Matchbox and their choice of subjects

[MerlinJones]

As I was contemplating the brightly coloured loveliness of my Matchbox kits I was struck by the thought...Just what was it about Matchbox and their choice of subjects, so far removed from the mainstream?

Matchbox entered a rather competitive market and obviously needed to make a fairly immediate and positive impact. Granted, they had the backing of the Lesney toy range, but they definitely chose not to go for the subjects guarenteed to sell.

Their packaging was very different.
Certainly, the multi-coloured plastics were different.
They also seemed to sell their kits elsewhere, from the then-traditional model and toy shops.

But besides these factors, they offered, right from the initial launch, subjects not covered by other mainstream kit makers. Even if they went for a 'standard subject', it tended to be a different marque to those covered by everybody else.

Whereas adults might've known what a Hawker Fury was, myself and my modelling mates had to look it up. As the range expanded, there were subjects that were not identifiable even in our Library, never mind our collected Big Boys Books of Aeroplanes!

Sadly, when the oil crisis and subsequent depression hit the toy market, the diecast Lesney went down, draging the actually-competitive Matchbox with it.

Today, thankfully, Revell seem to be looking after the old Matchbox subjects and releasing the more obscure types on a fairly regular basis. The Eastern Europeans may be starting to work through these, with the likes of AModel Furys, but you'd still struggle to find Boeing P-12E's, Siskins and Sea Fox, Buckeyes, Twin Otters and Skyservants, or Stranraers, Heyfords and Privateers.

Regards,
Bruce

[peebeep]

Choice of Matchbox subject matter was all down to Maurice Landi, who was deliberately looking for new angles on staple kit subjects as well as subject matter that was different from other manufacturers. I was told this by an acquaintance who knew Maurice well. In fact he lays claim to being the inspiration for the Privateer, because in a conversation they had Maurice said that he was thinking about doing a Liberator and my acquaintance said why not do a Privateer.

peebeep

[MerlinJones]

I'm guessing that, back in the day, it was easier for single enthusiasts within a company, to drive the choice of subjects and such like.

Regards,
Bruce

[SJPONeill]

I'm guessing that, back in the day, it was easier for single enthusiasts within a company, to drive the choice of subjects and such like.

Regards,
Bruce

True, but certainly in the first couple of years of MB models when there were only the two smaller series (Orange, I think, was Series 2, can't think what the Series One equivalent was), there would have been a business logic behind it as even in small towns down under, those models moved like hot cakes because they were well within pocket money range, whereas the larger series tended to move slower...I remember quite clearly stating at the time when being gifted with models that "I don't care which one, I just want a MB one!" Even more so when the armour models started to flow out as they often came with great contributions to the spares box from the diorama parts...all of a sudden Airfix was scungy second-class because it it gave you was a model with no figures or display base...

[PaulBradley]

Well, they had their fair share of Spitfires, Me109s and Zeros as well, of course. But I remember my 9th or 10th birthday very well, as my friends must have conspired to get me all the Pink aircraft, one each and all different - a good ten in all. It didn't really matter much what the subjects were back then, it was the building and playing with them.

PB, I'm sure the friend you refer to was our friend Ted Taylor, who was a big help during our Maurice Landi Memorial GB and the subsequent book that Mike Grant produced for us.

[peebeep]

I've had similar conversations with Ted, but in this instance it is another person, a friend of a friend who I meet with from time to time. Ted has confirmed much the same and would probably take credit for inspiring other MB kits! I'm sure Maurice would have done plenty of 'research' amongst his circle of contacts and get ideas from them.

peebeep

[BWP]

As I was contemplating the brightly coloured loveliness of my Matchbox kits I was struck by the thought...Just what was it about Matchbox and their choice of subjects, so far removed from the mainstream?

Agree completely. Not only were they very cheap, but they almost always had that "wow, that's different" factor. Not sure how well that always worked as a drawcard for younger modellers, though. Sometimes the subject could be too obscure, and I would pass on them as just being too weird for my young tastes.

[JohnRatzenberger]

As I've mentioned before, I was well past youth when Matchbox came out and oblivious of the event, and the company, for many reasons. It wasn't until sometime in the 80's when I was on a TDY trip to the US Army Depot at Burtonwood that, while walking in a nearby town, I spotted the Flower Corvette in a shop window. They were closed, but I spent some time with my nose plastered onto the window. When I got back to the US, I looked up Matchbox and discovered a whole new world. One kit that immediately caught my attention was the Stranraer, and aircraft I had fallen "in love" with back in 1959 when it had been the 'Aircraft Described' in the Oct Aeromodeller.

Circumstances kept me from doing much about my new found knowledge for many years, but I've always associated them with decent quality kits of a somewhat daring nature, market-wise. Flower, Stranrare, Heyford, Siskin, 32nd Lysander & Tiger Moth ....

