641 Army 1-Ton Cargo Truck (195462)

I have two such toys with remarkable differences. The first is the colour, the second would be the presence/absence of the two roundels on the roof of the cab, then there is the difference in the insignia and finally the soldiers in the rear of the vehicle. Any explanation would be appreciated.

Hi Dennis, As far as I can observe from the tiny images, the one on the left is original. The one on the right, however, must be a repaint. In fact it must have been manipulated even more thoroughly. As the hatches on the roof are not hollow on the inside of the cab roof, they can easily be polished away, making the impression that this is a major casting difference. Given all this, it is easy to argue that all other anomalies, like the different soldiers and other insignia, are due to a deliberate metamorphosis of this example. Kind regards, Jan Werner

Dear Jan, Thanks for your comments on my Dinky 1 ton cargo truck. I have read your many submissions and am very much impressed. I can only concur with your observations but it seems like a lot of trouble for not much gain although I understand some people get their pleasure from such manipulation simply for their own sake. I bought this toy at a local antiques/flea market for $40 CDN and not because I thought it was some valuable variation. Nevertheless once I had noted the differences I was intrigued. Dennis

Gentlemen Although this thread last had a post nearly five years ago, thought I would add something with the model's boxes. The yellow box without a drawing of the model (the plain box) had a smaller font for the black lettering on the English end flap and there is no hyphen between 1 and Ton. Also, the shape of the black oval with the white sales number is 'flatter', or not as oval as the one on the end-flap of the pictorial box. Just thought I would throw this in, as someone might find this interesting!

Brilliant, thanks Bruce, wish I had boxes for mine, I remember these, and other military Dinkys were still in some shops as late as the early 70's, about 50p (10/-) if I recall. Should have bought them, but that was a week's pocket money. CW.

Bruce, Everything is interesting. There are so many variations that many eyes are necessary to spot them and then one has to circulate the info. You can throw in everything that you find. Jacques.

Many thanks Chris and Jacques. Your words are indeed most welcome and highly appreciated. It makes the hobby more appealing and personal. I hope many more can embrace this forum and participate as I am certain there are scores out there with fascinating insights and knowledge just begging to be revealed. Thank you. Bruce

Bruce-- Very sharp eyes to find that one! It is just amazing how many small differences surface as time goes by, and you wonder what led to them making some of the changes. In this case, perhaps, it the box was quickly designed and made, and then someone noticed the 'no hyphen', decided that wasn't quite right, and then also noticed the oval wasn't quite right either. I am sure there were at least some folks at Meccano that were obsessed with making things right, along with those who did not want to spend an extra cent to make such changes...........Terry

