Model X

I thought I was having a pretty productive weekend, but then I attempted to do my taxes and hit a brick wall.

Ugh. Another appointment to schedule this week!

While putting my live show documentation away this past weekend, I found a very interesting photograph: someone who bears a striking similarity to the custom I’m rehabbing!

According to the information on the back of this photograph, this particular model (a Morgan Mare named CID Teresa Diamond) was done by Kathleen Maestas. Aside from the gender issues (my model is very much a stallion!) the painting style of my little rehab project isn’t anything like hers, so any similarities here are due to the fact that they were done in the same era (the mid- to late-1980s) using similar materials and models.

Some artists back then also had a habit of replicating customs, either their own or (sometimes) the work of others. Especially if the original did well at a live show, or had received multiple purchase offers back in the day of published sales/stock lists, monthly newsletters and SASEs. 

With some variations for personal preferences, of course: I want it just like Model X, but with two hind socks and a blaze!

And if you’re wondering, yeah, it wasn’t considered cool back then, either. But it did happen. I believe at one point Karen Grimm even attempted to formalize/monetize the process a bit and make standardized customs called “Hacksaw Originals” that were also slightly customizable to customer preferences.

I don’t believe that effort lasted long: this was shortly before drastic customs and (a few years after that) resins became de rigueur. And some of the “standard” bodies she came up with were a little odd. Like a Family Arabian Stallion with a Five-Gaiter’s head and neck kind of weird. 

I mean, points for creativity at least…

Nevertheless, I did do a little bit of a double take when I saw the photo: I’ve found photographs of models I’ve bought before (and sold after!) so it wouldn’t have been a complete shock if it was him. The hobby – and the number of active hobbyists, showers and customizers – was smaller than it is today, and to be honest there aren’t all that many of us even now.

That’s why “unique” models – like Customs and Test Colors – have an uncanny knack of reappearing after so many years. Most of them haven’t strayed that far to begin with! 

And before I go get my (several) appointments out of the way this week, let’s also remember that collectors and hobbyists are not interchangeable terms. There are a vast number of people who collect, but the actual number of people who go to live shows, customize, attend BreyerFest on a regular basis, or inhabit various Internet hangouts where model-horsery takes place is only a small fraction of that.

The Accounting

I still haven’t done the full accounting – I’m having to deal with some actual work-related stuff that has put my brain in a completely unrelated place – but the rough numbers are: six rosettes, 41 flats, and 13 NAN cards (three Breed, ten Collectibility.)

My best show horse of the day was my Gloss Silver Bay Flash “Manny’s Boy”, who got a second in Collectibility and a fourth in Breed (as a Morgan). The most photographed models included my Showboat, the Test Chestnut Morgan, the Angel Kitten and the Ghost Moose. 

The most complimented upon model was my Gloss Bay G1 Morgan Stallion Antares, who also took home a rosette. He also happened to do well at the last show I was at (three years ago!) so I know at least one model who’s definitely making the cut if I ever decide to do BreyerFest Live.

I did okay in Breed, though I think I could have done better if I had had more time to work on it. My sweet Semi-Gloss Malik, the #40 Lady Phase who photographed so well but did nothing at the BreyerFest 2020 Online show, and that nice Pinto Icelandic I bought during BreyerFest last year all placed in very competitive classes.

I really enjoy doing breed research in general – I mean, who doesn’t like looking for pictures of pretty horses online? – and when I do have the time to do it, it tends to work out well for me. The next show has no Collectibility component, so that will simplify some of my choices and allow me a chance to focus on that.

I also signed up for another show in September: it’s a smaller show and hyperlocal – I mean, literally, it’s less than ten minutes from where I work! – and the class list is definitely up my alley. Though that means I’ll have to find the time to finish a couple of those customs I have sitting on the workbench in the garage.

(After the BreyerFest stuff. And the gardening stuff. And dozen or so quilts currently inhabiting the sewing table. Hmm. Maybe I should add “invent a time machine” to this “To-Do” List of mine…)

Some general notes about the show:

The venue and its bathrooms were spacious and excellent. The sound system was a little wonky, and the distance between my table and the Mini showring was a bit of a hike. The latter was entirely due to my choices though, since a full third of my showstring was Minis and I was really pushing it with the number of entries I brought.

Both the judging and the competition were excellent, especially in Collectibility. A few tweaks will need to be made to the classlist for Collectibility, though: there were definitely some classes that were spare for entries. And in Breed (in general), there was some confusion about the classification status of all the various Mustang subtypes.

But overall I had a pretty positive experience. I’ve made no secret of the fact that of all the things we’ve had to do without over the past three years, the thing that I’ve missed the most is just being in the presence of other people who “get me”. This was lovely, gentle on ramp back to that world.  

Research Reminder

Still AWOL for the time being.

