About Me

My photo
No Fixed Abode, Home Counties, United Kingdom
I’m a 51-year-old Aspergic CAD-Monkey. Sardonic, cynical and with the political leanings of a social reformer, I’m also a toy and model figure collector, particularly interested in the history of plastics and plastic toys. Other interests are history, current affairs, modern art, and architecture, gardening and natural history. I love plain chocolate, fireworks and trees but I don’t hug them, I do hug kittens. I hate ignorance, when it can be avoided, so I hate the 'educational' establishment and pity the millions they’ve failed with teaching-to-test and rote 'learning' and I hate the short-sighted stupidity of the entire ruling/industrial elite, with their planet destroying fascism and added “buy-one-get-one-free”. I also have no time for fools and little time for the false crap we're all supposed to pretend we haven't noticed, or the games we're supposed to play.

Monday, January 16, 2017

U is for Unknown Khaki and Camouflage

The 20th Century's industrialised carnage has left me with a similar number of 'unknowns' as any other era; the democracy of war-gamers - and there was me thinking there were more Wellingtonian fans than any other! Or is it that the ratio of makers who don't mark well is the same; there might be a dissertation in there!

Four singles to start, the German 'Para' (1C) seems almost hand-made from a soldering-iron? He's definitely been given a replacement base or mend. The walking chap (1D, Afrika Korps?) has had a weapon glued across his chest which is missing and is carrying two pieces of scrap plastic-rod, while I think the Tommy is Rose, but the marks not clear so confirmation would be kind, and is he designated late WWI or WWII?

The seated guy could be WWII or Modern Cold War and has shades of Hasegawa half-track crew?

These are interesting, they look (and feel - very tinny) like the Almark figures, but are not the two listed sets of five, and what's left of the codes suggests an Machine-gun 'group' (but it could just as easily be 'G for German'?), could they be a late un-catalogued addition to the Almark range (remember the plastic Brits had support weapons), or are they another of the very prolific Stadden's many ranges?

Naval Types. That's all I know; no marks, age is hard to judge and the seated figure is a poor sculpt, seemingly based on Airfix drivers. Anyone recognise them?

Late-war Panzergrenadiers with assault rifle and Panzerfaust, not bad sculpts - a bit chunky maybe and the lack of legs on the binocular periscope suggests the figure might be designed for a vehicle (he'd look good in the Esci command-251), so Skytrex or someone like that?

Some 15mm shite that came in with a mixed lot! I say shite, but no greater or lesser reason for existing than my prejudice! And I like Land Rovers whatever the size (as we will see in a minute) so I'm just inventing blurb - for total unknowns!

The seats have planking detailed on them to match the floor, but in reality they had plastic cushions over aluminium locker-lids with padlock-hasps that could catch your calves if you weren't careful!

Just the cupola crewman to ID now, a large beret suggests German early-war armoured car?

These are the biggest embarrassment in all these posts as I bought them! From the maker! But long before I was ID'ing metal, so never kept a note of them, or at least if there is a note; it will be in the files of correspondence, currently in storage.

They were bought for the flak-sledge project which has been on hold for the longest time and will remain on hold until I can collect on a glasses prescription that has me operating the laptop at arm's length these days!
 
Could they be Dixon Miniatures - I vaguely remember them doing figures in this style? Again, they could equally be Skytrex as I know I have their catalogue somewhere? What is certain is that I was bloody disappointed when they arrived, and I realised I'd purchased 6 identical horses!

Land Rovers! Micro ones at that; I think the smaller LWB Ambulance might be Skytrex as I had their WWII stuff as a kid and that miss-registering of the mould halves and general blobbyness was a common feature of the range!

Two are ID'd as Heroics & Ross (the best sculpts), while the rear SWB is smaller and the Wombat (which should be a LWB) is a hideous mess, it really is just a token or counter! I assume with the DMB that the MB bit is 'Modern British'?

Elephant/Ferdinand, Not Skytrex (they were single-part blobs with wire barrels), not marked H&R, leaves GHQ? Or a minor maker; two-part molding, glued together, marked 190 on rear and Elephant twice in body-cavity

Don't know at all! Germans or GI's? Chubby 20mm'ish sculpts I think (looking at the photo) they are supposed to be holding M16's with fritz helmets?

Below them a row of 6mm British Infantry advancing? I'd love to know in either/both cases?

Sunday, January 15, 2017

U is for Unknown Medieval Knights, Men at Arms and the odd Camp-follower

Moving along from the Ancients, we arrive at the medieval period with another bunch of unknowns, any help gratefully received.

