Jecsan Space Figures & The Bonux Connection?

[space.trucks]

Brian had started a thread on Jecsan figures here. (edit: I can see the picture now, cheers!) Came upon the subject after finding the two figures below from a vendor in Spain and have no information on them. I did do some searches and found a blog post by "Stad's Stuff" that helped to connect some of the dots. Most helpful was a comment on the source of a Bonux figure shown, the gist of which (with edits) is "The Bonux ... (figures) are a direct copy-cloned of Jecsan 16 poses astronauts set that actually the two Original Jecsan bellow* are part in same series as well ."  Would that be correct? The image on Brian's post shows twelve figures.

 

Am operating under the impression the white figure is female.

 

Blue guy with my Bonux group. He's a far more satisfying figure.

 

A friend in Germany whom I got the white pilot figure from sent me a link to this site and I made a screenshot of the Bonux guide for instant reference. I do not know how correct the information is but did recognize the blue dude as pose 7.

 

Searching Spain in the database two sets by Airgam Boys came up with what appear to be the same kind of figures included. Is such a set a possible source of what I have here? The ones shown in the set on Brian's thread have a brighter color scheme.

 

Base underside.

 

The blue figure detailing appears sharper than the Bonux figures. I believe he is also a tiny bit taller.

 

 

Here is a better representation of her off white pale peach color. The same pose and another in similar costume are shown on Brian's post.

 

 

*This image is the one referred to in the comment from the Stad's Stuff blog, and here she appears to be the same height as the guy, who corresponds with pose #8 on the Bonux guide.

 

Compared with my Bonux version of the same figure and she is again much taller. I would like to learn more.

 

Thank You!

[ejpetrie]

In general, if you compare what appears to be the exact figure from one maker to its equivalent from another, and one is slightly smaller, then the smaller piece is most often the copy.  A copying firm usually takes a production figure from an original maker and produces molds by using the original production piece as their master.  There is always shrinkage when doing this, so the copies don't stand a chance of being the exact same height, but this method is far cheaper than pantographing a smaller figure to a higher height.  So it's the usual method used in image theft.

 

If the two are the exact same height with the same sharpness of detail but they have different base markings--like the elimination of Jecsan and the addition of Bonus or vice-versa--then the original mold was likely purchased or leased from the original maker and slugs were changed in the mold to record the change in maker's name.  This sometimes requires two slugs:  a blank slug to eliminate the original name underneath and a second pre-impressed slug (either embossed or debossed) to produce the new maker's name on its run of figures.  Both slug placements are relatively easy to do, but you should use some care in comparing the height of two figures who differ some in only name, as a slug's thickness can sometimes change a figure's base height.  In these cases you have to compare the figures' heights above their bases only.

 

There are some Spanish firms that specialized in making copies of figures from other countries, but, in general, just because a figure is a copy does not make it undesirable.  It should also be added that a number of Spanish firms did produce unique space-themed figure sets.  Of course, when chasing the prizes of your childhood it is most important to get the "exact" toy that you remember, and since it has a personal resonance it becomes more valuable to you than a copy would.  Still, when dealing with space figures (or any kind of item for that matter) that I could not or did not experience in my youth, comparative values are far less important to me.  Both versions could have entertained children in their target markets just as much, and that forces me to equate them more similarly in value.  To me a Bonux example and a similar issue from Jecsan are both the same to me as long as their molding quality is comparable, and I usually want to acquire each along with all of their similarly themed "siblings".  I base the amount that I am willing to pay for them by the sense of wonder that they provide me with when viewing them for the first time, and I think that's a common motivator for a lot of us. 

[Brian..]

An excellent observation, EJ. This will certainly alter my understanding of the chronology of plastic figures. 

 

I assume that this would also apply to plastic spaceships and would be a way to determine if we're looking at a reused mould or a remastered copy? I shall get my measuring tape out.

[ejpetrie]

Hi, Brian!  Yes, the size reduction and loss of clarity characteristics apply to anything that uses an existing production piece as a master to make molds for copying.  Sometimes you will even find altering of an original to make a new master.  A likely example of that is the making of the two close-but-no-cigar representations of Gilbert-like ships that Poplar Playthings of Wales did to accompany their carded rubbery vinyl space figures.  The Welsh firm's figures themselves were also done for their sister firm of Thomas Toys (in the U.S.), but there was no copying involved on those.  The two firms shared the original mold from Ferriot Brothers of Chicago, just shipping it back and forth across the Atlantic.  It may be that Moldex's ship was copied in a different way (pantographing).  But accurate size and knowledge of production dates (often through surviving catalogues) are sometimes all that's required for a firm attribution.

 

Sometimes firms, like Tudor Rose, produced their toy entirely after "drawing inspiration" from the productions of another firm, as they and many firms did with the already existing Archer and Premier figures.  That kind of idea theft/copying is normal in the toy game all over the world.  But in Tudor Rose's defense, they did very little of that.  Most of their ship designs were totally unique and stunning, and it appears that they may have leased the molds for their space cars from Marx of Canada, altering their ID slugs only.  Archer leased their molds too, which is why you have English sets of figures in those gorgeous metallic blues and metallic Cranberry colors but none in the U. S. sets.  They also leased both of their figure molds to a Mexican maker as well, giving us other attractive colors that we wouldn't have had otherwise.

 

Attribution is a fun game for researchers, and cataloging items with correct credits for the various makers is important to many collectors.  But it all really has little to do with the fact that the thing in your hand is a beautiful creation in its own right, be it a copy or not.

[Martian Gil]

42 minutes ago, ejpetrie said:

But it all really has little to do with the fact that the thing in your hand is a beautiful creation in its own right, be it a copy or not.

Well put.   
Cheers!

[space.trucks]

Very cool and many thanks for the info.