barrett

The Eligor range was, I think, exclusively metal re-tools of old 1960s plastic Norevs - what's not to like? All the charm but none of the wobblyness / ability to exmplode into a million pieces if you look at them wrong. I only ever had one, the Ami 6, which I repainted to look like the one in a Practical Classics test of small 60s saloon cars because I loved it so much. Years later, I became friends with the subsequent owner and I've driven the car on several occasions.

That almost looks as bad as my one, great work! I prefer your interior and paint colour, but I like my gearbox better.

I'm amazed those have come back so well, considering what you started with. Definitely just try your best to protect them and re-fit them as-is. It'll be good enough for now and you can always fit a replacement bumper later on when one comes up. I don't think you should fit seatbelts. One of the best things about an old car is not having to put a seatbelt on - you'll soon get used to it, and when you do you'll be cursing having to wear one in a your modern. Just don't crash and you'll be fine. If you are concerned about safety, I would be very doubtful fitting belts to a car which wasn't designed to have them is actually going to make it safer - and possibly just the opposite. If you put a belt in and you do hit something, and that big rigid steering column comes shooting towards you, you're just pinning yourself into the bullseye position unable to get out the way. I'd much rather be free to slide backwards over the seat or try and push myself out of the way. Not sure It'd necessarily save me, but I think having the option is better in a car such as this. Ditto a side impact - if you're pinned to the seat in something with no side protection you're going to be in for a lot more damage then if the impact pushes you across the car, I reckon.

Well I must say I'm a little disappointed in myself here. I don't think I knew there was such a thing as a Stanley Mk7. What's the story here? Looks almost identical to the Harper, baring minor detail differences. Was this a bit like the AC/Invacar deal with one basic design produced by two companies? I remember looking for some evidence of the Stanley works in Egham but that whole area has been totally obliterated. I think there might be a housing etate with a 'Stanley Road' or something as a nod, but no physical evidence. The Leacroft works have gone too, but until very recently the footprint of the site seemed to remain, but I think it's having lots of flats built all over it now.

Miraculously I found my 1989 Mint & Boxed catalogue this morning by chance. Changing my bed sheets and this is in a pile of magazines which are kept in my laundry cupboard for some reason. Benefits & perils of never throwing anything away all in one. Anyway, it's interesting to look at now as it seems like a curious attempt to mary the 'old-school' historic toy collector with the up-and-coming diecast market. Lots of the very old stuff wasn't of interest to me when I was a kid but of course now how could one fail to be enthralled by something like this? Maybe not at that price, though. I love this tinplate Alfa 1900 too I have no idea about the values of this sort of thing so not sure whether it was actually expensive back in 1989, or how prices have changed in the meantime. I guess toys of this age are much less likely to be coming out of the woodwork in such nice condition 30 years down the line. The real interest to child-Barrett was the selection of diecasts though, including a few oddballs among the Dinkys Some big rigs for all the transporter perverts here. Nothing's very cheap... There's a few pages of Matchbox, which is priced much more keenly but I suppose £10 in 1989 was a lot more than it is now. The prices certainly don't seem outrageous in today's money, and I'd say these are some of the only things in the whole lot which have really increased in value, particularly those Superfasts My favourite pages are the Spot-Ons, though Again, they seems outrageous to me as a child but probably not too far off the mark in terms of value now Although I'm not a truck person, I loved these proper 1:42 commercials and buses The catalogue ends with a spread of plastic toys, which clearly didn't have the same appeal as diescasts and probably would have been a hard sell back in the 80s Always intrigued by this one, which looks like the most accurate period Amazon model out there. Anyone recognise it? Anyway, that was a fun trip down memory lane for me. Interesting to not there's not a single Politoys or Mebetoys (or any Italian diecast at all) featured, which is probably why I'm still so interested in them, as they register as 'unfamiliar' to my brain, whereas Spot-On toys, despite their rarity, are all filed and logged in the memory banks from hours staring at this when I was a kid.

I don't think I even knew there was such a thing. Have you got more Stanley Mk7 photos?

