Some advice, please:
In my opinion, though nicely done, neither the stringing nor the strings in this no. 50 set are authentic, and two strings are lacking.
Could some of you please comment on this, by written massage or - preferably - by sending a detailed photo of a doubtless authentically stringed set? It may have to be restrung, and the lacking ones have to be added anyway. Restringing may not be an easy job. Could someone share his experience with me/us?
Thank you in advance!
Kind regards, Jan Werner
I have some of these ships but I find it hard to identify the model names and part numbers. Is there a location (book or WEB site) that I can access to identify the models? I looked at Richardson's book and did not see any pictures of the models.
Hi Bob, an old thread this is! In all these years I haven't made a decision yet. In the mean time I bought spare ships in order to replace the poor examples, but I am still waiting at the occasion to come across a satisfactory replacement cord.
Indeed it is hard to find good photographs for identification. The whole set tends to be shown, rather than the single parts. And there are several contemporary brands that made similar models too (without brand names and model names underneath, like many Dinky/Meccano examples), the small ships of which are very hard to distinguish.
I cut my original photo in three parts in order to see more details. Please note that some tiny parts are missing, like masts, gun barrels or details of the superstructures, which may add to the confusion in identifying them. I will add the official (they may have grown or have bent from fatigue) measures below the photo details. Kind regards, Jan
Hi all, I had a little Dinky home party yesterday, fifteen enthusiasts attending. At such an occasion the visitors tend to bring some show pieces or pieces for discussion, in order to exchange views or help each other finding answers. One of the Dinky collector friends brought the British Navy set shown below. Hardly anybody discovered any anomaly, but the remarkable characteristics appeared to be the unusual black and red details surrounding the funnel tops. As very incidentally other items with the same details have shown up, this seems to be authentic. Could anybody help explaining these remarkable funnel details, please! Kind regards, Jan
Could this set with special finish of the funels have been made specially for Hamleys in 1940 like the camouflaged Mechanised army set # 156 ?
As far as I know, only the Dinky Toys Encyclopaedia contains large individual photos of all the Dinky Toys ships.
The alternative art deco box label design. The set a generous gift from John Beugels to me, mid-2019. Kind regards, Jan
Both Mike Richardson (GBDT page 66) and Guy Girod (Tout Dinky Toys volume 4 page 5) writes that some of the ships : Nelson, Rodney, Effingham, York, and Delhi have been cast first with their name and later without.
Is this true ?
Why would the names have been deleted ?
Jan W writes that similar ships have been made by other manufacturers. Is there a confusion between these and the Dinky Toys meaning that the Dinky have always had their name cast in ?
Neither of these authors states if all the marking has been deleted or only the name of the ship with "Meccano, Dinky Toys and made in England" remaining.
The H.M.S. Hood is known to have had it's name removed after the ship was sunk on May 24,1941, "Meccano, Dinky Toys and made in England" remained.
The same applies to the H.M.S. Nelson and Rodney. This makes sense as it avoided to stock two similar variations.
The question remains open for the other three ships : Effingham, York and Delhi for which I do not have any photographs of the underside.
Thank you for your help to complete the knowledge about these rare ships which only very few people collect..
Hi Jacques, I am one of those few people who collect them - they tell a fascinating (hi)story.
Unfortunately I cannot help you. I have two sets, in which they are all strung, so that I cannot check. But as both belong to the early production years, one can argue that they will have their full names underneath - unless some have been replaced in the course of time.
Nelson Twells wrote that piece in the earlier DT&MM book (page 83), but I'm afraid Nelson is too old now to comment on this. Kind regards, Jan
Here are the 3 naval ships that I have which I can photograph the underneath. Hope this is of some help.
Dear Chris and Jan,
Thank you for your help. I have now been able to find most of the pictures and data necessary for the Dinky ships chapter of the Encyclopaedia. I am still missing a picture of the inside of HMS Delhi without the ship's name. After been photographe and restored with photoshop, the photos of Dinky Toys & Modelled Miniatures are quite good.
All ships of the British Navy, as shown by The Daily Telegraph of 19 July 1939!
The title of this thread should be changed from :
--50 Ships of the British Navy (1934-41)
--50 - Ships of the British Navy (1934-41)
the meaning is different, Meccano did not make 50 ships.
... and they did not make 181 Volkswagens, 190 Caravans etc. etc.