A couple of Normans; painted and based, but not a brilliant shot given that the hoses may need to be separately ID'd, people did tend to swap them around! The lance could have done with a clipping I think, it's about14 scale-feet long, or about 25 of the rider's feet!

I think these are all the same maker, if fact I'm so sure I haven't numbered them separately, except the horse-parts and rider who lacking the same exact bases, could be from another source?

Five odds; the horse may be from the same maker as figures in the image 2, while the next two (Crusaders?) look a bit Garrison? But are marked only lightly, and not in the italic font the rest of my Garrison's are? [I think - they're all in storage!]

This chap, from all four sides ('cos I have four!) may also be from the same maker as the previous ' image 2' lot?

Again one or two of these have similar codes, but others are definitely from different makes. The ECW 31s is a smaller figure and the pirates (if that's what they are) look monkish!

The more European-looking chap at 5J, may go with the lot at 6H but his base is a tad heavier and his clothing sufficiently different to earn him a separate bag at some point? Indeed 5H has a similar base, but is from a different line/set being less 'Euro-renaissance' and more 'Sealed Knot'!

51 looks a bit Stadden-like in pose and execution of sculpting, but is unmarked?

The aforementioned set along the bottom row with a few more odds-and-sods. A nice 15mm mounted knight and an Aztek (?) are te best of the bunch, but I'd like to ID them all eventually?

Home-cast piracies? Interesting though, despite seeing better-days and I know some people did advertise err.... 'derivative' figures in the modelling press back in the day, anyone know if someone put their name to these knock-offs? They seem to have used the US Cavalry version of the horse (without the heavy reins) - for ease of casting?

A lovely Janissary painted-well by my regular painter - Mr. Anonymous! Was it you? He's been stood onto a cut-up Airfix camel's base, but I haven't the heart to de-base him and see if he's marked, so hopefully someone will recognise him? He's also one of the larger figures in this lot; closer to 28mm.

Saturday, January 14, 2017

U is for Unknown Ancient Metal Figures

That is - that they represent, not are, although in war-gaming terms some of them may be pretty old too!

The guy on the left looks like some of my Garrison, but he's not marked in any way and was sufficiently unalike them to remain out of their box! The two to the right could be Minifigs?

Mixed makers, mixed eras, I'd particularly like to ID the Viking/Carolingian type as he's from my old childhood 'generic' barbarian army and stood next to but towering above the pig-on-a-stick man from Airfix!

Three more from that army, and cock-on-a-stick stood the other side! I believe the foot javelin-thrower is from the same maker as the mounted figures?

Probably all Vikings, probably from the same maker as the standard-bearer above, but not necessarily, do you know who they are? I don't know why I never pained one of the spear throwers, maybe they came separately; later?

Another mixed lot - 5B and 5C may be from the same artillery/siege-engine crew? I particularly like 5E who has adopted the old 'flats' trick of having removable parts for a choice of two weapons; a javelin or an axe.

The Persian-looking cavalry man was one of three 'auxiliaries' in my Greco-Roman army (which fought the barbarians), two having been ID'd (so are in storage) along with one of the horses, the others are here - painted.

The Horse at bottom-right (6D) has shades of Airfix Cuirassier about him. No?

Another of mine in need of crest-glue and a few others, anyone got any ideas? 7B, marked AGR 5 (Ancient Greek?) has a different headdress to the otherwise similar figure in the next picture . . .

. . . but I think the difference is only paint? The rest of these belong in later posts, but have ended-up here because of the foot archer. Four Zulu types in two poses and a Samurai horse-archer; any ideas?

Friday, January 13, 2017

U is for Unknown Fantasy and Sci-Fi

A complete change of plan given recent events and on-going stuff, so for the next few days I'll be posting unknown white-metal or lead small scale stuff (that'll be 'metal smalls'!), so if you want large scale or plastic, or any other material for that matter; come back in about a week! Or 48hrs after Dum Blog publish their Part 3 - whichever is the sooner!

If you like a challenge however, can you ID any of these chaps and chap'esses . . . and err . . . things?

He has a plug ofr a heavy base and a choice of heads, one of which reminds me of Ro-Jaws from 2000 AD! He is also glued at the waist from two main parts.

Crude sculpts, but really nice 'Old School' look to them, two babes and an Alien who refers-back to Star War's Admiral Akbar in the head area?

I think the three zombies may be one of the newer companies?

Second wizard is a denser, hard,  antiqued-wash, pewter, and probably a touristy thing, missing a coloured 'gem' stone on the plinth.

