Old Steadfast Question (1 Viewer)

[tdubel]

Are these considered "solid" or "hollowcast"? They feel heavy to me!

Tom

 

[4th Hussar]

Solids. Steadfast is a new toy soldier manufacturer and never made hollowcast troops.

 

[tdubel]

That is what I thought. There are original Steadfast vs the new stuff being made by RP World Models though correct?

Tom

 

[4th Hussar]

RP bought Steadfast, not sure if there is much difference in the troops but I would defer to the Brits on this since all my Steadfast are pre-RP................

 

[Cardigan600]

RP bought Steadfast, not sure if there is much difference in the troops but I would defer to the Brits on this since all my Steadfast are pre-RP................

Yo Bob, Steadfast & RP World models are one and the same just a name change. They made all Britains items IE: Charge of the Light Brigade, Hamleys Hussars set etc, until Britains decided to move to China.
Bernard.

 

[4th Hussar]

Bernard


I said I would defer to the Brits but it is embarrassing to be corrected by a
2nd Lt

I believe RP still makes several of the Britains Premier vehicles and guns as well as Steadfast

 

[thebritfarmer]

Is there anyone who makes hollowcast soldiers? I had heard that is was a costly process to do this

 

[aujj65]

RP bought Steadfast, not sure if there is much difference in the troops but I would defer to the Brits on this since all my Steadfast are pre-RP................

Bernards nearly there! Your quite right........ RP used to do contract work for Britains and others and then I belive bought Steadfast from Borbour Enterprises?

Jeff

 

[theBaron]

Is there anyone who makes hollowcast soldiers? I had heard that is was a costly process to do this

That's a good question, cost of producing hollowcast vs. solid.

Back in the day, the hollowcast process allowed Britains to undercut the German makers who owned the world market at the time. The primary savings was in the cost of material, and shipping, because of course, a hollowcast figure has less metal in it, the same amount of metal can make more soldiers, and it's lighter, so its shipping weight is lower. That still holds true today.

However, the outlay to produce the mold and train a worker to use it, or to design and build a machine to produce hollowcast, is probably much higher than it was in 1900. And if you're making toys, like that bag of army men that I see hanging on the shelf at the grocery store, in the long run, the equation isn't solid metal vs hollowcast, but metal vs plastic.

For today's market of collectors, rather than a broader market of kids looking for toys, it probably is cheaper to produce a solid figure.

And there are probably factors I haven't thought of.

Maybe one of our fellow Treefroggers, who produce soldiers, can shed some more light on the question.

Prost!
Brad

 

[thebritfarmer]

Yes I guess timing is the key with hollowcast, to quick and you have a defect figure, to slow and it becomes solid cast. I guess the old soldiers were poured cast etc by hand one at a time. That by today's standards is very labour intensive.

 

[aujj65]

That's a good question, cost of producing hollowcast vs. solid.

Back in the day, the hollowcast process allowed Britains to undercut the German makers who owned the world market at the time. The primary savings was in the cost of material, and shipping, because of course, a hollowcast figure has less metal in it, the same amount of metal can make more soldiers, and it's lighter, so its shipping weight is lower. That still holds true today.

However, the outlay to produce the mold and train a worker to use it, or to design and build a machine to produce hollowcast, is probably much higher than it was in 1900. And if you're making toys, like that bag of army men that I see hanging on the shelf at the grocery store, in the long run, the equation isn't solid metal vs hollowcast, but metal vs plastic.

For today's market of collectors, rather than a broader market of kids looking for toys, it probably is cheaper to produce a solid figure.

And there are probably factors I haven't thought of.

Maybe one of our fellow Treefroggers, who produce soldiers, can shed some more light on the question.

Prost!
Brad

I may be wrong, but I think the hollowcast mould process was done by hand, and relied on the operator's skill in flipping the mould at just the right time to spread the moltern lead to the inside of the mould.

Jeff

 

[theBaron]

I may be wrong, but I think the hollowcast mould process was done by hand, and relied on the operator's skill in flipping the mould at just the right time to spread the moltern lead to the inside of the mould.

Jeff

Exactly-can you imagine either paying someone today to do that, or using a casting machine? A human would have to be paid a rate for a skilled worker, at least here in the West, where we can bargain or strike for higher pay. And the up-front costs to design a casting machine that could reproduce the process seem prohibitive, to me.