Brian Sewell, bless him, wrote something about the Mayflower once which included the line 'The Triumph Mayflower is proof that proportions are everything' (or something along those lines) and I'll never not be able to think about that when I see one. This, on the other hand, is my dream stodge I would sack almost everything off for a nice one of these, but the couple of times I've tried to buy one It's always fallen through. Did make quite a lot of money selling my NOS set of rear lamps (bought in preparation of owning one some day) to a Lancia restorer for use on a Flaminia Zagato They're such good lookers! The estates are even better I reckon Has to be an early one with the big wheels/small windscreen and round tail lamps. Oh mama. Pure sexstodge

aye up lads. Just thinking about this page in 'the book' and I reckon every one of those Spanish Dinkys turned into Pilens later on. Need to double-check my lists but I think that's right. Now, I know I'm only supposed to be collecting the Pilens that weren't based on other company's castings, but... Difficult to resist this one, particularly taking into account the psychological scarring 'the book' left me with Although the period of cars might not be my favourite, I do think toys really came into their own when real cars had big plastic bumpers which could be easily moulded in 1/43'rd scale like this. Interestingly* the bumpers here are separate bits, not part of the base as with the Solido R14 I don't think I've ever even seen a Spanish Dinky irl so no idea how much of the base was changed, but I can extrapolate there was probably a big 'DINKY TOYS' logo on the bottom there I think these are my only three ex-Dinkys, but I'll probably pick up a few more as the Pilens seem to be worth a fraction of the originals despite being indistinguishable, and built in the same factory by the same people at (almost) the same time.

You can argue the minutae of it, but I wasn't trying to put forward examples of marques which have prospered through some great car-building exercise in the dim and distant past. But equally, you can't say the continued existence of Ford, or Vauxhall, or Opel or Fiat or whatever is down to them building great cars in the 1950s, it's because they're huge global corporations with in-built protection against failure that can carefully tailor cars to individual markets (although probably less so these days, as everybody seems to want to drive the same horrible shit). My comparisons were just based on size/engine size/ market sector - a Westminster and an Aurelia were both six-cylinder, upper-middle-class family cars pitched at the more discerning motorist. Maybe a Merc 190 is more in line with a Vanguard, but both two-litre middle-class, sensible cars for families, without any pretention and only a touch of badge snobbery (only in recent times have Mercedes become 'premium' cars). And yes, a Goliath has a lot more going for it than an A30 - fwd, fuel injection, superlative build quality. Even a cheapo Goggomobil is technically interesting and well-made - it was the inspiration for Lotus F1 cars, after all! Plenty to like about dull old British cars, but let's not pretend they were anything other than dull and stodgy with very little to differentiate them from prewar cars other than styling. The thing is, after 60 or 70 years any car is going to have a charm and character to it compared to anything built in the last 35 years (or longer), and I'd much prefer to drive round in even the most dreadful old stodge (not the Mayflower though) than almost anything built in my lifetime.

A Harper, surely, unless I'm missing something?

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/175670033522

Crikey, did you see this? Obviously it's already sold but it looks basically fine. Proof they're still out there for reasonable money, I guess

No, a Herald/Spit engine is just a development of the Standard lump and I think 'bolts in' without too many mods. Changing the diff would probably help but that's easy enough too. The issue is there's no easy way to put the Herald RnP steering in without making fairly major modifications to the structure so you sort of have to live with moar power and the dreadful old steering box with miles of play in. I think the Standard club has recently started a scheme for exchange/refurb steering boxes which will probably be a big improvement, but still not brilliant. I've never driven one, but they're high on my 'must own' list. A rare example of an actually interesting British car of the period and whilst I think there were some reliability issues when new by all accounts they're brilliant cars. Again, still cheap purely because they're misunderstood I think. Massive club support too.

If you actually want a silly 1950s car for pottering about in I'd definitely buy a Standard Ten (or Eight). Loads of them left, rock-bottom values, smallish engines so not expensive to run, okay parts support etc etc. The steering is pretty lethal but otherwise fairly pleasant to drive. Probably the cheapest car mentioned in this thread so far (apart from maybe a Mayflower but... just don't). I'd have another!

No, I'm just very good at Google Maps and Heston is a small district

I know nowt about owt, but surely on a £ for lb basis this ERF lorry for £3000 has to be the bargain of the century? All up and running apparently https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/1925758867768787/

Parked here until relatively recently - looks like it took a big knock whilst parked and the owner has parked it up round the corner from his house while he figures out wtf to do with it. Lots of other Yank shit still on the drive according to the most recent google view so maybe he's just short on space. Looks pretty comprehensively jiggered to me but I guess it's a big separate chassis on these so possibly still straight and true where it counts?