Are these Orks or Goblins? Does it matter? Is it a case of size v's scale? Who cares, someone painted them beautifully and then let them go . . . or died? Anyway, they are not my work, but I like them!

They appear to have small round bases under the landscaping, so probably not Games Workshop, does anyone recognise them? Did you paint them and let them go while remaining very-much alive?

A right old mix here, but most of them seem to be the same maker (most of the second two rows), they look a bit like some Ral Partha, but the bases are unmarked, there is some damage/paint and the cavalryman may be way-off but his base is similar ans he came with some of the others.

Top row are one-offs, the skinky one having a small oblong base, the other two are baseless, but may have been removed from Games Workshop type 'slotts'?

Total mix - anyone recognise any of them? I'm guessing there's some Games Workshop Epic in there? And the Arab thief may be more a colonial or medieval thing?

Nude babe! Based like the green chaps above and could be from an ancient slave range, but much cruder that the Rose Miniatures ones?

Don't know if these are ancient/medieval or fantasy, but they are here as they go in the bag with the next lot!

These were all bought by me between 1980 and 1983 from either Concord Models in Aldershot or Tangley Model Workshop in Guildford, but are not 'their' ranges, but seem to be the same maker.

EY from the 1:72nd Scale Multiverse Blog has identified the first two as being from a Minifigs (Miniature Figurines) 'Wheel of Torture' set (I think the wheel ended-up in the wagon-spares!), but the rest are a mystery to me? The last three and the hanged-man might be from the same lot as the previous image - I think!

Monday, January 9, 2017

M is for More - There's Always More!

Given everything that's happened vis-à-vis a wholly invented Asian marine dock complex (and the toy-based industrial estate supplying it!), misappropriated catalogue images and the Japanese health ministry thing, I will put the News, Views scheduled for yesterday, and a few other things on-hold for the time being, and get some more new crap out of Picasa, along with a few box-tickers.

To that end, and because it requires no real blurb (I'm clean out of words after all that other crap! I'm down at Poundland for vape-juice tomorrow; I'll see if they have a bunch I can weave into decent paragraphs), these are shots left-over from the previous post on the subject (Tim-Mee's 54mm 'Army Men'; the original army men!). When we looked at them last time - a little under a year ago - we looked at them by pose, this lot are photographed by maker/batch instead - may be of some use?

Round-up to compare with earlier sample, see how they grow!

Brian Berke kindly sent the Blog a donation (lower samples poses)
of originals, so I've got all but one now - see link at end!
 
Pretty bog-standard marked 'Hong Kong' copies from the 1970's.
 
Another with a different mark.
 
Odds and Sods, unmarked but probably
Hong Kong.
 
Unmarked and probably HK, but from
the colony's 'hand-back' period when production
was migrating to the mainland.

The odd set which looks a bit like Revell US Paratroops!
 
Three earlier 'China' poses and
an unmarked lone - probably - HK guy.

Reasonably current China sets; there are two versions, hollowed, marked bases (except the prone poses), upper row and smooth bases with the 'China' somewhere on the body middle row, and the prone poses mixed on bottom row.
 
Examples of marks for previous sets.

Thinkway's re-sculpts for Disney/Pixar's movie
franchise Toy Story.

Larger sized figures from Mattel infant toy (apple green),
Burger King (dark green) and unknown - probably HK (sand).
 
Close-up of Burger King figure, I've seen three in the set/series,
I don't know how many there were all together?
 
Daft mobile-phone prop things seen here before - too often!

There's more; there's always more! Treefrog Tresures
That's it really, something else next time!

Sunday, January 8, 2017

V is for Very Naughty Boys . . . they're both Very Naughty Boys!



Being my rebuttal of Paul Stadinger (the Jabbering Fuck)'s post, co-starring a Cock-wackin' Monkey-lizard called Erwin Sell, dated 30th December 2015


In deference to the Jabbering Fuck's sneak-up condition, I have left the spelling, grammer, punctuation and other mess alone this time. Well - it's a bit of a one-trick pony anyway!

Before we go further, I might remind you that Erwin Sell stated in the comments to part one (as always; a quote) "U can drop 10 links in a site all together use it and twist to make looks as one point because are mengle.", whatever that meant, but it's instructive to see the number of links he's used in the grand 'Part 2'; it's errr . . . 13 - unlucky for some!

Also, their new post also runs to some 1,600 words AND also concentrates on the later point in my October J'accuse, it's quite clear they aren't going to deal with all Erwins boo-boo's, but use sleight-of-hand to bore people to death about Redbox-Blue Box and then change the subject!

