Diecast Airplane Models an Evolution of Toys?

[Jazajia]

Recently turned one of my written articles into a video. The target audience of course was those close to me that have no clue what all these little airplanes that I have are all about. But I figured I'd share it here as well.

The first time I walked into a hobby store that carried diecast models I was around 10 years old and I was convinced that I was walking into a toy store. After seeing the prices and the finesse of the products inside the boxes I thought they were really high-end toys. It took me a while to acknowledge the fact that these tiny things were indeed not toys. But I still think they don't fully fit the definition of "airplane model" either. I still think diecast models (1:200 being the most obvious exception) were not originally conceived to be displayed, but instead to play airport in an organized, mature, and non-destructive manner.

I have a feeling that in Europe the hobby has been going on for a longer time, and thus it has been recognized as a "serious" hobby for a while. Similar to electric train models, etc. Is this correct?

I actually purchased some Matchbox models to put the article and video together, and when I asked my 8-year-old daughter if she could spot the toys among my models she quickly did. Her reasoning was that the models looked "more real." So maybe it is just me after all. It wouldn't be the first instance of me thinking that everyone else is as dumb as I am .

Video:

Written Article:

What's Up With These Grown Ups Playing With Little Airplanes

"Airplane Model" To a lot of people the term “airplane model” likely evokes a large replica of an aircraft - certainly larger than the small toy airplanes that are found in toy stores, airport gift stores, and the toy section of supermarkets - probably made out of wood, plastic, or resin...

www.yankeevictor400.com

 

[YesterAirlines]

Toy or model is just a tom-ay-toe, tom-ah-toe definition to me. The boundary is so grey between them. In the end they are all collectibles.

I can quickly see that you have Matchbox toys in your lower photo but the TWA is a Schabak, which I'd consider a model (albeit an old one) but thats just my feeling. Schabaks were aimed at both children and adults whereas Matchbox was aimed solidly at kids.

I like Transformers (G1 only not Baybots please) but a lot of the output nowadays is really aimed at adult collectors who may transform them a little but ultimately don't play with them as a child would. Again the definition of toy and model is very blurry with a lot of TFs.

 

[LeoMuse747]

That's a very interesting subject. I strongly believe people might see our models as toys due to their smaller size.

People tend to get more impressed with bigger models. If you show someone a 1:200 scale Boeing 747, some will indeed be impressed and think of it as something very "professional" and expensive. Well, they're not wrong this time, but I guess that's not really the same feeling for a 1:400 model, specially smaller models like a 737.

I've seen people comparing smaller 1:400 models to keychains or saying one need a magnifying glass to see them while this is obviously a funny exaggeration, it also makes me think that people might also see these models as cheap and maybe suitable for children... so basically yeah, a toy.

When I was a kid, I used to collect lots of Matchbox SkyBusters models and Maisto Tailwinds.
I would always cheer when a new airliner model from Matchbox popped up. I remember having a Continental and British Airways B777-200ER models, among others. At age 11, I got my first two Herpa models in 1:500 scale, and they were already "New Generation" models, with a fine detailed landing gear. That was the point where I decided to collect scale models instead of toys.

I was also very interested in dioramas since those early years, so maybe I guess many people might still see me as someone interested in "toy planes"... I mean, all those little planes and little cars organized like a little airport, being handled by a 11-year-old... their conclusion: yep, toys!
But now i'm 27 years old, still collecting those "little models and little cars". Sometimes I wonder if some people see me as some kind of "grown up kid" who didn't let go of the past, but honestly I don't give a [...]

 

[Jazajia]

I can quickly see that you have Matchbox toys in your lower photo but the TWA is a Schabak, which I'd consider a model (albeit an old one) but thats just my feeling. Schabaks were aimed at both children and adults whereas Matchbox was aimed solidly at kids.

Good eye. The Cessna 402 and Concorde are Matchbox, the DC-3 is a Road Champ. Can't remember the brand of the larger 747s, they came in euro liveries (AZ, LH, SR, KL, AF) and were sold at the local airport in my hometown. The TWA is Shabak as you pointed out.

I got my first Herpa and Shabak models in the same store, I was a kid so didn't know how to go about caring for them. But I did keep the Herpa ones in their boxes and tried not to mess them up too much. Shabaks were tossed in the toy drawer; they resembled some of my "true-toy" airplanes (Majorette maybe?).

That's a very interesting subject. I strongly believe people might see our models as toys due to their smaller size.

People tend to get more impressed with bigger models. If you show someone a 1:200 scale Boeing 747, some will indeed be impressed and think of it as something very "professional" and expensive. Well, they're not wrong this time, but I guess that's not really the same feeling for a 1:400 model, specially smaller models like a 737.

For the longest time, the most expensive model in my entire collection was a 1:400 737-200. An Avensa custom that I got from an eBay bidding war. It was okay as it was unique and I really wanted it. I can make them better myself and for a fraction of the cost.

I would always cheer when a new airliner model from Matchbox popped up. I remember having a Continental and British Airways B777-200ER models, among others. At age 11, I got my first two Herpa models in 1:500 scale, and they were already "New Generation" models, with a fine detailed landing gear. That was the point where I decided to collect scale models instead of toys.

In Venezuela we could also find SkyBusters. I remember I had a Lufthansa 747, AA DC-10, Air France Airbus A310/300, and some others, including the BA Concorde in the video. Liveries were tampo printed and rather nice. I guess nowadays Daron holds the torch as Matchbox does not seem to be interested in dealing with licensing matters.

It is definitely very likely that someone with an interest in such accurate airline-themed toys is likely to transition to 1:400 diecast collecting in due time.

