When a Chalky isn’t a Chalky

Why the Gray Bucking Bronco was so abruptly canceled at the end of 1966 I have no idea. Did he really sell that poorly, or was there a problem with the paint job? Even though he was technically discontinued, he appears to have been available for at least another year through some mail order dealers. And when those didn’t sell, the remainders were probably repainted and sold - as Black Bucking Broncos.

These former-grays are not chalkies: the new paint job was simply sprayed on top of the old. There was no white basecoat involved. For lack of a better term, I call them paint-overs. And the Bucking Bronco was not the only model to get this particular painting treatment, either.

While the chalky technique was known and used before the Bucking Bronco’s release, it was a spotty and relatively rare occurrence - Breyer was probably salvaging pieces from the cull bins to finish orders and avoid reloading the mold back in the molding machine (a costly and time-consuming effort.)

One of the creative ways Breyer tried to limit culls was through planning. They’d try to release a mold in several different colors simultaneously, with at least one very "light" color and one very "dark" color. The light colors would get painted first, and if you messed up any of those, some of them could be painted over and "salvaged" with the darker paint job.

This paint over technique was used primarily in the era just before - and during - the official "true chalky" era of the early to mid-1970s. It was just one of several salvage techniques in Breyer’s arsenal. They did whatever could to get the job done - and keep costs down.

Didn’t you always wonder why there were so many Black Classic Arabian and Quarter Horse Foals? A lot of those popular blister-card releases were paint-overs. Dapple Gray Proud Arabians with darker than average manes and tails may have started out life as Alabasters. That may be the case with some Gloss Dapple Gray Running Mares and Foal, too: every once and a while I spot one with an exceptionally dark mane and tail, and wonder...

I don’t believe the technique was completely abandoned after the Chalky Era, either. I have some reason to believe that the late 1970s Special Run releases of the Family Arabians and Semi-Rearing Mustang in solid black were paint-overs of flawed production models or warehouse overstock.

The Bucking Bronco never received the USA mold mark, so it can be difficult to distinguish a potential early black-that-used-to-be-gray Bronco from a later always-black one. There are a few physical clues.

Even though the original gray body color is similar to the oversprayed portions of the black overpaint, it is not identical. The gray paint has a distinct bluish cast that can be distinguished from watered down or oversprayed black, and it can sometimes been seen in the transitional areas around the edges of the stockings and bald face.

Since the difference was noticeable, the painters would slightly overpaint these edges, shortening the length of the socks and shrinking the extent of the bald face. So while it’s usually the case that older models have higher socks and more extensive bald faces, in the case of the Black Bucking Bronco, it’s exactly the opposite.

And there’s absolutely no way to distinguish between one that was painted over for flaws, versus one that was painted over because it didn’t sell. I’m good, but not that good.

(Today's Facebook error: the Grazing Mare and Foal were introduced in 1965, not 1961. The pricelists, Reeves, check the pricelists!)

Oh no, not again!

My favorite Douglas Adams quote, ever.

That was one of the nicer things I yelled at my computer the other day when Reeves posted more bad data on Facebook - this time about the Gray Bucking Bronco. This time there just is no excuse or rationalization for this: it was plain old lazy research. He was introduced in 1966, NOT 1961.


I’m not sure when this particular nugget of information got started, since the 1966 date is pretty well documented. We have official pricelists from 1963 onward: the Bronco doesn’t appear on them until 1966, in both black and gray. End of story.

At least with the PAM, they could make an argument based on a lack of data: that is, an absence of information means a 1956 cannot be disproved. It’s a technical and weak kind of argument, but not an invalid one. But in this case, I know Reeves does have the data - and they didn’t bother to double-check it.

As with the PAM, this misrepresentation of the data may be having a profound effect on the way the model is perceived in the model horse community. If it was introduced in 1961, that would mean that the Gray Bucking Bronco would be a relatively common mold for that time period - 6 years of production is a pretty substantial run, even back then.

But it’s not: he was made for only one year. Although we can’t make very good estimates of production quantities for any regular run Breyer models before the mid-1980s, I think a one year production run should qualify him for at least the status of "scarce." Especially since a portion of them were probably painted over and became Black Bucking Broncos. (I hate being a tease, but there’s really no room to explain that little nugget today, gals! Maybe on Wednesday.)

This is why researchers need to rely on primary sources, not secondary ones. And do their own research, rather than automatically rely on the assumptions and conclusions of others. Because these assumptions very often turn out to be wrong, or at the very least misinterpreted. What we think we "know" is often very different from what is actually known. And that can create all sorts of problems.

