Novelty Headquarters Inc., and Others - Space Alien Clones

We've already seen these as I only have the three examples and they have all been used in comparison-shots on the previous two posts! However, to get the boxes ticked, we'll have another look at them with a bit more info' and some theorising.

So these are they; it has taken all of my 40+ years collecting to get the three, which equates to one every fourteen-odd years! I fact they've all come in, in the last 30 years, so about once a decade, although, technically they aren't [or 'weren't'] rare once, as we'll see in a minute.

But the slow drip of them here in Albion points to them having been either the very cheap gum-ball machine capsule prizes (1p or 2p machines back in the day) or the budget Christmas cracker's - 1 per cracker, 1 cracker to every few boxes?

Mark is, as you can see, a small, crude 'HONG KONG', in semi-readable condition.

And they are copies, probably from crude re-moulding, hand-finished, rather than with a pantograph, simplification of the blue-guy's rifle, and the missing butt of the pink guy's, coupled with a marked reduction on size over the originals and loss of fine detail, suggest a crude method of copying? Especialy as they've then been given the same size bases as the Giant donors, something which would have been equally reduced by an off-set pantograph.

This has been on the PC since I got the one before the one before this, and I think it came from a defunct Blog or website, it may be off eBay (some early images were very poor) but it illustrates the point that in the 'States you could get a bag of 100+! For what, .25/35¢? And say 5-20 bags per outlet, 500 or 5,000 outlets . . . somewhere; a mountain of these has disappeared into thin air! As have the Giant originals!

Except we know they are in landfill! Ephemeral rack-toys, from the budget-end of a budget-genre, they were discarded, hoovered/vacuumed, lost in the garden or playground, down drains (there'll be a bunch of 'em in the Sargasso garbage patch!) and whatever was left, eventually went in the bin.

Another old crap image with some LB (Lik Be) robots rounding up the Novelty Headquarters Inc's invasion force!

Now, these are the same colours as those in the bag, not the same as mine, which may point to mine being a 2nd generation piracy, 3rd generation if you count the Giant ones. The US ones also seem to have retained a bit more of their stature, although the red one on the left has a poor weapon, so it's probably down to the base-mark, which I don't know, however I suspect two runs of the same tool.

===============================================================

But is it Giant?

Neoooow! Not in a million-billion-squillion-gazillion-years Pal! Yer 'avin' a larf, in't 'cha!

Golden Trojans - The Non-Giant Gold Plastic Greco-Roman Figures

Looking at the various rack-toy sets, in the small scale, rack-toy universe, manufactured in golden polymers and ostensibly of 'Romans' most of whom are actually copied from Britains Trojans, who were themselves sculpted as Classical Greeks, albeit with a cloned Marx Roman or two in the mix for good measure!

Sorting sets and scanning images to get some order to this post I actually found a third fort type which may-or-may-not be connected to the third figure type (later in the post), so there may be four generations of 'stuff' here?

We've looked at the Lucky Clover branded sets before, so a bit of a reprise, but we're comparing today. Packaging of the No 6646 / 9 Tower Fortress With Soldiers is best described as '1950's gift chocolates', with a pull-off lid and tray holding the contents, viewable though the large window.

Two pinches of figures making half a handful (heay, at some point in the past I'm sure these were official units of measure!), a two-horse, articulated, chariot and the standard Hong Kong fort in 17 pieces with the 'oriental' turret-roofs.

You can see this one is annotated in James Opie's hand as having been purchased in Layton (I suspect East London rather than Blackpool?), in August 1969, which means these other sets were coming out as Giant faded away, and were partly responsible for that fade; if you saturate a market, the early leader will lose out for being over-extended or over-invested in a diminishing return. And note the instructions for the Wild West Fort Cheyenne are included on a generic tray designed for all the Lucky Clover sets.

Four pinches making two half-handfuls! You can see there is little attempt at a fair sample or equal distribution of the figure poses, with one getting only four of the six available poses, the other scraping-in with five. They would have been jumbled up in a big skillage somewhere in the corner of the warehouse and fed to smaller stock, component or tote boxes on each packer's bench. Obviously aiming at six figures per pocket, one got seven.

The Lucky Clover chariots; mentioned before, there seem to be four types, two-horsed (Biga) or four (Quadriga) and more generally (more widely within all these type of rack-toys) can be found articulated or rigid, the articulated ones survive better, the rigid ones tending to brake where the drawbar/centre-pole meets the body of the chariot.

