FABULOUSLY FANTASTIC FRICTION-DRIVE FAVOURITES (Updated AGAIN)...

I've got a few other friction-drive toys than just the ones shown here, but they'll have to wait for another time as they're up in the loft - and these babies on display are the 'biggies' of my f-d collection anyway.  Two of them I obtained when I asked on this 'ere blog if anyone had them and the sellers got in touch.  See?  There can be benefits to this blogging malarkey that you'd never have anticipated, and I'd likely still be without YOGI on his scooter and SANTA in his Space Blimp if Crivens didn't exist.

I've shown most of them before, but these pics are all brand-new photos taken especially for this post.  Of the seven toys being shown for the first time, two are of Yogi Bear - one of him in his car and the other a 'running' Yogi - no doubt fleeing from either RANGER SMITH or CINDY BEAR.  The others are of a nifty little racing car, two rabbits (or hares), and a mouse.

Anyway, I hope that you'll enjoy the images that follow - they were all taken especially for you Crivs.  Incidentally, all '60s toys shown here are the original versions (as are the others) - there's not a modern reissue or replica to be seen.  Did you have any of them when you were a kid?  If so, share your memories with the rest of us.

Update: How could I do it?!  I forgot a couple of my most prized f-d toys - GEMINI SPACE CAPSULE and STEVE ZODIAC & ZOONY The LAZOON on a jetmobile.  Now added, so check 'em out!  And I just realised that SMASH MARTIAN is a wind-up toy, so I've removed him from the post.  He'll pop up again when I get around to showing you my 'clockwork' toys.

    

BABE Of The DAY - VALERIE PEREZ...

What's that?  You want more SPACE

BLIMP?  Calm yourselves, impetuous ones,

you know the old saying about having too much

of a good thing.  So, for a change of pace, here's

stunning VALERIE PEREZ to take your mind

of Blimpy.  If she doesn't do it then nothing

 will.  (I reckon she can do it though.)

MORE GROOVY PHOTOS OF THE SPACE BLIMP OF CHRISTMAS! DID I MENTION I HAVE ONE...?

I recently bought a SPACE BLIMP Of CHRISTMAS, manufactured by LP Toys back in the '60s.  What's that?  I already mentioned it?  Are you sure?  Well, whad'ya know, it must've slipped my mind.  Seeing as I'm here, I may as well show show these new photos I took of my classic collectable item.  Betcha wish you had one, eh?  No?  What's wrong with you guys?!  Are you ill?  

SO YOU THINK I'M FINISHED WITH THE SPACE BLIMP OF CHRISTMAS?! WELL, JUST HOW WRONG CAN YA BE?!

One of the things that appeals to me about my recently acquired SPACE BLIMP Of CHRISTMAS is the fact that, apart from being taken out of its box for the seller to photograph for his eBay listing, it's remained unopened and unplayed with since it was first bought sometime back in the '60s.  It's difficult to know the precise date because I'm unsure which version of the toy came first or in what year it was released.  Was it the one I just bought, which required a few small parts being slotted into place, or was it the one which came already assembled in a larger window box?

The manufacturer was LP Toys, and if the window boxed version was first, maybe switching to a smaller box and having the customers attach a few pieces themselves was a way of reducing production costs.  Or, if the reverse, perhaps pieces were breaking while being slotted in, leading to complaints from parents and returns to shops and then to the manufacturer.  Also, maybe it was thought sales would improve if kids could actually see the toy in a window box, with all pieces already attached.  A choice of two scenarios regarding which one came first, but will we ever know?

And were the pieces (reindeer head, tail, tree, sack) attached the same way in both versions, or did the pre-assembled one employ a more secure method of attachment than the smaller boxed one, which seems a bit fragile in that regard?  If anybody out there knows, feel free to fill me in on the details.  Anyway, as I said, the toy has never been played with, which means I'm the first owner to attach the pieces since the Blimp was made back in the '60s.  I know I owned my original one no later than 1968, but I've never been able to shake the feeling that I got it earlier, possibly '66.