I’ll give them credit for getting most of the data on the Basset Hound correct (interesting that they chose to make a post about him the same week I do! Hmm?) I could quibble about the Chris Hess attribution, but that’s a matter of ongoing research and a long way from being settled. I’ll give ‘em a pass - this time!

Am I making hash out of could just be a typo? Yep. That’s what I’m here for. Heck, that’s what makes me tick. Just because something’s a typo doesn’t mean it won’t have fewer consequences than something that was deliberately typed.

Fangirls

Providing that they produce sufficient quantities of everybody to meet the demands of everyone in line, I don’t think I’ll be disappointed with any of available selections in the Breyerfest Tent this year. Like most folks, the Blue Tortuga Five-Gaiter is pretty high up on my selection list, but Sprinkles and the Idocus aren’t far behind either. (Wow, what a surprise - buckskin really suits him!)

Just about the only one I’m not really interested in is the porcelain. I’m sure it’ll be lovely, I just uncomfortable spending $150+ on something that has a high likelihood of getting broken. I’m clumsy, and that’s a part of the reason I collect plastic in the first place. (There’s also a part of me that screams "Breyers that aren’t plastic aren’t Breyers!" But that’s the same part of me having issues with a local, very snooty toy store and its even snootier clientele. Long story!)

The most exciting announcement for me was the QH Gelding "Birthday Surprise" SR: the same model, three different colors, and he’s wrapped up so you can’t tell which one you’ve got until you open him up - after you’ve left the line. So basically, he’s a Gambler’s Choice model. Since the upper end for Line Specials lately has been around 1500, that’s around a 500 piece run for each color. A large piece count overall means a lot of people will have the opportunity to get him: regardless of the color you get, he’ll be one of the scarcer models available this year. Win-win!

What’s making me very, very happy about the idea is the fact that it was one I suggested in the "BreyerFest Special Run Suggestion Threads" on Model Horse Blab (right down to the "wrap it up so they can’t see it" part!) Reeves asked for suggestions, and the Gambler’s Choice idea was mine. They liked my idea - and implemented it! Yay for me!

It’s entirely possible that they had something like this planned all along, but my life hasn’t exactly been filled with happy surprises lately, so I’ll just set that notion aside for my own mental well-being.

Way back when (in the Chicago days - gack!) I used to write a yearly letter of my suggestions for future molds and colors. I’m sure the first letter I wrote was probably about Ruffian - along with at least a few hundred other little girls. (And of course, it just had to be my letter that finally convinced them to do it - right?)

The best part was that sometimes I’d get a letter back thanking me for my ideas, and that made me a very happy camper. They took the time to respond to my suggestions and questions - and sometimes implemented them! Not only did it encourage me to write more letters, it made me a complete, total Breyer fangirl. (Yes, I saved most of those letters. Duh!)

When you think about it, the entire hobby is based on that concept: we’re all "fangirls." The focus of our obsession just happens to be horses, not comic books, anime or online gaming. (Though there’s a rather large overlap - and speaking for myself, I could just as easily devote an entire blog to the Legion of Super-heroes. Seriously.) We know more about horses than most horse owners do: anatomy, breed standards, pedigrees, genetics. And not just about one specific breed - but all of them!

There was no better illustration of this than what happened at a BreyerFest a few years ago. Reeves managed to get Dr. Sponenburg to give a lecture about equine color genetics - and as I sat in the back, observing the crowd as much as the lecture itself, it struck me that it was probably better attended than a lot of the academic lectures or seminars he’s given!

Voluntarily attending an academic lecture on equine color genetics. At a "toy" convention. For fun. If that’s not the definition of nerdy, nothing is!

Writing a thrice-weekly column about obscure Breyer model trivia probably also qualifies.

The Sticker You Don't Know

Any Breyer collector worth their salt should know about the Breyer stickers: the gold foil "Tenite" sticker seen most often on early Woodgrains, and the blue ribbon sticker (both large and small) that appeared on most Breyer models from ca. 1966 through 1970. But there’s a third vintage sticker that most of you wouldn’t know about, because there’s only two pieces of evidence for it: a sheet of stickers in the Breyer archives, and this handsome boy:


The fonts, motifs and color choices of this dumbbell-style sticker indicates that it’s from the "brown box" era of Breyer packaging, dating from ca. 1979 to ca. 1982, and which replaced the white picture box that ruled the roost from ca. 1973 through 1978. (It is, in fact, dated 1980 on one side.)


