Britains 5th Dragoons 1920s Mistakes. (1 Viewer)

[Cardigan600]

Yo Troopers. Listed this morning on ebay was a 1920s Set of 5th Dragoon Guards, and I noticed straight away a mistake Britains had painted the Plumes the wrong way around IE: Red over White which should be White over Red. So I did a search and found 5 other sets that had the same mistake, which to me is a really strange one. I have found lots of mistakes in other hobbies over the years and some turn out to be very rare, and then on the other hand nobody wants to know because its not right. I think its very unusual to find so many sets painted wrong. I know recently somebody made the same mistake lol, but shall remain nameless. But looks like Britains painted them all wrong in the 1920s. Would be interested to know has anyone ever found this on other Britains sets.
Bernard.

 

[theBaron]

Yo, Bernard, for some reason, that sounds familiar to me. I suspect that if we look at James Opie's books, that may have been documented. I'll look in the big book, when I get home tonight.

Maybe someone else out there has the same feeling about this item; does it sound familiar to anyone else, too?

If Norman Joplin happens to be browsing, maybe he'll see this thread.

Prosit!
Brad

 

[Cardigan600]

Yo, Bernard, for some reason, that sounds familiar to me. I suspect that if we look at James Opie's books, that may have been documented. I'll look in the big book, when I get home tonight.

Maybe someone else out there has the same feeling about this item; does it sound familiar to anyone else, too?

If Norman Joplin happens to be browsing, maybe he'll see this thread.

Prosit!
Brad

Yo Brad, thanks mate, would be interesting to know what Opie says about it.
Bernard

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi Bernard,

Interesting point there. One thing I know was a lot of the painting was done as a cottage industry. So that said perhaps the masters were copied incorrectly and sent out in this fashion. I would be very interested to hear what the "big" book has to say on this. Always find this type of discussion interesting.

All the best

Dave

 

[thebritfarmer]

I also think that they also used child labour many years ago. I seem to recall seeing apicture of kids seated at long wooden tables toy soldiers waiting to be painted as far as the eye could see

I wonder if they was a batch of wrongly painted figures wether they would let them go through. By todays standards they would have been recalled, but let's face it the things were made of lead to begin with I also imagine they wouldn't have the methods of removing paint back then as they do today. Also they were meant as toys for kids and how many 6 years old would say I don't like this the plumes are wrong.

In fact myself even now wouldn't know the difference and to be honest it wouldn't really bother me. I think it is more of the charm of the old toy soldier that captures me more than anything else.

 

[theBaron]

Well, I didn't find the exact reference I'm thinking of, so I may be mistaken that this is a documented error. However, in Opie's "The Great Book of Britains", on page 323, there is a picture (#554) of a 5th Dragoon Guard with the red-over-white plume, in the section for the year 1938 and special figures and painting.

There is also a picture, #1, showing the original issue figures ("Germanic"-style castings), from 1893, with the correct plume colors.

There is one other picture of a 5th Dragoon Guard in the book, #281, in the chapter for 1918, and in connection with the Paris office. The picture shows a set of Horse Guards, and is intended to illustrate how the Paris office got colors wrong (eg, Horse Guards on brown horses). But included in the picture is a 5th Dragoon Guard, sold out of the Paris office as a "Dragon Anglais". On that figure, the plume is white-over-red.

I guess that doesn't help too much, except perhaps to establish that there are known variations out there, and that my memory isn't what it used to be .

As to Britain's workforce, britfarmer is right, though they weren't quite young children, but teens, which wasn't too out of the ordinary for the time, I suppose. But as to cottage industry-type work, Opie notes in the chapter for 1938, that it was in that year that the company first let painters paint figures outside the factory. That was work on the special-order figures, and so apparently, those were the better painters.

At least I got a workout, lugging the book around.

Prost!
Brad

 

[theBaron]

Well, now, this is interesting-I checked in another reference, Joe Wallis' "Armies of the World: Britains Ltd Lead Soldiers, 1925-1941". On page 24, photo 3 shows a 5th Dragoon Guard with the red-over-white plume. The mystery deepens....

 

[thebritfarmer]

I wonder if it has anything to do with over production? Perhaps they painted too many lifeguards so just added a splash of red to the plume and a bit of embellishment as necessary and bobs your uncle

 

[Cardigan600]

Well, now, this is interesting-I checked in another reference, Joe Wallis' "Armies of the World: Britains Ltd Lead Soldiers, 1925-1941". On page 24, photo 3 shows a 5th Dragoon Guard with the red-over-white plume. The mystery deepens....

Yo Brad, thanks for taking the time out to add this great info from Opie & Joe Wallis books. Its strange that no comment has been made on the wrong painted plumes, but then have they noticed the mistake, maybe one day they will be big enough to admit they overlooked it. One thing though you can't kid the big buyers of Old Britains, noticed the sets with the wrong plumes went for very little on what is a rare set, whereas the sets with the correct painted plumes went for £700.00/£900.00. BTW your comment about Norman Joplin making a comment about it, don't hold your breath waiting. The only contribution to this forum I see him make is if he is selling a book or advertising one of his auctions.
Bernard.

 

[trooper]

I think you will find that the answer is quite simple. The out painters were in much the same position as the Chinese are today. They were given samples to copy and if a mistake was made on the sample then it was transferred to the copies. Mistakes can be made and overlooked very easily as we have observed recently, and the reversal of correct colours is a comparatively minor one.
On the subject of more major mistakes, why has no one picked up on the error perputated in their classic RHA gun team? This is pulling a Mk IV 18 pdr instead of the 13 pdr. The only time the RHA used 18pdrs was on the first post war saluting parade on 13th June 1946 because insufficient 13 pdrs could be found, and they were all Mk 1s.