The horse is a very good example of what I call 'Mexican' and is as good as anything Giant carried, but these - and their attendant chariots - are unmarked.

Fish-scale flags plug-in to the 'oriental' turrets, I call them that to differentiate from the round-cone roof pieces of other forts in this family of similar rack-toy forts, the design can be found throughout Europe, so isn't really Oriental, but, well, that’s why that is . . . ! One set gets contrasting jade-green flags (pennants?), the other matching red.

The fort sections are marked (in contrast to the chariots/horses) with a heavy HONG KONG in a rough, capitalised, sans-serif font, twice; above the 'gate-house' and below the left-hand walk-way (arrowed).

Fully assembled and to the untrained eye identical to a Giant fort, the seventeen pieces assemble into a fort with roughly the same footprint as the concurrent Airfix (and other) forts, that is: eight-inches by eight-inches on the sides, but lacking the sophistication, or height of those domestic models.

The other relatively clear type to identify - No. 445 Roman Fortress - is quite common, and can be found as a generic (top) or over-printed to the Woolbro brand (bottom). Artwork (which shows the round turret-roofs on the front of the card) rather dates this to post-1960's-psychedelia, and more toward the simpler 'comic' graphics and block-colours of Glam-Rock, Habitat and Mary Quant, so early 1970's? Which makes them the second of these, but - as always with this stuff - it's not that simple!

Also - as both generics and under Woolbro - sister sets of Astronauts, Khaki Infantry (with the 1-ton Humber mini-trucks) and a 'Fort Cheyenne' (all stock-coded '445') were issued in a fuller 'line'. I have a Gordy International Wild West set (and a generic), so they (Gordy) may have issued this - Roman set - on the other side of The Pond?

Obviously aping the Lucky Clover set, or a later version from the same source (we will probably never know), they are the same black polyethylene with red fittings (including pennants), no markings though and you can see the mould is tired with damage 'dinks' to the flat surfaces, but it makes it easy to ID lose ones as there's no mistaking the eight or so 'pimples' on the back of the gatehouse, and the long diagonal scartch to the right - clearly they only had the one tool/cavity.

But I have parts of an interim/different one; yellow fittings (but no firm idea as to turret tops or pennants), high-quality moulding with very smooth walls, none of Lucky's markings, none of Woolbro's dinks.

However, the three walls are roughest of the lot and marked - similar to Lucky Clover's front-piece - but with a full MADE IN HONG KONG in a slightly smaller font.

A few recent bits (the fort from Tony among them) were added after this shot was taken, and while I've numbered them, and seem to have photographed them the wrong way round, there is no real significance to the numbering and '2' could be the oldest or the newest, also - as we'll see with the figures in a minute - may be the third or a forth 'type'? What I am sure about is that the Lucky Clover sets pre-date the Woolbro/generic Roman Fortress sets.

And I don't want to be seen to be 'showing off' here, I'm showing you the vague size of the sample so you can gauge the veracity or fallacy of the blurb for yourself , I'd hate to be thought to be the type to make it up as I go along, like some peep's around here!

So, to the figures; as the forts are all black, so the figures are all gold, but differences - when you look - are marked and plenty, all are poorer than Giant originals, who we will look at another time.

The top row are Lucky Clover, all six of the Giant poses, below them are a row of Woolbro/generics, they are almost smooth, detail wise, and only seem to have used five of the original six poses.

Below that are some OBE's from an unknown artist of yesteryear and a single survivor of my Greco-Romano-Trojan-Macedonian-Carthaginian army! I gave them gun-metal cuirasses . . . can you imagine going to war in a wrought-iron bell-cuirass!

The bottom row are the 'turd on the snooker-table' of this otherwise quite clean ID'ing exercise, as they are a third type, closer to the Giant originals and coming independently from the 'interim' fort, so not necessarily going with it at all? And a six-pose count.

As well as the gold plastic rule and the black forts rule, the other rule which unites this branch of the tree is that none of these have been associated with mounted figures, indeed the inclusion of the unknown set is because they came without mounted figures in a clean sample, they haven't been linked to a black fort per se.

Bases; The interlopers (middle) have a Giant-like MADE IN HONG KONG in a neat DIN-font, which extends over the edge/boundary of the product in some cases leading to floating or missing letters. They all have the hole for locating the spigot-mountings on the floors of some chariots, and they are also a more golden gold than the others.

