Boxer here:

He’s normal looking from the side, in case you were wondering:

The Haflinger’s side profile was also distorted – that’s how I noticed she was a little peculiar in the first place – so an even better example would have been one of the later Stablemates G1 Quarter Horse Mares with the twisted barrels. But I am in no mood to go digging through my Stablemates tonight.

I’m fairly sure it was a factory-originated flaw and not one that occurred in shipping, because her shading was exquisite – either someone at the factory took it upon themselves to make up for her other deficiencies, or her more dramatic contours enhanced her paint job naturally.

The Haflinger was obviously a one-off, possibly caused by a handling or machine error while the mold halves were still warm and freshly molded. More uniform examples like the Boxer might be – like Bloaties – a result of climate/temperature changes, issues with the mold itself, or a problem in the assembly process.

(The narrowness of more recent molds – like Duende, or the Imperador das Aguas – is most likely an issue with the metal molds themselves, I think.)

Although not as common – or beloved – as Bloaties, this molding flaw occurs with enough frequency that I feel like I need to coin a name for the afflicted. Collapsers? Squishies? Skinnies?

I kind of like Squishies, at the moment.

Boxer Day

Cripes, not again. I swear, when I posted this on Christmas Day:

A 40-piece Special Run Wedgewood Blue Pronghorn Antelope? Didn't see that coming. (What I thought might be coming? Either the Elk, or the Boxer.)

I had no idea that they would actually be doing a Boxer a few days later. Here’s Rolly:

He was available only to people who didn't buy Glacier, so I couldn't have gotten him anyway - which is good, because my follow-up doctor's appointment was that afternoon, and it would have bugged the bananas out of me to think I missed it-missed it!

(All is well on that health issue, BTW. It was something rare, unusual, and benign. And now gone for good.)

I like that they offered him only to people who did not order Glacier - that’s a nice way to spread the wealth around a bit. It’s an interesting and potentially viable workaround for future Vault Sales: drag it out during the holiday week when most people have some extra time and/or money, and limit the rarities to one per person.

It’s sort of like "Let’s Make a Deal"! Do I choose the contents of Door Number One, or pass it up for what might be behind Door Number Two?

My only complaint with being excluded from the Rolly sale is that I wasn’t able to directly print out the offer page for my archives, as I usually do.

I’ve seen some people compare these sales to what Peter Stone has been doing, but I think the comparison is a little off. What’s true: they are superpremium models with prices that reflect both the esoteric nature of the mold and paint selections, and the amount of detail that goes into creating them. Like with Ghost Moose’s eyes:

On the other hand, it’s Peter Stone who is duplicating himself, not the other way around. As I’ve mentioned before (most recently, here) Breyer has been doing these "Micro Runs" for years - some as early as the 1960s and 1970s. Surely all of the various prize models over the years - live shows, JAH contests and BreyerFest - also count. (Anything under 100 pieces, or 50? I can’t recall if I defined a piece threshold.)

And as for other differences, there are lots, and entire forums dedicated to arguing about it. The most fundamental difference is in the marketing. Running a boutique operation where every run is either a Micro Run or Factory Custom is basically Peter Stone’s business model. Reeves sells models of every production level and price point to everyone, and their Micro Runs are just one of the ways they market their product to the higher end/more dedicated segment of their customers.

Rolly's neat, and I had been planning on working on gaps in my dog collection next year anyway: looks like another one just opened up! I'll have to do a trade of some sort down the road, because the original $250 price tag would have been a stretch for me, regardless.

If I had the time - or the mind - to do it, I’d call up Reeves and ask if they are just deliberately messing with me now. If you guys are, could you please hold off on the Special Run Elk a few more days?

The bank account is a little low, and I don’t get paid until Friday. 

The Flip Side

The other side of that Stablemates Flier is interesting too - and will you look at that!

It looks like I have to make a correction on an earlier claim, then: here’s another instance of those unproduced Arabian and Morgan Foal sets being mentioned in Breyer ephemera. (I previously thought they only appeared in the 1975 Pricelist - my bad!)

This sort of thing happens all the time in historical research - not just of the Breyer type. Corrections have to be made because new data shows up, and more often than not, it makes fools of us.