As this model is in focus now, I may reproduce an amended version of one of the many contributions I made for the talkmodeltoys forum (now very, very unfortunately taken out of the air by Nigel!). An experiment I have always liked this little sympathetic, detailed truck model, a kind of underdog compared with the other larger vehicles with a tinplate tilt. The no. 641 Army 1-ton Cargo Truck was introduced in August 1954. The first examples lacked the driver, which appeared in the overview of the range (above) in the November issue of 1954 already. The Reinforcements of your playroom army show the no. 623 Army Covered Wagon still without driver, but it seems that just an older picture is used, indeed showing the model without driver. The other models feature drivers in the text, although they do not seem to be visible in the drawings. The earliest examples of the Army 1-ton Cargo Truck have the smooth black 18mm tyres, followed soon by the treaded ones, as shown in the picture above. Besides, the majority of the models is still fitted with smooth tyres. The treaded ones on the no. 670 Armoured Car and the 622 10-ton Army Truck show a round pattern, which have never been used in my opinion. In fact, the driver of the 1-ton truck would have been expected to be added from the start already, as the drawing for the bracket to hold this seated figure (see how typically Dinky the driver's feet are just visible through the inside of the disclosing wheel arch) was made in May 1954, in the very nick of time. Apparently it was also included afterwards in the earlier assembly drawing (see detail above). Curious that this drawing shows the painting fixing point in the roof, which is not present in my example. The surviving factory drawings are: Job no. 7794, Army 1-ton Cargo Truck complete (assy), d.d. 21-09-1953 (shown). Job no. 7796, Base for Army 1-ton Cargo Truck (small), d.d. 21-07-1953. Job no. 7797, Cover: Army 1 ton Cargo Truck (small), d.d. 17-07-1953. Job no. 7798, Window for Army 1 ton Cargo Truck (small), d.d. 23-12-1959. Job no. 7447, Bracket for Driver Army 1 ton Cargo Truck (small), d.d. 05-05-1954. The detail of the no. 7794 complete / assembly drawing is also shown by the Richardsons in both DT&MM (page 213) and the GBofDT (page 203), in grey scale and b/w line reproductions respectively. This model was late enough to have the modern three digit catalogue number. Nevertheless it had an old catalogue number 153f in the period of its development and design. It is wrongly shown in this Index to Dinky Toys Job Lists of September 1961 (!). The very obsolete old sales numbers have diligently been added. But in copying old data the writer (!) apparently made a mistake and put 40 as an old sales number for this model. Below you can see the curious French number for the Centurion and some other old numbers for the 670 Armoured Car and the (familiar) old number 152b for the Recce Car. The complete list for the never realized 153 series is thus: 153a Jeep, renumbered in 1954 for the American market into 672. 153b not used for the Scout Car, became actually 673. 153c not used for Army Wagon, became actually 623. 153d not used for the Armoured Car, became actually 670. 153e not used for the Austin Champ, became actually 674. 153f not used for the Cargo Truck, became actually 641. Drawing no. 7798 confirms the addition of windows in the early 1960s. Here this is illustrated by the Austrian catalogue of 1961: Mit Fenstern. In looking for a catalogue picture I came across this curious mistake in the Swiss catalogue of 1955. On page 16 youll find the model with the usual bi-lingual (French and German) text. Someone must have taken the wrong dictionary on Monday morning and took the Dutch word Vrachtwagen in stead of the German Lastwagen. Another witness of the design and construction phase of this model in late 1953 - early 1954 is the wooden mock-up, which was discovered some years ago. This model is the only one lacking the towing hook at the rear. My example had the additional no. 603 private in the back seat already when I bought it 21 years ago. It does not belong to it structurally, but I never took it out in order to avoid wear to the tilt. The underside shows that the extension at his bottom is not spun over, and the rear is so blank with the omission of a towing hook. The introduction of the no. 624 Military Ambulance in Meccano Magazine of September of 1956 shows the model again in an action diorama. Together with the no. 674 Austin Champ and the bigger tilted brother, the 621 Bedford 3-ton Army Wagon, and the later introduction, the no. 676 Armoured Personnel Carrier it was included in the biggest 1950s army gift set of assorted models, Military Vehicles Gift Set no. 1 (renumbered into 699). The Dinky model is based on a 4x4 vehicle in the Humber FV 1600 series. As a kind of larger cargo jeep, it was a British counterpart of the contemporary light American vehicles, like the Dodge weapons carrier. Likewise the Austin Champ was the British counterpart of the American Jeep. On the accompanying photograph it is apparent that the two roof hatches really consist of two separate halves.

Jan's article are always very complete, well documented and layed out. Like yours, my 641 does not have the painting ring in the cab. Has any one got a Humber with this ring ? I doubt it. Any way, it would have had to be removed to place the window glazing.

Jan-- Another wonderful, very well presented article, and on one of my favorite military Dinky's also. That little truck has such wonderful detail, and also a rugged appearance, all in a somewhat tiny package. I liked it immediately when it first came out, and bought the one shown below about 55 years ago, and it is still in very nice shape. Thanks again for highlighting a popular Dinky model with so much information! Terry

Jan and Terry First Jan - as usual an excellent, detailed article on this great little model, and I salute you for all the care and attention you have put into it. Secondly Terry - the condition of your little Humber is unbelievable! You should see mine - apparently it had served in Suez, and all the other trouble spots in which the British Army was involved at that time!! I agree it is a great model, although I wish my parents had bought me one. The one I 'acquired' was through swapping a bag of marbles. A comic would have included the canopy, but I had none to spare, so no canopy! Bruce