 

[thebritfarmer]

I think you will find that the answer is quite simple. The out painters were in much the same position as the Chinese are today. They were given samples to copy and if a mistake was made on the sample then it was transferred to the copies. Mistakes can be made and overlooked very easily as we have observed recently, and the reversal of correct colours is a comparatively minor one.
On the subject of more major mistakes, why has no one picked up on the error perputated in their classic RHA gun team? This is pulling a Mk IV 18 pdr instead of the 13 pdr. The only time the RHA used 18pdrs was on the first post war saluting parade on 13th June 1946 because insufficient 13 pdrs could be found, and they were all Mk 1s.

I guess to most collectors it isn't all that important as they go for a mint nowadays and are very popular. And as I go back to my original statement, these were toys and how many kids (if any) would even know or care.

 

[theBaron]

Actually, for me, as a collector, variations like these are something I would look for. It's fun to hunt down known variations, and it's even more fun to be the first to find one and document it.

 

[Cardigan600]

I think you will find that the answer is quite simple. The out painters were in much the same position as the Chinese are today. They were given samples to copy and if a mistake was made on the sample then it was transferred to the copies. Mistakes can be made and overlooked very easily as we have observed recently, and the reversal of correct colours is a comparatively minor one.
On the subject of more major mistakes, why has no one picked up on the error perputated in their classic RHA gun team? This is pulling a Mk IV 18 pdr instead of the 13 pdr. The only time the RHA used 18pdrs was on the first post war saluting parade on 13th June 1946 because insufficient 13 pdrs could be found, and they were all Mk 1s.

Yo Trooper, now thats a very interesting point, about the RHA set # 39 and using the wrong type of gun, it is mentioned in Wallis book and the gun used was set # 1201 which was an 18 pdr. But have to disagree with your point about the plumes on the 5th Dragoons, its quite a major point IE: if Chas Stadden had painted the QOH Drum Horse with a Red plume instead of white, I would not have been very impressed, and when you see the price the early sets of 5th Dragoons go for £700.00 up they have to be right. But back to the RHA set not a lot can be done about that, at least my set of RHA Gun & Limber which Jeff painted the outriders for has the 13pdr (so Dickbuttons will be binning his set when he reads this lol).
Now for Scott, you have got to get away from this thinking Scott that they were made for kids and they didn't care OK we know this, but that was then, but this is now, and people are paying out small fortunes for these sets, and IE: if a set should have four Troopers & a Trumpeter, and has 5 Troopers and no Trumpeter you try and get good money for it, not a chance in hell, a kid in the 1950s wouldn't care but todays collectors do care and they have to be spot on, not so much mint but in reasonable condition and in the right box.
I will go with Brad on his point it is good to find mistakes and to bring them to peoples attention. The 5th Dragoons plumes for instance has caused quite a stir with some experts, it seems as though its one that has slipped the net, now the experts are looking into it.
Back to Troopers point, I think its great that we have such a knowledgeable, Military Historian as Trooper to take time to educate us with his vast knowledge from his years of experience, and pass it on to us. Its a pity some of the so called experts dont do the same. Thanks Trooper for the input.
Bernard.

 

[thebritfarmer]

Yo Trooper, now thats a very interesting point, about the RHA set # 39 and using the wrong type of gun, it is mentioned in Wallis book and the gun used was set # 1201 which was an 18 pdr. But have to disagree with your point about the plumes on the 5th Dragoons, its quite a major point IE: if Chas Stadden had painted the QOH Drum Horse with a Red plume instead of white, I would not have been very impressed, and when you see the price the early sets of 5th Dragoons go for £700.00 up they have to be right. But back to the RHA set not a lot can be done about that, at least my set of RHA Gun & Limber which Jeff painted the outriders for has the 13pdr (so Dickbuttons will be binning his set when he reads this lol).
Now for Scott, you have got to get away from this thinking Scott that they were made for kids and they didn't care OK we know this, but that was then, but this is now, and people are paying out small fortunes for these sets, and IE: if a set should have four Troopers & a Trumpeter, and has 5 Troopers and no Trumpeter you try and get good money for it, not a chance in hell, a kid in the 1950s wouldn't care but todays collectors do care and they have to be spot on, not so much mint but in reasonable condition and in the right box.
I will go with Brad on his point it is good to find mistakes and to bring them to peoples attention. The 5th Dragoons plumes for instance has caused quite a stir with some experts, it seems as though its one that has slipped the net, now the experts are looking into it.
Back to Troopers point, I think its great that we have such a knowledgeable, Military Historian as Trooper to take time to educate us with his vast knowledge from his years of experience, and pass it on to us. Its a pity some of the so called experts dont do the same. Thanks Trooper for the input.
Bernard.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one Bernard If people want to pay crazy money for incomplete or damaged sets, let them, it's their money. If they are buying a complete set but it was painted wrong I don't see the problem, in fact there are people how collect only these types of things (the mistakes, odd ball sets etc...). It is still an original set.

Regarding the gun, I guess Britains thought it would suffice to but it in the RHA set as it would be passable and reduce the cost of having to make another gun specifically for that set.

 

[theBaron]

I think the point Bernard and Scott are discussing leads to another one:

We can talk about whether or not we would buy a set that is configured differently from its original issue, eg, 5 troopers, when the original set was documented as 4 troopers and a bugler, or an officer. We're all reasonably familiar with the background info. But if a dealer puts up such a set for sale, and bills it as "mint", or some other label that indicates that the set is much as it was when it was first sold, and he finds a buyer who doesn't know better, then we have a different story.

If the dealer knows, and willingly mis-identifies the set (in this example, it is a mis-identification), that's fraud.

Of course, that's why we say, "Buyer beware."

Prost!
Brad