In this case it’s not TOO big a deal: the foals were never produced or released, and hence will (probably) never have to have documentation written up about them. (Unless they, too, show up just to spite us all. With all the things I’ve seen over the years, I wouldn’t be surprised if they did.)

However, it has become something of an issue with other items over the years. Hobbyists can become overly fond of their particular history resources, and as a result some of the errors in those resources get carried forward, even when more recent editions or research corrects or contradicts those errors.

In a lot of those cases, the corrections are minor - an errant misspelling, a transposed number, confusion about actual release dates versus catalog release dates - but in some cases, they are not.

The one that bothers me the most is the Boxer. Breyer, back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, sent out a "Complete List" of Breyer Releases to hobbyists who asked for it. Although it was extremely helpful as a starting point for many of us (including me!) what we didn’t know at the time was that Breyer had an extremely small base of ephemera to work from.

The earliest dated piece they had was from 1958, so most of the earliest items were given a release date of 1958. Including the Boxer.

Since then we’ve been able to conclude otherwise: the Boxer came out in 1953 (maybe a little bit earlier, but 1953 is the earliest dated appearance in print.) That’s a five-year difference - enough to make a relatively common early Breyer even more so.

And then there’s the case of the Old Mold Mare and Foal, which Marney Walerius was convinced came out in 1956 - and which couldn’t have happened, since the Hagen-Renaker molds they were based on (and sued over!) came out in the Spring of 1957. Claiming the 1956 date insinuates (albeit innocently) that the legal action H-R was pursuing wouldn’t have been valid - though it’s pretty clear from Breyer’s actions in the matter that they most likely were.

(I say "most likely" only because I haven’t seen the paperwork, and with legal paperwork, wording is everything. That paperwork is one of MY holy grails, BTW.)

Neither one of those instances will necessarily affect the value of the pieces in question: Boxers are still going to be modestly priced and lightly collected, and hobbyists will still covet finely preserved specimens of Old Molds almost as much as the H-Rs they were derived from.

The only instance where I see it really mattering - other than in an official/popular history sense - is in the terms of collectibility documentation. If someone judging collectibility prefers one source over another - and theirs isn’t yours - well, I could see some issues there.

(Speaking strictly hypothetical here: not implying anything about anybody.)

The Answers to Everything

Got a gander at the prices the Gloss Joeys on eBay are bringing - yeowch! I sure could use the money to get some work done on the car, but mine’s not going anywhere. I’ll just have to nickel-and-dime it, the way I usually do. (I’m giving up a whole bunch of stuff for Lent that should help, too. My finances, if not my attitude.)

I’ve decided to keep the Joey in the box for a while longer. I was cleaning up the office last night before going to bed, and noticed that the box liner/insert the model was attached to was coming undone.

Because it was put together using Scotch Tape, and not the industrial quality strong-enough-to-set-tile-with stuff they usually use. The boxes themselves were assembled in New Jersey!

The notion of a box-assembling party in the Reeves offices amuses me no end. (Was pizza involved?)

Another box came yesterday - the one with the Vintage Club Dandy. I haven’t had the chance to open it yet; as usual, I’m a little crushed for time. The shipping box is kind of interesting - a new take on the original Fighting Stallion shipper box - except that the UPS stickers obscure all the best parts.


I’m going to assume that this is going to be the standard shipper for the Vintage Club, and not worry about the condition of this one. I should have plenty of opportunities to get that one representative sample.

My Vintage Club membership number is … 42. The high holy number of the Internet, the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything? Awesome.

(Yes, I do keep a towel in my car. Right next to the pantry.)

Henceforth, all my Vintage Club horses shall be named after Hitchhiker’s Guide characters. (I already have a Clydesdale named Dent. Coincidence? I think not!)

The extra little surprise that they gave us is a copy of the 1953 (not 1954!) Boxer flier, with a copy of the pastel rough on the opposite side. I already had copies of both (of course) and an original of the Boxer ad, from an early 1953 issue of Playthings magazine (February or March, I forget - whatever month Toy Fair was that year.) Mine has a list of the regional representatives on the bottom, and the ad for the Western Horses printed on the opposite side.