Before                                                                                        After

As you can see in the accompanying photos, in common with many toys made in Hong Kong in the '60s, the paint job on mass-produced items wasn't always applied with any particular neatness.  Although the Blimp had never been played with (the reindeer head, tail, etc., were still untouched in their bags), Santa's beard, gloves and fur trim hadn't been painted with much precision.  I therefore gave them a minor 'retouching' to improve their appearance, but didn't go overboard so as to retain their '60s 'spirit'.  Take a look and compare the 'before and after' photos.

Collectors who believe that things should be left in their original state, even if imperfect, will be aghast, but I prefer to put my personal 'stamp' on a toy (when 'corrective' work is required) so that it then becomes mine, as opposed to a generic example of its kind.  I wouldn't advise just anyone to try it, but I'm handy with a brush (as you'll know if you've seen my painted model kits on the blog) and I'm of the opinion that if some 'remedial' tinkering improves the visual appearance of a toy then it's worth it.  Judge for yourselves whether I was successful in my aim.

What do fellow collectors think?  Leave untouched whatever the condition - or repair, restore, or improve if you can do it to a high standard? 

BLIMPS & FLIVVERS - Or: FRIENDS REUNITED... (Updated)

It's funny the imagination we have as kids, don't you think?  We seem to be able to visualise impossible, unlikely, or even contradictory scenarios in the 'ideas factory' of our minds.  Our brains don't have much (if any) difficulty in running along two different trains of thought at the same time, even if reason and common sense dictate that those 'trains' shouldn't be able to run on tracks so closely parallel to one another without risking a collision when they reach the junction (metaphorically speaking).  No, it's not a perfect analogy, but you know what I mean.

Which is a rather grandiose (pretentious even?) way of setting the scene for the simple subject matter of this latest post, but let's stick with it for a just a little longer.  In my vast and diverse collection of DVDs, there's one entitled A FLINTSTONE CHRISTMAS.  Haven't watched it since I first owned it in VHS format around 30 years ago, but if I recall correctly, FRED and BARNEY stand in for SANTA (who's caught a cold) in order to deliver presents that year.  Even in their comic strips and mags, the Flintstones have been depicted celebrating the Festive Season.

The obvious problem with just such a scenario, however, is that the Stone Age occurred long, long before the birth of CHRIST, so Christmas didn't exist back in Fred and Barney's time.  But why let that little fact get in the way of a story though, eh?  Kids would probably be unaware of the dichotomy of the situation because, presumably, they're more willing to accept whatever's presented to them without analysing it for mistakes or contradictions (or some other reason).

Whatever the cause, when I was a kid I was the same when it came to contriving adventures for two of my toys to embark on as a duo.  I often sat on the back step of my house and dreamt up stories involving my Fred figure from my MARX Toys FLINTSTONE FLIVVER, and Santa from my LP Toys SPACE BLIMP Of CHRISTMAS.  (Yes, I'm back to that again - it arrived today.)  It never occurred to me that the characters couldn't co-exist in the same 'reality', so that never got in the way of the imaginary escapades I created for them. 

Note the Flivver's pattern is a nigh-perfect match with my kitchen worktop in the 1st photo 

Now, at the back step of every home I've ever lived in we kept the same 'shoe scraper' grate, which came with us whenever we moved house.  In the one I then lived in, I'd sit with my feet on the grate while Fred and Santa (the Unlikely Duo) palled about in whatever situation I mentally placed them (mental being an appropriate word in my case).  That grate sits at the back door of my present abode (though now it's an inner back door as we closed off the once open back porch, which has another door), so I thought I'd rope it in for a photo opportunity in order to provide this post with some pictorial content.

I managed to obtain a replacement for my Flintstone Flivver around 20 years or so ago, and I bought the replacement for the Blimp on Sunday (as I said, it arrived today).  Originally, there was a gap of around five or six years between my '60s possession of these two toys, though they met their demise at the same time in the '70s.  It's good to see two old 'pals' reunited, and although they might be only two lumps of lifeless plastic to you, to me they're family and it's great to see them together again.

Okay, doctor, I've finished typing - just let me hit 'publish' and then you can take me back to the nut-hut.  Flibble!

But before I go, let me ask you Crivs a question that I've asked before, but I'll ask again for the benefit of any new readers (though older ones can answer it again if they want to).  Is there a particular toy from your childhood that you'd love to own again, and what specific memories does it conjure up in your mind?  The comments section is ravenous, so please feed it as much as you like.