Maxis and 1800s are just regular Shite innit. I think this 'stodge' handle has been given to pre- and immediately postwar cars which look noticeably out-of-step with 'modern' car design - ie, the 404 above does not qualify because it's basically just a modern car (also, again, one of the best cars ever built and probably the best real world daily driver cla**ic out there. Lovely things). I don't think OP meant 'stodge' to = 'boring' necessarily. Or he better fucking not have, including my Palladium in the list! I dare anyone to drive an open 1923 car on beaded-edge tyres at 55mph and tell me it's a boring experience... Anyway, that's my interpretation - things that are obviously 'older' than what msot people consider to be sensible means of transportation, so probably has to be pre-1960 at least to qualify. Might just be putting words in @vulgalour's mouth but that's what I thought he meant. I think as a general rule 1959 was a turning point in 'modern' car design with the Mini, Anglia and Herald, with most things that came after that essentially being indistinguishable from one another (with a few exceptions) and therefore equal parts less interesting and easier to live with.

We just featured a better-than-new example of the Wyvern in the magazine. Sent our porridge correspondent to try it, and even he (who drives a Hillman Super Minx) thought it was pretty horrible to drive and had very few redeeming features. General consensus seems to be the prewar 10/4 (which features much of the same tech) is a better car overall, but still pretty unloved

Glad I wasn't completely making it up (and equally scared by the sort of information I've retained for so long). Seems Jeff is now based in Tel Aviv, which seems as good a place as any for somebody with questionable ethics to run their dodgy business. I'm going to see if I still have that catalogue somewhere, reckon it might make interesting reading these days

Ultimate 1950s An Car. I'm not convinced they even really exist. Absolutely would, 100% (I've tried a couple of times, actually, and I've got first refusal on one in hand)

Ain't that the truth. Something a bit different today. I've recently decided a Bristol 406 might just be my ideal car, or at least perfect for the insouciant yet sophisticated image I'm trying to build for myself as I rapidly approach middle age. I think they might actually be a bit rubbish by Bristol standards - much heavier than the 405 but less powerful than the 407 - but I love the styling and general road presence they have. I also have a big soft spot for Spot-On toys, which was a big obsession when I was a young kid thanks mostly to the 1989 Mint & Boxed catalogue which I somehow acquired Not sure if anyone else remembers this outfit, but it was a quite cynical attempt to commercialise the budding collectable toy hobby in the late 80s. Everything they sold was insanely expensive, and I remember chatter at the time (a friend of the family runs the Brighton Toy & Model Museum) about some dodgy business practices and the faint whiff of scandal around its proprietor, but a quick google doesn't actually throw up any evidence of this, so apologies Jeffrey if I've been carrying a weird grudge for 30 years. As I'm sure I've mentioned before, I only ever found one Spot-On in the wild as a kid, when I used to pick up 60s/70s Matchbox, Corgi and Dinky bits for pocket money at car boot sales all the time, which just added to the mystique. These days I can see they're not actually that wonderful, really, but they still have a very particular appeal to me. I still can't justify paying the going rate for Spot-On toys, though, so I only have a tiny handful of bargains (in quite tatty condition). I'm not sure of the history of these individual models, so no idea when this one was launched, but I'd guess it was relatively early, although it has suspension unlike the very early Spot-Ons. This doesn't seem like a common toy at all, and MIB ones still seem to be about £200-300, so this playworn but quite tidy example for £20 seemed like a good buy Maybe I'll have changed my mind when I emerge from the other side of my 406 mania, but for right now I'm very happy that I literally spent the last few pounds in my bank account on a shitty old toy car from the 1960s I mean, look at it! I do appreciate the company for building cars nobody else was modelling, and for the accurate scaling. The Sunbeam Alpine is another good example, I reckon Anyway, that's it, just some rambling to try to internally justify this stupid purchase. Don't expect a sudden slew of Spot-On updates here though, I'm not quite manic enoughy for that to happen just yet. And I'm saving up for a Bristol 406.

'Scat Master'

The Ami is much faster than a 2cv. +167cc and much better aerodynamics. They will cruise off the clock at an indicated 80mph no bother - and they're one of the greatest cars ever made: comfortable, rational, civilised, unstickable handling, great controls etc etc etc. I did a lot of back-to-back driving in Herald and Ami and it was enough to convince me how badly throught-out and barely fit for purpose the Herald was.

Slightly better version of the second pic. If I ever win the lottery, I'm building a replica of that. Such a great looking car. The ex-Dicky Atlantic is now owned by a cunt in London