Did you see the disclaimer at the bottom?

"This archival copy and all images may not be reproduced, posted to the Internet, or used without the written permission of Reeves."

Dudes, that bridge has already been crossed. Not just by me, but by lots of hobbyists. I can’t speak for the actions or intents of other hobbyists, but I feel that most of what I do here would fall under the Fair Use Doctrine, as codified in the Copyright Act of 1976.

If anything, my use of the materials in question actually results in a net benefit to Reeves. (FYI: My opinion only. I have had a little bit of legal training, but I am not a legal professional.)

More Discoveries from the Stacks

Here’s another nice little tidbit of information I gleaned from my research last week. You’ve seen this little stack ad before, right? (My apologies on the quality of the copy; it was the end of the day, and I was starting to run low of spare change to pop in the copier.)


I’ve written about it before, and even made a t-shirt out of it, I loved it so much. There’s nothing particularly noteworthy about the ad in and of itself: it’s the same ad that Breyer ran in both Toys and Novelties and Playthings through most of 1952. What’s important is the dating: the copy above came from the February 1953 issue of Toys and Novelties. In the March 1953 issue, a new version of the ad appeared in the same magazine:


The Boxer replaces the Money Manager!

This was around the same time the Boxer made his debut at Toy Fair; in fact, it was in the "Toy Fair" issue that included the full page, full color ad for the Boxer. There was at least one other version of this ad, with Breyer’s street address crammed into the lower right hand corner box, that started appearing in 1954. The library was getting ready to close by the time I cracked open that volume, and I didn’t have the time to get a copy of it.

Is there’s some historical significance to the street address? Well yeah, a little. We’ll get to that topic some other time.

This ad doesn’t offer much from a research standpoint: it doesn’t really add much to our knowledge of Breyer History. We’ve already established that the Boxer came out in early 1953. All it does, at most, is visually signify the end of Breyer’s Money Manager era.

One thing these stack ads do "do" for me is make me wish Reeves would do something with these neat old graphics. Don’t you think the Boxer ad would make an awesome iron-on patch, or dress up a tote bag real nice?

Most of Reeves’s current ad and graphic work is competent, but not particularly inspiring or evocative. (I really don’t like the bumper sticker/badge logo with the dropped R, but I’ve learned to live with it.) There are probably some legal hurdles that would prevent the reuse of some of that older material, but some of the powers-that-be at Reeves could at least try to incorporate some of the aesthetics of the older advertising into their newer material to spice things up a bit.

It might make good business sense, too: Breyers aren’t quite as iconic as Barbie or Tonka, but going a little retro on some of the ad campaigns might help boost their status a bit. And you can’t tell me that Breyer History isn’t any less interesting than Barbie’s or Tonka’s.

Not All That Enigmatic, Actually

Oops, sorry about that. Sort of got caught up in my BreyerFest preparations this week. (Still not done. Don’t ask!) And I had a dentist appointment; that always messes with my head.

Okay, I’m getting really, really annoyed with Breyer’s Facebook page. "Enigmatic" is hardly the word I’d use for Duke. If they were talking about the White Boxer, yeah, he’s a bit of a mystery. Duke was only released seven years ago - at BreyerFest! With a certificate and everything! Yeesh.

And if we’re talking about the mold in general, we know more about it than most Breyer molds from the 1950s. For example, it’s one of the few early molds where we have an official release date: January, 1953. It says so on this page from Playthings Magazine:


In this article, entitled "Tenite Boxer Newest Breyer Animal Creation." I scanned the entire left side of the page so you could get a better look at the date:


(Click on image to enlarge.)

This is not "new" information; Nancy Young pegged the Boxer as being ca. 1954 or earlier by 1995 - fifteen years ago. I found this page with the Boxer information a few years after that; I’ve published it in my Sampler, distributed copies of the Playthings page to anyone that wanted one, and mention it whenever the topic comes up.

Yet the bad information persists, and gets perpetuated by Reeves on their flipping Facebook page.

The only "enigmatic" thing about the mold, aside from the circumstances surrounding the White Boxer, is why it has the mold number of 1. Why not 66, his original item number, mentioned in the article above? I wonder if it’s a remnant of an early, abandoned number system, or something more mundane? (Lassie is mold number 2; there is no 3.)