You will by now have seen the stuff I've posted in response to their 'Part 1', the idea they are still arguing that these companies aren't connected is risible, but he seems now to be conflating the parent company with a dockside (geographical area on a map!), and splitting Redbox into two - an old one he NEVER meant and a new one which IS the one he meant! He then shows pictures of both companies selling the same bagatelle and expects us to believe this proves they are not the same toys from the same factory!

Note - In most of Tai Sang or Blue Box's literature, or those companies connected to them (Tauber, French-Canadian solicitors &etc.) the Red Box is written as just typed, but of the four Logo / Trade Mark's I've tracked-down so far - all are Redbox (as one word) so that is how I write it for all mentions, otherwise I'd only confuse myself and probably wander-off to do some assumptions!

Just green today - my bits

===============================================================

Erwin Sell Verus (Oh God - all the way through! They couldn't even be bothered to edit the titel block? Isn't that what Russians shout at their horses!) Hugh Walter Part Two Red Box (Errr . . . it was all about Redbox last time!)

Posted on December 30, 2016 by admin

Erwin Sell Verus Hugh Walter Part Two Red Box
are back with more in this on going debate . Hugh Walter has stated that Blue box and Red Box are the same company (because they are). Erwin disagrees (because he's a fuckwit) and is putting forth his information (with the Jabbering Fuck's help/permission) showing otherwise.

It's not a 'debate' it's a published post!

One note in the last post on this subject I missspelled (hahaha) Hugh’s last name. This happens as many of yyou know I have learning disablity, which sneaks up on me. My readers who got my early list will tell you how I use misspelled the word silver.

Hark - Is that the sound of the sympathy card being played? If you're going to cry boo-goo as soon as it heats-up, you probably shouldn't start a war the stupid cockwomble! They can just call me Mr. Hugh all the way through instead, I know they only do it to wind me up, well it works - the Jabbering FUCK!

I've got dyslexia and brain-damage, but it hasn't stopped me teaching myself to write properly on the Internet since 2007, nor did his (or my) affliction stop Erwin and the PSTSM having fun at the expense of the latter fact the other day?

Erwin Sell Verus Hugh Walter Part Two Red Box RED BOX final clarification debate.

It's not a 'debate' it's statements of opinion!

From last link of Hugh’s blog.

What link?

Extracted part says.

Extracted from where?

(Part of the administrative section of Tai Sang industrial Co.LTD HONG KONG Manufacturers of RED BOX and BLUE BOX TOYS ….)

I don't use capitals like that, is this more of his making it up as he goes along?

Erwin says…

Meaning (says who? Erwin? He's a fuckwit) a industrial plants located in Tain Sang Industrial port area -HK that produced-make toys for one company AND other (Red Box and Blue Box ).Not for one company with two names!!??

Tai Sang / Tain Sang; hey - let's just not even bother with the facts today!

He has now conflated a non-existent dock-side area with a historical, still-extant, toy company, in order to try and 'create' his truth! It is staggering to watch his brain [not] work!

Oh Christ . . . I even put the origins of the name in both the October J'accuse and the A-Z entry! He's so fuckwitted, the brotherhood of fuckwitted fuckwits have banned him for being too fuckwitted.

Tai Sang anglicised means "Together we survive", the name chosen as he (Peter Chan Pui) started the business with some work colleagues from the watch-factory they had all just been fired/made redundant from. Tain Sang probably means together we drown if it's waterside!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets just take a time-out here - as there are no other images in this post - and reiterate what just happened; in words of as few syllables as possible . . . 

Erwin 'all else' the Cock-wackin' Monkey-Lizard Sell of Sell Toy ably supported by Paul the Jabbering Fuck 'we're back with more' Standinger of Stad's Stuff has just tried to defend himself against charges of MAKING IT UP AS HE GOES ALONG, by inventing an entire geographical area of Asia (which doesn't exist), using a SAMPLE shipping manifests bill of lading form!

Look

 Standard search-result - nothing!

Image-search is no more helpful!

Let's try his full description on the 'port'!

After the disingenuous changes to the 1981 Blue Box-Redbox catalogue description and meaning and the Japanese health ministry debacle, this really should be where I rest my case, but Darran seems as keen for Part 3 to publish as I am - so we go on . . . line by line, showing these two muppets to be the cockwombles they are.

This is very poor, Paul Stadinger should be blody ashamed of himself for getting to this point.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It does not indicate at all BLUE BOX was known as BLUE BOX AND RED BOX as Plastic  Warrior stated.