In the meantime, since I get these requests on a fairly regular basis, I just wanted to remind you that it’s not necessary to ask my permission to use anything on this site for your documentation or research needs.

All that I ask is that you note where you got your data from. Just like you did the last time you wrote a research paper!

I can’t guarantee that the judge will take my word as final: I’ve gotten into some… interesting arguments with some of my fellow hobbyists over the years about some of the finer (and not so fine) points of Breyer History.

Also, there are a number of posts that probably no longer as accurate as they should be, and should be updated with new or fresher research.

Time, of course, is the issue here: I’m still struggling to schedule time for things like showering and sleeping, and this situation isn’t going to change until at least the middle of October.

Plus there are over 1000 posts and nearly a million words to filter through. Ain’t nobody got time for that!

Well, maybe a personal assistant might, but I can’t afford one of those. And while her spelling skills are top notch, Vita’s reading comprehension aren’t.  

If you absolutely need to get the most up-to-date data, I’ll accommodate when and where I can. Might take a couple of days for me to see your request. And a couple of days to answer after that, depending on my state of mind.

Keep having fun while I’m away!

Seeing Things

Here is Glacier, with his older and more conventionally handsome cousin:

There’s no VIN, and the detail put into the painting finishwork makes it pretty obvious that the Glaciers were U.S. made. I especially like the subtlety of the eyes: dark brown with a large iris and black eyeliner. They give him a dark and mysterious look, like he’s seen things.

I had been toying with the idea of using him as trade bait, but I think he’s staying. He’s got stories to tell me, man.

Some hobbyists were a little overly concerned about the sample in the promotional picture having what looked like a bent leg. I knew that wasn’t going to be the case with the actual production pieces because experience has been telling us, over and over, that you really can’t go by the photographs Reeves sends out to the world.

You wouldn’t think it would bear repeating at this point, but it does. I’ve noticed that even Reeves is starting to put "actual production may vary from prototype shown" in the fine print of some of their offers now. It’s something that should have been in the fine print since forever, but I’m accepting the improvement as an improvement, and moving on.

Though I think it would be awesome if they did do raffles/drawings for some of the actual prototypes, in addition to the semi-regular raffles/drawings for everything else. Aside from being really cool models to have, in general, they already come with a ready-made and easily acquired provenance you can use to trump the local live show competition. (The model in your documentation? That’s mine.)

It would reduce my chances of acquiring more prototypes in the future, but as I slowly go through another slight herd reduction, I have to accept the reality of not being able to have them all, anyway.

As for the echoing refrains of "Why can’t all Breyer models be of this quality level?" It’s not primarily a matter of old techniques vs. new, or U.S. manufacturing vs. China: it’s a scalability issue. Quality is much easier to control when you’re dealing with 40- or 50-piece runs, and not runs in the hundreds or thousands.

I think that’s the number one issue with the Premier Club. A Connoisseur-quality club with an unlimited membership cap sounds good at first, until you realize Reeves had a hard enough time with quality control with the original 350-piece runs on the Connoisseurs.

Quality control on the Vintage Club has been somewhat better, but the piece count is lower - 500 vs. 750+ for the Premier Club - and the paint jobs are less complex, and therefore harder to mess up. There are still some Vintage Club issues, particularly the lack of fidelity to the original paint jobs, caused partly (and ironically) by better quality control: the "imitation" overspray on Running Mare and Foal Salt and Pepper being the most amusing example of that.

There’s no way to completely eliminate flaws and errors in anything that’s mass-produced, even in relatively small runs. Things can get better - they can always get better - but perfection? Rarer than a Wedgewood Blue Antelope.

The Guessing Game

Another good day at the market; there’s some stuff I can’t show you now, but you’ll be seeing it, eventually. (Heh.) Here’s all the stuff I suspect you’re really interested in anyway:

(And yes, I know the photo is out of focus. It’s the best my tired, shaky hands can do today.)

Two-thirds of a Hartland Tennessee Walker Family and a pretty spiffy Horned Hereford Bull. The bow the Bull sports isn’t original; I think his previous owner used him as a Christmas decoration. Since he looks so cute with it, I’m leaving it on him.

I have all three already - a complete TWH Family, and a Horned Hereford Bull new in the original illustrated shipper box because of course I would, so everyone here is going on the sales list.

The Bull, outside of a little yellowing, is immaculate; his previous owners obviously took very good care of him, in every respect. The Walkers are in good shape, not perfect but better than most, with a little bit greening that tends to happen on the Mare.

Like most older Breyer Bulls, the Horned Hereford ran for a very long time - from the mid-1950s through 1981 - and is a popular piece among hobbyists and nonhobbyists alike.

Unlike most of the other bulls, however, his 25 year run didn’t produce a lot of variation. Some of the very earliest had airbrushed, rather than stenciled markings and were a little bit browner than later pieces; the very last of them, ca. 1980-81, came in Matte. (And is a pretty rare piece to find, too.)