They could have just been forgotten about when they were initially numbering the molds at whatever point in the past, and had new numbers assigned when it was discovered that both the Boxer’s and Lassie’s item numbers were already given to Stud Spider, and Justin Morgan respectively.

Eh, it’s probably something even more mundane than that. Sometimes my imagination gets the best of me.

Boehm's Bull (The Hereford Edition)

No, I wasn’t participating in NaNoWriMo or anything like that. I just have a mild case of the flu that, aside from the sore throat and achy limbs, has made me incredibly lethargic. It’s a little hard to type when your face keeps hitting the keyboard.

Like everyone else who fantasizes about writing the Great American Novel (and hasn’t yet succeeded), I’ve considered participating in NaNoWriMo. My resolution to finish all of my old quilting projects takes precedence, and I’m close enough to realizing that goal that I don’t want to mess it up with another huge time-suck. (Another plus: quilts are softer than keyboards.)

It’s one of the universally held truths of the literary world that one has to get the first million or so words before your writing stops (for lack of a more delicate word) sucking. One of the goals of NaNoWriMo is to give you a deadline and force you to write every day and get those words out of your system.

This blog was started, in part, to help me focus on my writing skills. I may not be dealing with plot, characterization or narrative, but I’d like to think it’s helped me work through a small portion of my "million-words-of-suck." So whenever I finally get around to tackling those big, meaningful writing projects, they’ll go just a little bit smoother. I hope.

Which brings me to the Boehm biography I found at the flea market last week.

The author and editor was a close personal friend of Boehm and an employee, and it shows: it’s more of a hagiography than a biography. The word fawning came to mind in my several attempts to get through the text. Here’s a brief excerpt:

"The next six years were to provide moments of excitement and depression for the Boehms. In retrospect, the hand of God surely over them for there were too many critical times in this period when it appeared the porcelain venture would fail. The great determination and endurance of Edward Marshall Boehm, working seventy to eighty hours a week, coupled with the courage, faith and enthusiasm of Helen Boehm, somehow carried them through each crisis."

He was also loved children, was beloved by Kings, Queens, Presidents and Pontiffs, and could peer into the very souls of animals. (Why, he knew animals so well that he was better at diagnosing the ailments of animals than the vet he worked for!) He was also handsome, talented, selfless, athletic, entirely self-taught, and probably good in bed.

Yeah, it reads does read like bad teenaged fanfic.

It was published a short time after Mr. Boehm death, and Mrs. Boehm undoubtedly had a hand in shaping the final manuscript as a final tribute. It’s not entirely unusable as a resource - there are a lot of lovely sketches, rare personal photographs, and descriptions of his working processes. Here’s a photograph that might look a little familiar:


It’s the presentation piece of the Hereford Bull, given by Mrs. Boehm to President and Mrs. Eisenhower in the spring of 1954. That date is … interesting.

Boehm’s Hereford was introduced in 1950. He was among the first Boehm pieces to be produced for general sale, but he wasn’t the first Boehm Breyer decided to adapt: that would be the Boxer, who was also among Boehm’s earliest releases.

Breyer’s adaptation of the Boxer was available by early 1953: I have a short article from the January, 1953 issue of Playthings announcing his arrival. ("Tenite Boxer Newest Breyer Animal Creation." p.169.) Why Breyer decided to adapt the Boxer first is unknown: his sleek, simplified contours probably made him an safer and bet. Safer and easier than the Hereford and Brahma, anyway.

We’re not entirely sure of the initial release date for Breyer’s adaptation of the Hereford. It was possibly as early as 1955, though the earliest datable reference I have for him is an appearance in the 1956 Alden’s Christmas Catalog (the Boehm-inspired Brahma appears on another page in the same catalog.)

The biography points out repeatedly that Mrs. Boehm was the promotional whiz of the company, constantly seeking out new photo ops, arranging exhibitions, and pestering local media outlets. It makes me wonder what the level of publicity was surrounding the presentation of the Bull to the Eisenhowers, and if any of it made into the Chicago press.

There’s probably nothing to it, but I’ll make note of it on my research-to-do list.