I had no idea these sticker existed either, prior to my visit to the Breyer factory many moons ago. As I’ve said before, what reference materials they do have prior to 1985 are minimal. Most of it I had already seen, or had copies of via various hobby sources (most of them tracing back to Marney’s original copies!) Some of the newer stuff was interesting, but nothing was overly impressive - I had heard Marney describe the sorry state of Breyer’s recordkeeping before, so while it was a little sad to see firsthand, it was not unexpected.

There were still a few interesting things in the binders, though. A sheet of dumbbell stickers stood out: now THAT was something I hadn’t seen before! As an aficionado of stickered models, I was intrigued; since I had not seen - or even heard - of a Breyer model sporting this type of sticker. I just assumed it was either an experiment or aborted marketing attempt, but made a mental note nonetheless.

A couple of years later, I found the Silky Sullivan on a well-known hobbyist’s saleslist, and I just couldn’t pass him up. I mean, really - how could I not buy him?

I have no idea what the extent of this particular marketing program was. It may have truly been an experiment that was just tested in a few markets, or a few stores - in this case, the price tag on the sticker indicates he was sold at Woolworth’s. (His price? $4.97)

From the amount of information about the model on the sticker - name, number, brief biography - I am assuming that this was an test to sell Breyer models without boxes. Was this another try at "touchability?" Or just a way of eliminating the cost of packaging altogether? This cost-saving attempt was probably thwarted by the rough and tumble world of retail: a couple weeks of less-than-gentle handling by customers and employees probably rendered most of these sticker recipients into body box fodder quickly.

I haven’t seen or heard of another example crop up anywhere, though it probably shouldn’t be surprising since this isn’t the kind of sticker that (please forgive the inevitable pun) sticks around. Dumbbell stickers are designed to be torn off quickly and easily, and any models that wore these stickers probably didn’t wear them long once they left the store. Except for the collector or hobbyist who had the foresight to save this fellow.

Lowdown on the Basset Hound

As promised, here’s another mystery that needs extra sets of eyes…

As time goes on, it has become increasingly apparent that most early Breyer were not original creations, but adaptations of pre-existing designs. The Old Mold Arabians are a notoriously well-known example, as are the Large Poodle, Boxer, and the Horned Hereford Bull. Could the Basset Hound "Jolly Cholly" be one, too?

The initial evidence for this hypothesis comes from an examination of the model itself. Like the Poodle and the Boxer, the Basset Hound is out of scale with both the horses and each other. Another troubling feature is the mold’s exaggerated and comical nature: whatever the anatomic merits or demerits of the early Breyer molds, they are at least nominally "realistic" in style. Both of these features suggest that the inspiration for this model was … another model.

Where the trouble comes in searching for this original inspiration is that there’s a lot of inspiration to choose from. There’s a surprisingly large number of comically styled bloodhound/basset hound figurines from the period immediately preceding the mold’s introduction in 1966 (in brown, as the Bloodhound. Who IS NOT woodgrain!) The adoption of the Basset Hound as the mascot/spokesdog of the Hush Puppies brand shoes in the late 1950s probably had a little to do with that.

While all of these models share similar exaggerations - oversized domed head, severely foreshortened body, and deep symmetrical facial wrinkles - they are not identical. What this suggests to me is an even earlier model on which all of these other pieces took their design cues from.

I might have found him - on a hobbyist web site, of all places: the Animal Figurines Gallery web site. On the page dedicated to Robert Simmons figurines, there’s a piece that’s startlingly similar to the Basset Hound. Here’s the link. Scroll down to Hounds and see for yourself. He’s hard to miss!

Robert Simmons was a California Pottery company based in Los Angeles. They made relatively inexpensive copies of figurines from other contemporary companies, like Royal Doulton. Allegedly the company went out of business by the early 1960s, which means if this guy is for real, he would predate the Breyer mold. And if that’s the case, the question then becomes - what mold, and what company did Simmons appropriate him from?

My china documentation is pretty weak, though, so I may literally be barking up the wrong tree here - heck, maybe it’s even a case of Simmons copying Breyer, for all I know! It’s another one of those Breyer mysteries that sits patiently in my archives, waiting for the right lead or the right moment. If anyone else can provide better or more specific data on this it would be much appreciated.

The Littlest Details

I’ve said this many times before, but it bears repeating: don’t ask Reeves about Breyer history. Whatever answers they give you, take with a large grain of salt - or aspirin. And you don’t even have to be me to make that claim: any hobbyist who’s been around for any length of time knows more than the average Reeves employee does.

There’s no shortage of painful examples to quote from, but the winning statement that set me off this week was the Daily Breyer post about the Stablemate G1 Draft Horse:

This is the G1 Stablemates drafter (mold #5055) sculpted by Maureen Love Calvert in 1976.