Update: As you can see in the above photos, in common with a lot of '60s toys made in Hong Kong, the paint job on mass-produced items was seldom administered neatly.  Although the Space Blimp had clearly never been played with (as witnessed by the fact that the reindeer head, etc., were still untouched in their bags), Santa's beard, gloves and fur trim had been painted with not much precision.  I therefore gave them a minor touch-up to improve their cosmetic appeal, while not going overboard so that they retained the 'spirit' of their '60s appearance.  Take a look below and compare the 'before and after' photos.

Of course, some collectors will be aghast, believing as they do that toys should be left in their original state even if slightly inferior, but I prefer to put my 'stamp' on them (only when 'corrective' work is required) so that it then becomes my toy, as opposed to a generic example of its kind.  I wouldn't advise just anyone to do this, but I'm a dab hand with a brush (as you'll know if you've seen my built and painted model kits on the blog) and I'm of the opinion that a toy is much improved after any 'remedial' tinkering by me.  You can judge for yourselves. 

TOYBOX TREASURES Of The PAST: The SPACE BLIMP Of CHRISTMAS...

Rejoice with me - that's another toybox treasure from the past that will shortly be back in the fold.  The SPACE BLIMP Of CHRISTMAS is a toy that my parents (with me in tow) bought from WOOLWORTH's back in the '60s, though I can't now recall whether I got it '66 or '68 - or maybe even in between.  On the evening of purchase, on the run-up to Christmas (that I do remember), we retired to a cafeteria (pretentiously) titled The NORFOLK RESTAURANT ('twas a great place though), where I examined my new acquisition.

I had the Santa figure for quite a few years before, as a teenager, binning most of my childhood possessions in an attempt to 'grow up'.  (As you can see, that never quite worked.)  Well, for the last 10 days or so, I've been keeping my eye on another aforementioned Space Blimp on eBay, and tonight I struck.  (Surprisingly, for such an extremely rare toy, there was only one other bidder.)  It's bought and paid for, done and dusted, and will soon be winging its way to Castel Crivens to join all my other replacement childhood toys.  Can't wait!

The one I owned in the '60s may have had a different colour scheme as far as the rocket sleigh goes.  I seem to recall the top part as being orange or light brown, though the colour of the bottom half escapes me.  (It was quite common back then for toys to have variant colours and I'm just glad to have one.)  I'm not too fussed as I never actually kept the sleigh for too long, though I retained the Santa figure and reindeer head into the early or mid-'70s.    In case you're wondering, I don't actually play with any of my classic toy collection - the satisfaction of ownership comes purely from looking at them - and remembering.

Anyway, I'm sure the seller won't mind me sharing a few of his photos so that you can see what it looks like - I'll publish my own when I receive the toy.  Until then, I'm simply wishing my life away!  Incidentally, the one I had originally came in a window box (I'm pretty sure) like the one below, but these toys are so rare that I'm not too fussed about that little fact.  Both boxes feature the same main artwork, and I can always make myself a replica window box if I feel like it.  "Ho-ho-ho!"  I'm bound to say that I prefer the colour scheme of the one I've just bought, as Santa stands out more on the blue upper half.

BABE Of The DAY - PAULA PERIL...

PAULA PERIL - aka VALERIE

PEREZ - walks behind me, intent on

taking me unawares and ravishing my

magnificent manly-man body.  However,

lucky for me I've got a secret camera in the

back of my beanie and know she's there.

When she makes her move, I want to be

prepared so that I can enjoy every

 wonderful second of it.

BLACK, WHITE, OR YELLOW...?

Copyright relevant owner

The world falls deeper and deeper into 'PC' madness with the announcement that the producers of The SIMPSONS will no longer be using white actors to voice black characters.  What complete and utter tosh.  Am I a racist?  No, I simply believe that regardless of the colour of the character (I thought they were all yellow on the show anyway), it shouldn't matter what colour the 'voice actor' is - not just on The Simpsons, but on any animated show.  