Top are the Lucky Clover, they have the remnants of a chariot-mounting hole (their chariot has no spigot)filled in and are marked with a very uneven, or arcing HONG KONG in a more generic engineers letter-stamp format, gold is a darker, bronze-gold, if that isn't an oxymoron!

While at the bottom are the Woolbro/generic figures, easiest to sort as they have smooth, unmarked bases, and smooth un-detailed bodies! I've shot a darkish gold set here, but they can be found in a verity of shades . . .

. . . as can be seen in the lower shot here, where we have the archer in artists gold (left) a washy, semi-translucent gold, a 9ct gold and the darker shade. The upper shot is my 'old soldier' and the OBE squaring-off - "To the death Achilles!"

===============================================================

But is it Giant?

No! Nothing in this post is by Giant or was sold as Giant, although the interim figures (and possibly the yellow-door fort) may be from old, tired, ex-Giant tools? One could ponder all sorts, raise the questions of Bi-A-Toy or World Toy House, but I haven't seen these 'Romans' in the former packaging yet, while the later carried marked Giant originals.

If I was being tortured for an answer I would try to stick the unknown figure set and fort together, and possibly place them contiguous to the Lucky Clover set, or even slightly earlier as the first post-Giant copy/variety, but there is no evidence for any of it . . . yet!

More on these here; my notes on the unknown goldies shown there, vis-à-vis the Lucky Clover figures now looks a bit dodgy, but the etched detail on the Lucky is better, while the unknown's are 'closer' overall (size/pose) to the better Giant originals. One should also note the figures on PSR's Giant page, with the possible exception of the unpainted silver rider, are not Giant, but later copies.

Hong Kong Hollow Horses - P1 Pony (Type 1)

My old notes and the index-card text which accompanies the loose versions of these reads -

P1 - Pony. Very well-detailed copy - but smaller - of 'Smoothie' with more detailed mane, more realistic tail than 'P2', "HONG KONG" in small letters at rear of body cavity, which is arched. Identified by mutually exclusive association, two sources.

More clean samples have come-in since the card was written about 25-years ago, and that's what we're looking at here.

This is the horse in question and I hope he conforms to the above description, He's quite a solid chap compared to some HK horses, but smaller than most, so a 'new' sculpt, copied from the older donors.

P1 is marked neatly with 'Hong' over 'Kong' in a little block reading head-to-tail toward the rear of the body cavity which makes all these 'hollow-horses' hollow.

It's called P1 because there is a P2 (which will be posted above this post) and here they are, next to each other, the P2 has elements of what I call remoulding in that while the horse is equally small, its mane and tail are cruder and it looks like the changes have been carved straight into the tool. It's also a thinner-walled sculpt and unmarked.

P2 is also glossier than the matted, slightly (or subtly) textured surface of P1

My pelt drawing/diagram which also shows the strange arch under the saddle which may help ID them if you are following these none-to frequent posts (they will become more frequent - I just need to get a rocket up my arse!) with the aim of sorting them out of bigger mixed lots - which is the main purpose!

Horse colours are all realistic, as far as HK horses go, no bright colours or dark green ones!

The cowboys, as with the Indians they are the three old Giant poses, quite a reasonable take on the older figures, faces have gone and the locating-spigots on the legs are much heavier, with the single-six-shooter pose's having slight blobs on the tips.

The colour-palette is best described as subdued primaries and I'm not 100% happy with the pale-green double-six-gunner, his hat is slightly different and his feet likewise, but with two apparent cavities for the pose (fatter and thinner torsos) and no other set he fits with, he's here for now - see below.

The Native American Indians, again three poses, again ex-Giant and you can see another reason why both the pale green cowboy and the poorly-moulded ones remain in the sample, there are similar Indians, and they are better matches, so there were poor mouldings (too quick out of the tool leads to shrinkage which at this scale smoothes-off detail at the same time) and a few leerier colours; note the pinks!

P1 on the left, a Giant Smoothie on the right, you can see that the Pony is a much smaller version of the Giant mount - which has a smaller version itself.

As yet I have been unable to tie these into a set, brand or manufacturer, nor have any accessories yet been associated with P1 sets/lots.

===============================================================

But is it Giant?

No, despite using the same Giant figures as many other HK Horse sets/groups and using the smaller version of a Giant horse, this family (see P2) is a later entity altogether dating from the mid-late 1970's or even (in the case of P2) the early '80's.