[Saxon]

To a large degree being cheap and easy was the biggest draw card as a kid and of course the Matchbox name was huge back then.

But yes prior to the internet and Pay Tv with constant Docos, I was shocked when I picked up the twin seat EE Lightning and saw on the back that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait used British aircraft, who knew!

The 1/32 Vampire with RAN markings another discovery and yet these are still only the well known aircraft!

The Wellsley, Norseman, PE 12, Hawker Fury and so many others, it was the discovery that was just as exciting as the build. And I still lament when I see the manufacturers now showing off their new tool items only to see we are getting more Spitfires, Me-109s, Mustangs etc. All fine subjects but given how much Matchbox kits can go for on Ebay and how many Revell have re issued surely there is a market for more obscure or less popular subjects as well.

To answer the question though I think their wide range of subjects from a strictly marketing point of view was because their market were kids who would build these kits pretty quickly and then look for a new kit next weekend and unlike us adults they didn't really want 12 spitfires in different markings (and aftermarket decals weren't around then anyway) so to keep the kids busy and buying they kept pumping out as many subjects as they could. Which is also part of the reason why they moulded in different colours so kiddies wouldn't have to paint them, sometimes the colours worked (a little) other times the plastic came with more colours than the subject itself!

[BWP]

I mean, seriously, to criticise the Dragon Pzkw IIc for having 25 (not 26) teeth on the drive sprocket ...

And what's wrong with that as a criticism? (Especially given that Dragon is one of those companies that will trumpet to the heavens how incredibly accurate their kits always are.) Either the part is accurate, or it isn't. Since it's unlikely that the missing tooth is a result of limitations in moulding, it can only be put down to somebody made a goof. So far as I know, there's no universal law on what scale of goofs are allowed to be mentioned in a review.

It's not the criticism that is at fault, it's how the critic uses it. Is the fault noted as an objective fact, and then the critic moves on? Or is it used as an excuse to denounce the company and anyone who buys their kits? There's a world of difference between "purists will observe ..." and "HOW DARE THEY ...!!".

I want critics to point out the errors, even the little ones. Especially the little ones. It's then up to me to decide how important I feel the error is, and what (if anything) I choose to do about it.

[JamesPerrin]

To answer the question though I think their wide range of subjects from a strictly marketing point of view was because their market were kids who would build these kits pretty quickly and then look for a new kit next weekend and unlike us adults they didn't really want 12 spitfires in different markings (and aftermarket decals weren't around then anyway) so to keep the kids busy and buying they kept pumping out as many subjects as they could.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

This is also reflected in their diecasts. Their toy cars were almost all different, however the yesteryear vehicles, aimed at adults, seem to be a model T van in just about every livery imaginable.

[Chris]

I remember what i liked about them, they came not just in funky colors but had funky markings.

I remmeber never having heard of a place called 'Romania' as part of WWII yet I could build a fighter in their colors, that alone was a huge novelty factor.

[bigfiver69]

I remember being very young - 5 or so - and building my first Matchbox kit, the ME262. My older brother helped me build it. I loved the multi-coloured plastic (my mom wouldn't let me use my brother's Humbrol on it!).

Beyond just the interesting subject (A Whitworth? A Wellesley? A Heyford?) they also made a real effort at appealling up and down, from the young builder with the 1/72 scale kits, to the sophisticated builder with the 1/32 kits.

To me, they were a quintessential part of the 1970s, and wonderful. Even the armor kits were pretty amazing for their day - bases, figures, etc.

[reinhold]

I asked a similar question, as what this topic is about, to Ted Taylor in 2007,

Regarding the models themselves..
How was it decided which models to bring out or not?
Ted replied something along the lines of:
Maurice was the project engineer and it was his job to come up with subjects which could be found, measured and photograped in other words he had access to, and when he had prototypes made up by their own staff they would be presented to the owners Odell and Smith and they would decide under his advice and give him the budget for.

Now just guesstimating how things could have worked back in the seventies: Odell and Smith were constantly busy making decisions about which car to put in the 1 to 75 range and similar executive decisions. I believe at some point marketing also used panels of children to understand better what they would like. They were aiming at a mass market of children's pocket money. Why would they do the decision making on the model ranges any different? Odell and Smith clearly wanted a piece of the plastic model market, were no aircraft nuts themselves and mosty likely gave Landi a lot of room to come up with ideas. The factor of what planes would be accessible to measure probably also helped to bias to exotic choices.

What surprises me is that even after Matchbox had become run by Matchbox International, there still were odd subjects coming up like the Twin Otter, Norseman and Buckeye.

Cheers,
Reinhold