So, for example, if a black actor voiced BRUCE WAYNE/BATMAN, I wouldn't mind at all as long as he had the right voice for the part.  It's acting, right?  If actors only played roles restricted to a reflection of themselves, it wouldn't be much of a stretch, would it?  Does this mean that should The HUNCHBACK Of NOTRE DAME ever be remade (and if so, the word 'hunchback' would probably be substituted by 'bellringer'), only repulsive, hunchbacked actors (and those two impediments don't automatically go hand-in-hand) would be considered for the role?

And what about NANCY CARTWRIGHT - a woman who not only voices the boy called BART, but also around another five male characters on the show?  Hey, Nancy, you're denying work from male actors, so how about a little consistency from the show's makers?  These days, if a man was voicing a female cartoon character, there'd probably be a right ol' stushie over it from female actors, claiming they were being denied the opportunity of work.

Also, as most of the show's characters are yellow, should white actors - or any actor who isn't yellow - even be working on it?  Yes, it is a daft question, but I ask it simply to highlight the absurdity of such a notion.  If a white actor can voice a yellow character, then why not a black one?  When it comes to cartoons, shouldn't the suitability of the voice be the only thing that counts, irrespective of race, creed, colour or sex?  When is sanity - or even common sense - going to be restored to our ever-increasingly insane world?

So, Crivs - any thoughts on the matter one way or the other?  Give it laldy in the comments section.     

IS YOUR HEART STILL A FIREBALL...?

Images copyright relevant owner

Around 40 years ago, I managed to obtain replacements for two copies of the 45 rpm single of FIREBALL that had been in the family record collection since I was a child until only a few short years previously.  Therefore, the interval between the originals (which were dispensed with due to damage) and their replacements wasn't much of a span, with the result that whenever I look at them today, it doesn't feel like there was ever a period when I was without them.

Then, around a quarter of a century ago, someone lent me their Extended Play version of the record along with its picture sleeve.  This single had four themes (two each side), so I taped them onto a cassette and had the sleeve photocopied, then made a couple of 'facsimile' covers.  Since then, I've stored my two singles inside their respective replica sleeves, even though they were short of the full complement of themes listed on the track list.

The plot now thickens.  A couple or so years back I saw another copy of the record (not the EP) listed on eBay, this one sporting what the seller claimed was the 'original' first pressing blue label (the other singles had black labels, same as my childhood copies), so I bought it.  This now meant I had three singles of the same theme, and it occurred to me that it would be nice if they each had an appropriate paper picture sleeve to store them in.

So a couple of nights ago I scanned one of my homemade replica EP sleeves and used digital technology to remove references to the extra two tracks, along with anything else that would betray the fact that it wasn't designed for the two-track single.  The first two accompanying images are of the sleeve in its pre-altered state, followed by a second two showing the 'customised' result.  When I remember where I stored the cassette recording of the EP I'll transfer it onto CD, then make a CD-sized copy of the unaltered sleeve, but that's a project for the future.

In the meantime, paste your pulsating peepers on the rip-roaring results of my handiwork - visual testimony of my creativity, and the reason why I often astound myself with the exceptionally high standard I usually achieve in all my chosen endeavours.  Combined with my modesty and humility (as well as my good looks), that's a potent combination.  Hey, why are you all laughing?

I've since added the single's number to the top corner

And below, because you demanded it (you didn't? - then who did?), both tracks on the single.  (Incidentally, DON SPENCER didn't provide the speaking voice of STEVE ZODIAC on the TV show - that was PAUL MAXWELL.) 

BATMAN'S DETECTIVE COMICS #475 FACSIMILE EDITION...

Copyright DC COMICS

For all those collecting the DC Facsimile Editions, DETECTIVE COMICS #475 is now available, though for some reason the page margins seem slightly larger than before, resulting in a smaller image on each page.  That aside, it's another classic issue that's well-worth having, either to replace your long-gone original copy, or because you didn't buy it back in the day.  (There's no excuse - unless you weren't born then, that is.)  Grab one while they're going.

JOE SINNOTT PASSES AWAY...

Comics fans will be saddened to learn of the passing at the age of 93 of legendary artist and inker JOE SINNOTT, who inked JACK KIRBY's pencils on The FANTASTIC FOUR mag.  He inked just about everyone else at MARVEL as well of course, and had a long career doing what he did best.  We salute him.  R.I.P. Joe.