But all of the models made in-between were remarkably consistent. The brown did vary from a chocolate pudding-like brown, to red, to a coffee-with-cream color similar to the Five-Gaiter Sorrel, but this variability isn’t something we can track or date with any consistency.

So unless he comes with documentation, a sticker, a box, a tag, or in a group of models that we can triangulate a date on, it’s very difficult to determine how old an average Horned Hereford Bull is.

This guy is no different. He was a singleton, from a dealer who had no other Breyer pieces, and who possibly bought him second hand as well. (The Hartlands came from another vendor.) I have a hunch he’s from the early 1970s, but that’s just a hunch.

Regardless of how old he actually is, he’s a beautiful boy, and if I didn’t already have my Mint in Box one, he’d be staying.

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.)

Red Flags

Reeves finally got around to crediting former JAH subscribers for the remainder of their subscriptions - online store credit codes, as I expected. I’ll save mine up for either the next Web Special I win, or for BreyerFest tickets, whatever comes up first.

I wanted to write about the Valentine’s Day SR, but since Reeves hasn’t "officially" released the body shots to the public yet (as of this posting), I’ll have to put off my commentary until next time.

That’s okay, it’ll give me time to polish it into something other than me complaining about other people complaining. Been there, done that. Repeatedly.

Instead, let’s complain about something else today - like that second dubious Red Pegasus that sold on eBay for an undeserving amount of money. There’s something I can get good and righteous about!

Sigh. There are some models that just set me off. You know about the Black Adios, and I’ve (so far) spared you the ugly details about why I don’t own an SR Buckskin Adios. I’ve already done a post about my annoyance over people claiming they have Kansas City Shams, and someday soon you’ll know why I feel the same way about the "Trakehner Society" Trakehners.

This week, the Red Pegasus has entered that hallowed canon.

I’ve written before about my frustration about giving advice to people about the authenticity of rare or questionable models. All too often, it’s merely a formality: what the owner is seeking is validation of their purchase. Tell them that you have serious doubts about a model's authenticity, and some of them will either (a) tell you you don’t know what you’re talking about, or (b) go find someone else that will tell them it’s authentic.

Not a lot, mind you, but enough to give me pause.

So anyway, in spite of the fact that the seller’s story was extremely dubious to begin with - and some details later proven demonstrably false, on Blab - the second one still sold for almost $400.

What I fear most is not that it will encourage this seller - and others of similar moral caliber - to mysteriously "discover" more Red Pegasi in the attic. That’s a given. No, it’s that these auctions will be used as proof of the authenticity of future auctions to come. "Gosh, two other ones just like it sold on eBay for mucho bucks, so it’s gotta be real! Collectors must know something I don’t know!"

Ah, if only that were so. I won’t point out anyone in particular, or name any names, but there are some profoundly uninformed hobbyists out there. The kind that buy first, and ask questions later. (A philosophy that I have recommended in the past - but only in smaller, more affordable doses.)

As far as I know, there’s only one Red Pegasus that I - and most other model horse historians - would consider above reproach. All we have is one model, and some theories. No ephemera, no other corroborating evidence of any kind.

This is not the kind of evidence to bet big money on.

Things Left Unsaid

What a fun weekend: I picked up a rash, got whacked in the head with a doorknob, suffered a couple bloody noses, and lost a filling. (Filling is already fixed: thank you, my awesome dentist.)

In slightly-less-calamitous news, I picked up another collection, too. It’s smaller, and mostly bodies, so prepping is not going to be the big drama it was last week. But this endless parade of bodies is starting to get tiresome. If I get any more, I may consider selling them by the pound!

Among the newest arrivals, this bee-yoo-ti-full Classic Black Stallion, the 660 "Chocolate Bay" Arabian from about ten years ago. Gorgeous shading, with a dead-matte finish, and minty-mint: definitely a keeper!


Among the other non-Breyer goodies: a few nice chinas, a couple bits of jewelry, some fun minis, and a vintage PEZ dispenser - cheap! I stopped collecting PEZ dispensers a few years ago because the vintage ones were so hard to come by around here. I might just keep him for old times’ sake, but that extra bit of cash could come in handy, considering the amount I’ve forked out over the past couple of weekends.


Now on to a topic I’ve had in the queue for a while now: I know this may some heretical - especially coming from moi, the Princess of Provenance - there are times when some pieces of history may be better left undocumented.

I know all sorts of crazy, unknowable things. Several hobbyists have tried to prod me - in person, and online - into touching on some of the craziest, or more controversial bits of this knowledge. Sometimes I do, inadvertently (it’s not just fillings that fall out of my mouth) but there’s quite a body of information that I’ve chosen not to disclose publicly.