Although the Draft Horse does have a 1976 copyright date on his belly, and didn’t make his first catalog appearance until 1976, he was actually available in mid to late 1975 - the original price list puts it as a September 1st release. That part doesn’t bother me too much - it’s a fine point, and an arguable one (the argument revolving on which sources you consider more viable - the collector’s manual and mold mark, or the dealer price list.)

It’s the "sculpted by Maureen Love Calvert in 1976" part that slays me. NO. It was sculpted in or slightly before 1959 for Hagen-Renaker. The design was leased and was made into a Breyer mold ca. 1975/6. I’m not sure if Maureen had any say at all in the creation of the Breyer molds cast from her designs, much less sculpt them for Breyer.

Now, I may be making a lot of hay out of what could simply be a poorly phrased sentence. The absence of any mention of the Hagen-Renaker name could be a consequence of some phrasing in the original leasing agreement, or just a little extra added precaution instituted by someone’s legal counsel.

Nevertheless, it’s these littlest details that could have huge consequences, especially if we’re talking about the Hagen-Renaker molds.

I saw a similar Facebook post about the Proud Arabian Mare a little while back - no mention of Hagen-Renaker’s involvement, and a wrong date, too (1956). That date discrepancy is actually a much bigger deal than the little Drafter’s: if Breyer could credibly prove that the release date was 1956, then H-R’s claim that the model was a copy of their design, first released in 1957, would then fall apart.

If that were actually the case, the mold would still be in production. But it’s not, because there’s absolutely no evidence for a 1956 release date. Unfortunately, I don’t have a copy or any details of the original court case that shut down production of the Old Mold Mare and Foal (another holy grail of ephemera for me!) Since Hagen-Renaker prevailed, my guess would be that the weight of the evidence was on their side, not Breyer’s.

The 1956 meme was started by Marney, and carried forward into a variety of sources since then. And I’m not sure where Marney got the 1956 date either; the earliest physical evidence we have for the Old Mold Mare and Foal is a sales flier/price list dated January 1, 1958.

Most Reeves employees don’t have as thorough a knowledge of pre-1984 era as hobbyists do - heck, a lot of them can’t tell you what models they made last year. And what they have in their archives from before their purchase in late 1984 isn’t much: just a couple of binders, rather incomplete. There’s no way for them to confirm or deny the existence of most models they had no hand in producing in the first place.

They have to rely on us.

We have to do a better job with the task we’ve set before ourselves: the details of history do matter, regardless of the kind of history being written. We fret over the littlest details of judging, conformational accuracy, color genetics and breed standards: why shouldn’t we hold ourselves to the same standard when it comes to our history?

Down with the Count

I received my Connoisseur Kennebec Count last week: mine’s #108. He’s really faboo. So much nicer than the promotional photographs let on, but that’s not too much of a surprise: seriously, people at Reeves, either invest in a better photographer, or spend more time tweaking and color correcting the photos. They sure aren’t selling the product the way they should!

His color is really neat - it’s sort of a richer, updated version of the infamous chocolate milk sorrel of Five-Gaiter fame. My guy is a little less red and more yellow-brown than what I’ve seen posted around the Internet; but that’s might be a result of my monitor’s color calibration and the automatic color correction on most people’s digital cameras.

I was really surprised at the level of quality of the masking. It’s on par - or even slightly better, actually - than the Mosaic in terms of detail and intricacy. All of the elaborate cuts, curls and swirls in his mane are especially delightful, and make me wonder if he was an experimental piece for more intricate paint jobs to come - like the BreyerFest Sprinkles, maybe?

Also impressive was the extremely short ship time: he we literally on my doorstep within a month of the drawing date. Near-instant gratification? Awesome!

I’ve suspected that at least a little bit of the antagonism towards the Kennebec Count mold stems from the stories and rumors swirling about his alleged origins. I haven’t really followed any of that all that closely, since I’m not a starry-eyed devotee of any current model horse sculptor (well, Eberl to a small degree, maybe.)

And it’s not that I’m unaware of any of his shortcomings: I’ve explained before that realism isn’t my primary, overriding criteria when it comes to selecting pieces for my herd.

What Kennebec does have - for me - is an over-the-top rock star outrageousness to him. He’s big, he’s loud, he’s got the long and wavy metal-god hair: is it any surprise that I’ve taken all my Kennebec’s names from the pages of Rolling Stone? (The new guy’s name? Elton, of course.)

Now, for no reason than I had the camera ready, a few random shots of the upstairs wing of the collection. Consider it a preview of future topics to come.