514 Guy Van 'Lyons' (195152)

Bruce----Thanks......I did not list it on the info I sent you on stamps because I did not see one. There is a price marked in pencil on one end of the box, and it is 6/10......does that help? I re-looked at the box, and can very faintly see what might be remains of a stamp. This is on side of the box top, about half way down. I have found taking a closeup photo, with good light, and then running it through Photoshop with autocorrection can sometimes enhance the printing.....I will try that tomorrow. Best regards, Terry

Hello Terry That is a surprising location to find the stamp. Are you sure there is nothing on the base? But as you said, Photoshop can often bring up the poorest of images. My own software can enhance stamp details, although it does tend to make the photo look very strange! I already saw the price of 6/10 on the image above, and if you can come up with an inspection stamp it may very well change the course of history! Or actually the introduction date for the Lyons Van. Kind regards Bruce (150) 20160413/891/1528

Bruce----I got up early this morning and took photos of all sides of the Lyons box, both the top and lower boxes. After enhancing I can say that I do not see any form of a date or other stamp....nothing. Attached is a photo again of the end, showing the pricing, which I assume was done when the model was first offered for sale. I am anxious to hear what that price level means as to a date; am assuming it might be earlier than we thought?Best regards, Terry

Hello Terry Yes, I saw you up and onto dtcawebsite.com at 6.00am! Afraid the 6/10 is what I already knew, so it is a pity that no other markings can be detected. However, Meccano was quite sneaky in that all the price lists for 1951 and 1952 refer to the 514 simply as 'Guy Van'. With that the price of 6/10 was only current between June 1951 and December 1951. June 1951 as per a price list with the print reference of 16/651/75 and the price was increased to 7/9 as per Meccano World Famous Toys catalogue with a print reference of 16/152/50. With this, it can be stated that the Lyons Van was available in 1951, perhaps in time for Christmas. This then confirms what the Richardsons had stated, 1951 - 1952 and Cecil Gibson in his HISTORY OF BRITISH DINKY TOYS stating the Lyons Van was introduced in November 1951. So the title of this topic will have to be corrected! Attached is the first advertisement for the new Lyons Van that appeared in the November 1951 issue of Meccano Magazine. Kind regards Bruce (150)20160414/893/0308

Bruce

---

Most interesting about those dates, particularly after I had checked the relevant Dinky Toys catalogs. All the 1951 catalogs show the Guy Slumberland Van, and then the May 1952 British catalog does as well. By the October 1952 catalog, they are then showing the Weetabix version, as are some of the other 1952 catalogs. Nowhere did a see an actual catalog image or listing for the Guy Lyons Van.....apparently, it only appeared in the Meccano Magazine. Which begs the question, why was it not promoted more, and why was it made only a very short time? Was there a falling out between Meccano and Lyons? According to all this, it was actually in production for barely a year, although I am sure there was likely some overlap with the later Weetabix, which also was not made for very long. Does anyone else know more history about this? Best regards, Terry

Terry, I have never found any archival references to contacts/contracts of Meccano with sponsors of the advertising on Dinky Toys. May be others can tell more about that. The only indirect reference that comes up with me is to be found in The Binns Road Gazette 1/3 of May 1999. There, Keith Harvie discusses the relation between Meccano and the McLean Trucking Company and some correspondence about it continuing the subsidy in 1964 and 1965. Kind regards, Jan

Jan---Thanks for commenting. don't you also find it a bit strange to bring out a new model, never put it in the proper catalog, then make it for only a little over a year. Since mine dates to later 1951, you would assume it would be in the May 1952 catalog.....but no, the Slumberland is there, then by October it is the Weetabix. Makes me wonder if somehow late in 1951 or early 1952, something happened whereby Meccano already knew it was going to be a short release, so they with held it, then replaced it with the Weetabix later in 1952. By now, I am sure it will remain another Meccano/Dinky mystery with no real answer.....but always fun to speculate! I thought maybe Jacque might comment, but have not seen him here lately. Best regards, Terry

Perhaps a part of the explanation is to be found in the fact that the first quartet of Guy vans share the same 514 reference number, which might cover many more advertising variations ... until Meccano thought it would be wise to consider them as individual items and not variations of one item. The first one, 'Slumberland' is not advertised as such but as 'Guy Van'. If such a short-lived variation as the 'Lyons' had the bad luck to be 'overruled' in the catalogues by a newer variation it was never published in the catalogue at all, whereas the 'general van' was always correctly advertised. In the same way always only one van was advertised in the catalogue at the same time, without mentioning that mostly two more were available in this early period, which is evidenced by two different hub designs on both the 'Slumberland' and the 'Weetabix'. So: pure bad luck for the 'Lyons', even though many consider that one as the most attractive of all. Kind regards, Jan

Jan The most interesting document about the sponsors can be found on TMT @ www.talkmodeltoys.com/discus/messages/27...5.html?1096106657The 115 UB taxi was certainly made on order from United Biscuits.Although it was illustrated in the Dinky catalog n 14 of 1978, this model was not distributed by Meccano. It could be obtained from United Biscuits ex Crawfords against four token wrappers from their new 'Taxi' biscuits and a small amount of money. It was provided in a plain white box. Note the wheels fitted the wrong way around.The reason for this model may be that the United Biscuits factory (ex. Crawford's) was just down Binns Road and the person who at this time was the marketing manager at Meccano Ltd. had been hired from United Biscuits.There is other evidence, the OXO van was deleted when Brook Bond bought OXO. This was probably at the request of the new owner.The advertisers may have paid Meccano for a limited quantity of models to be made with their name on. This could explain the short life span of some of the Guy vans. The French Dinky Mercedes 230 SL ref. 516 was issued with the marking Mercedes 230SL on the base plate. Mercedes ordered Meccano to change this marking to MERCEDES-BENZ 230 SLWas the export issue of the Kodak Panhard articulated lorry made at the request of Eastman Kodak or by Henry Hudson Dobson ? There are certainly other examples but no evidence. I think that in the early times of Hornby trains and Dinky Toys, companies paid Meccano to have their names on the Hornby trucks and Dinky Toys vans.This is out of subject but can be worse a special thread.