I think we're only likely to see hollowcast figures now by someone like a William Hocker or some other smaller, specialty maker, who uses the process because he loves it enough to disregard the cost. Craftsmanship, as opposed to mass-producing.

Prost!
Brad

 

[aujj65]

Exactly-can you imagine either paying someone today to do that, or using a casting machine? A human would have to be paid a rate for a skilled worker, at least here in the West, where we can bargain or strike for higher pay. And the up-front costs to design a casting machine that could reproduce the process seem prohibitive, to me.

I think we're only likely to see hollowcast figures now by someone like a William Hocker or some other smaller, specialty maker, who uses the process because he loves it enough to disregard the cost. Craftsmanship, as opposed to mass-producing.

Prost!
Brad

Brad,

I read somewhere that some of the hand moulds still exist, might be interesting to see if Richard or Ken at WBritains can shed a bit more light on this.

Jeff

 

[theBaron]

Brad,

I read somewhere that some of the hand moulds still exist, might be interesting to see if Richard or Ken at WBritains can shed a bit more light on this.

Jeff

Hi, Jeff, I think you're right, I recall seeing one up on eBay once, too.

Prost!
Brad

 

[4th Hussar]

A few years ago I saw an article about Charles Biggs salvaging the old WB hollow cast molds from the closed down Britains factory. I don't know if these were the molds used to make the newer Britains hollowcast toy soldiers.

 

[aujj65]

A few years ago I saw an article about Charles Biggs salvaging the old WB hollow cast molds from the closed down Britains factory. I don't know if these were the molds used to make the newer Britains hollowcast toy soldiers.

That's the one I read! I think the new figures were based on the old moulds but whether the old method was used is just my guess.

Jeff

 

[thebritfarmer]

That's the one I read! I think the new figures were based on the old moulds but whether the old method was used is just my guess.

Jeff

They were meant to compliment the old hollowcasts but in regiments never issued before. Which is a bit weird as the mould of HM is the same, they got round that by saying she was mounted on Burmese (bit sneaky really)

I have HM the Queen, A Scots Grey and the 9th Lancers band from the "new" hollowcast series. They are certainly heavier than the original hollowcasts. However in the catalogues the have a pic of Her Majesty cut in half showing the hollow interior.

 

[theBaron]

Ah, yes, I remember that line, too, I think there was an article in "Toy Soldier & Model Figure."

If the figures are heavier, maybe they are being poured by hand, but the caster doesn't have quite as a light a touch as his great-grandfather did

Or, it's probably a different alloy, too, and doesn't behave the same way in the process. If it cools rapidly enough when it hits the mold, then there's less melted metal to pour back out again.

Interesting topic....

 

[thebritfarmer]

Ah, yes, I remember that line, too, I think there was an article in "Toy Soldier & Model Figure."

If the figures are heavier, maybe they are being poured by hand, but the caster doesn't have quite as a light a touch as his great-grandfather did

Or, it's probably a different alloy, too, and doesn't behave the same way in the process. If it cools rapidly enough when it hits the mold, then there's less melted metal to pour back out again.

Interesting topic....

DOH !!! Yes I forgot that important fact. The new hollowcasts are not lead. So that would account for the weight difference.

 

[sonofzelda]

Britains Hollow Cast Moulds for Sale

There are three original moulds for sale at Bonhams tomorrow. They are very heavy - the casters must have had forearms like Popeye!

James Opie told me that they used to cast 400 - 500 an hour - that's one every 8 seconds.

The technique was to filll the mould right up, wait a few seconds for the 'skin' to form (a bit like custard!!) then tip the mould over to pour the rest of the lead out then open the mould to reveal a shiny new figure.

The first mould is particularly interesting because the officer holds a tinplate sword in his right hand. You can see the hole in the mould where you first insert the sword from the inside-out before closing the mould ready for casting. The moulds are made from bronze and are infinitely more expensive to make than the vulcanised rubber ones used for spin casting or silicon moulds used for the drop casting of modern solid figures.

The third one is also interesting because it is for a FLAT figure which Britains never produced!

http://www.bonhams.com/cgi-bin/public.sh/pubweb/publicSite.r