All of my current Herpa models are relatively recent purchases. During my early teens I basically let a friend steal most of my original 1:500 collection from me. Some can probably still be found in my family house back home.

I had always wanted the 1st gen Viasa DC-10, I knew it existed, but the store where I used to get them in Houston never had it in stock. The Federal Express DC-10 was my very first precision diecast model, so I bought it again for $4.00 about a year ago. Luckily my original one was not among the ones I gave away, but as I recall, it was in pretty bad shape the last time I saw it.

I was also very interested in dioramas since those early years, so maybe I guess many people might still see me as someone interested in "toy planes"... I mean, all those little planes and little cars organized like a little airport, being handled by a 11-year-old... their conclusion: yep, toys!
But now i'm 27 years old, still collecting those "little models and little cars". Sometimes I wonder if some people see me as some kind of "grown up kid" who didn't let go of the past, but honestly I don't give a [...]

I'm pretty sure a lot of people see us as kidults, and they wouldn't be entirely wrong, albeit not entirely correct either. BTW I thought it was okay to say shit here at MAF.

 

[LeoMuse747]

BTW I thought it was okay to say shit here at MAF.

I actually censored the word... it wasn't "shit", it was "faulk"

 

[OscarBravo992]

Sometimes it's ok to never grow up!

 

[Aviation Enjoyer]

Sometimes it's ok to never grow up!

WOOOOOOO! If only that could apply to anyone.

 

[Sithan400]

I saw your video @Jazajia about the evolution of the hobby. Enjoyed the content and the history. Thank you.

For my part I always considered diecast airplanes to be nice toys. I got one for a birthday when I was very young and I was hooked. However, as I got older, I realized how much these toys lacked the detail of the real thing.

So I started building 1:144 scale models. The detail was far superior and more life-like, however assembly, painting, and decaling varied as techniques improved.

I kept this up for a time and then, like most, shelved the models... As life sometimes dictates.

That changed when NG came around, and that's when I got back into this hobby - when diecast toys migrated to actual models of real aircraft.

 

[pons399]

I like to differentiate between toys and models. The former is cheap, crude stuff for children to play with, while the latter refers to accurate replicas for adults to display. Broadly speaking.

That being said, toys do serve as a nice stepping stone for models. I started out with Matchboxes, before moving on to Hogan snap-fits for more realism. My first "model" was a Hogan 9V-SKA similar to the one pictured. I continued collecting snap-fits from the Boeing Store (Hogan) and Skymarks, but eventually quit when school got too stressful. All but two of the models from that era are gone now.

Nearly a decade later, I impulse-bought a JC Wings 1:200 and was blown away by the level of detail; until then I'd considered Hogan to be the pinnacle. Since then I've accumulated a decent collection of diecasts, among them an AV400 9V-SKA that's the spiritual successor to my first model.

 

[Jazajia]

Sometimes it's ok to never grow up!

Oh indeed!

I saw your video @Jazajia about the evolution of the hobby. Enjoyed the content and the history. Thank you.

For my part I always considered diecast airplanes to be nice toys. I got one for a birthday when I was very young and I was hooked. However, as I got older, I realized how much these toys lacked the detail of the real thing.

So I started building 1:144 scale models. The detail was far superior and more life-like, however assembly, painting, and decaling varied as techniques improved.

I kept this up for a time and then, like most, shelved the models... As life sometimes dictates.

That changed when NG came around, and that's when I got back into this hobby - when diecast toys migrated to actual models of real aircraft.

Thanks!

I honestly think building kits is the way to go (deep inside I believe collecting 1:200 diecast is a way of cheating instead of building your own 1/144+ kits - I did not just say that . For the record, I do cheat...)

I like to differentiate between toys and models. The former is cheap, crude stuff for children to play with, while the latter refers to accurate replicas for adults to display. Broadly speaking.

That being said, toys do serve as a nice stepping stone for models. I started out with Matchboxes, before moving on to Hogan snap-fits for more realism. My first "model" was a Hogan 9V-SKA similar to the one pictured. I continued collecting snap-fits from the Boeing Store (Hogan) and Skymarks, but eventually quit when school got too stressful. All but two of the models from that era are gone now.

Nearly a decade later, I impulse-bought a JC Wings 1:200 and was blown away by the level of detail; until then I'd considered Hogan to be the pinnacle. Since then I've accumulated a decent collection of diecasts, among them an AV400 9V-SKA that's the spiritual successor to my first model.

It is neat to see how we have similar backgrounds in many ways. There is absolutely a difference between models and toys, even my 8-year-old spotted it right away. But I still think that smaller scales are still some form of adult toys (and not the variety @samleung seems to be fond of). If the point is to showcase and impress, then 1:400, 1:500 and 1:600 aren't getting the job done.

 

[Purpleplane]

Oh indeed!


Thanks!

I honestly think building kits is the way to go (deep inside I believe collecting 1:200 diecast is a way of cheating instead of building your own 1/144+ kits - I did not just say that . For the record, I do cheat...)



It is neat to see how we have similar backgrounds in many ways. There is absolutely a difference between models and toys, even my 8-year-old spotted it right away. But I still think that smaller scales are still some form of adult toys (and not the variety @samleung seems to be fond of). If the point is to showcase and impress, then 1:400, 1:500 and 1:600 aren't getting the job done.

I started off with 1/144th scale model kits myself..starting when I was 10 years old....always wanted to have some kind of airport to help display the models...when 1/400th die cast came out, they took up so little space that I knew an airport would be much easier to do, so that's how my IND retro airport came about.