The reasons why a lot of this data are undisclosable vary. A lot of it is like a single piece to a 100-piece puzzle that I don’t have a picture to: it might be valuable, but I just don’t know where it fits or what it fits into. Some of it is of dubious veracity, or is tainted by gossip of a highly personal nature, or has a significant element of wish fulfillment within it.

Another category of information has been rendered untouchable because of the nature of the relationship of the person giving it to me - in other words, by insiders. That information usually has a high degree of veracity to it, but because it was given to me in the strictest confidence, it cannot be discussed in public without damaging that relationship.

(The good thing about this kind of information of this sort is that it eventually makes it way out into the real world. I just have the luxury of knowing about it first. FYI, it’s not usually the kind of information I can capitalize on; my checkbook would be in a lot better shape if I could.)

Some information I have is very much tied to the person giving it to me. As in, I learn the why or the how of something, but it’s the kind of why and how that can’t be disclosed without damaging the reputation of the person or persons involved. A reputation should be yours alone to damage.

And then there’s information that many hobbyists simply refuse to believe. Goodness, there’s a lot of that. I’d say that the majority of topics I’ve chosen not to discuss fall into this category. Certain narratives and certain beliefs have become so ingrained in the hobby, that even providing actual documentation to the contrary doesn’t dislodge them. If I want to lecture to a brick wall, I have family members for that.

(Another thing about the weekend, best left unsaid.)

Collectibility, Part 2

Up front: I think documentation is a very good thing, and something that I'd be doing if I were showing more actively. But I'm not a big fan of making documentation a requirement in Collectibility judging. Suggested and highly recommended, yes, but not required.

Collectibility, as it is judged now, is something relatively “new” to the live showing world. When I was showing in the mid to late 1980s, Collectibility was definitely a factor in judging, but it was not a separate class unto itself. The eight to ten piece “Collector's Class” was a regular feature at many shows, but then as now, placings were awarded to the assemblages, not to individual models.

Collectibility as a “judgeable” class category is mostly a reaction to the influx of newer, more “realistic” molds, and the desire to keep these older molds competitive in the show ring who would not otherwise be able to compete.

Since it is a something newer, and something that has no corollary in the real horse world to model it after, I think there needs to be either some degree of flexibility in the rule, or a transitional period to get everyone up to speed on the practice. The first step would be in making it “suggested” or “highly recommended” practice in the show rules, rather than a requirement. How that would be implemented, I have no idea. Like I've said, I've been an infrequent shower in the past decade, and I haven't had much involvement in NAMHSA beyond the occasional lurking in the various discussion boards.

Personally, I'd be reluctant to disqualify something entirely just because it lacked documentation, especially when it's something that could be extremely competitive without it. A mint in box Woodgrain Stretch Morgan with a gold foil Tenite sticker really doesn't need further explanation: if a collectibility judge doesn't know what that is and why it's being judged for collectibility, they probably shouldn't be judging collectibility in the first place.

However, I think documentation may be still be very useful, even in the most obvious of cases such as a Woodgrain Morgan.

First off, documentation at its most elemental level is useful as a tiebreaker: if you have two equally fabulous models, the one with the superior documentation has the edge, because it shows that the hobbyist has put in that extra work, as opposed to someone who just plops a model into the class and hopes that their model's sheer greatness will overwhelm all comers.

Second, documentation demonstrates the hobbyist's knowledge about what he or she collects. Any hobbyist with a little bit of luck could find something exceedingly rare, but I'd give the edge to the hobbyist who knows why it's rare, and is able to articulate why. That's showing me that they're a collector, and not just an accumulator.

And third, documentation may help in further distinguishing a model in ways that are not visible to the naked eye. It may be a particular rare, obscure or subtle variation. It may have an interesting or significant provenance. It might have a unique or important history independent of its mold or color.

Documentation isn't an automatic pass: not all research materials are created equal. Internet sources, for example, are of varying and sometimes dubious quality. I wouldn't discount them entirely, especially if it is the only source of information about a particular model or variation, but I'd give a strong preference to printed sources, or back them up with other relevant citations and cross-references.

Some arguments have been made that documentation removes the need for a Collectibility judge to even know the subject at all. On the contrary, I think that the judge would need a strong working knowledge of the available reference materials to be able to judge if the attribution and documentation has been done properly in the first place. Someone who misidentifies their models in their documentation is hindering, rather than helping their entry.

In cases like that, an absence of documentation actually works in the hobbyist's favor. You get no added benefit by not including it, but you also aren't accidentally sabotaging your entry, either, with sloppy or incorrect research. Sometimes it's better to let the model speak for itself.

(For the record, if anyone wants to use anything I've posted here as part of their documentation, feel free. Just cite the web site address and the date of the post. No guarantees are given or implied: whether the judge accepts it as credible or not is their own prerogative.)

Programming Note: I probably won't be home for any significant amount of time tomorrow. Next post on Thursday!