Why would it? And how has he come to think that it might? It's about Redbox! Fuck, it's like pulling teeth from a wide-awake lion! When he's not taking subtlety at face value, he's reading into things - stuff which was never there!

Where's the link, for someone who loves links so much (except when other people use them!), he seems awfully keen to draw a conclusion from an apparently random, illiterate paragraph?

And again, in the posts on 'Part 1' I posted the other day we found Canadian and Australian evidence of the direct connection, he finds one thing (I originally posted) which seems to say what he wants it to say, interprets it as that and stops looking!

If one thing is clear from all this bollocks, there are literally dozens of 'companies' all owned by Tai Sang with either Redbox or Blue Box in the title, along with Toys, Co., Imports, Exports, Industry, Factory, OEM, VMO, Pty, Fty, or Ltd.

And there will be more to find.

The rules in the various countries where Tai Sang operate differ from place to place, in Canada you have had a legal owner (Tai Sang), an actual owner/manager (Blue Box) and the brand (Redbox), in Australia, it was clear that the two (both BB & RB) were 'made' by Tai Sang (in the Aberdeen factory and in Singapore), but Blue Box was chosen for the import companies title; as basically a wholly-owned subsidiary of BOTH Tai Sang and George Tauber

Meanwhile in more recent times we've seen BBI as a brand, and as a company (UK) while elsewhere the full Blue Box International or BBT / Blue Box Toys was used - depending on which part of the group was operating where; I'm sure further research will reveal the same to be true of Redbox International / RBI

Likewise, in some countries, one registration (of one title) will comply with local regulations, in other countries regular re-registrations of all companies, subsidiaries and brands is necessary, sometimes as often as every ten years is the least that will satisfy regulators

Yet it's clear from this and the earlier Part 1, not to mention everything I've called him up on, that Erwin Sell just doesn't get it, nor does Paul Stadinger.

That is the point Hugh!!

No the point is; he's being criminally obtuse, or stupid to the point of severe retardation!

Erwin Sell Verus Hugh Walter Part Two Red Box Trademark

In following LINK posted by Hugh


Erwin Says.

Thank you Hugh. (Pleasure - if only he'd take it on-board!)

It just confirm same.

How? It's a Redbox page about Redbox, it proves that Tai Sang (who also own Blue Box) are the company behind the registering of Redbox...the guy's too stupid to know what he's looking at or what it says!

RED BOX is register along once again by Tain Sang Industrial .

'Tai' for fuck's sake Tai Sang, 'Tain' is something else entirely - he's forced to fit!

Where it mention Blue Box!?

Read and repeat above comments in green - for fucking ever!

By the way filing of trademark and registration was by TAIN SANG…

T. A. I. (no 'n') the fuckwitted retard of a shit-for-brains!

Also-The link is not an official company business data .Trademark is a free search engine of publicly available government records. Trademarkia.com is not a law firm and does not represent owners listed on page. Is like Wikipedia and could be updated by any one free .So not an accurate information at all but it serve the purpose of once again as I mention …

I never said it was an official company business data
I never said it was a law firm
I never said it was an accurate information at all [sic]

So how this proof that (Blue Box (also known as Blue Box and Red Box)????

I'm not sure I've said it is? Without a link to the relevant Post I can't comment on the context I used it in? It seems to be from the News, Views that dealt with Redbox, that post had nothing to do with Blue Box it was about Redbox and Tai Sang so I wouldn't have suggested it was proof of anything to do with Blue Box  - he's making it up as he goes along again - hence the lack of post-link to contextualise!

It is however, proof that Tai Sang (behind some Blue Box registrations) are behind [some] Redbox registrations!

Erwin Sell Verus Hugh Walter Part Two Red Box Tain Sang Industrial LTD

What is TAIN SANG INDUSTRAIL Co LTD ???

You tell us, I've only referred to Tai Sang!

TAI SANG INDUSTRIAL Co.LTD is complex full of factories importer/exporter packers buildings-places that just mass produce-export to many areas in the world for many brands.

Errr...no it isn't, it's the company founded by Peter Chan Pui and the ex-watchmakers he took with him!

This 'piece of evidence' is typical Erwin, it's a [sample] bill of lading for a vessel, a ship (ships carry boats, boats can't carry ships), taking [nominal] Tai Sang produce (printed tins and gift boxes) to Los Angeles from Yantain, the shipping-office address being used is one of the Redbox ones (Room 1203, East Ocean Centre, 98 Granville Road) too I think! This man is too funny for the funny-farm!

Again, some of the information I used in the October 12,000-worder was from such a bill of lading, so again we have evidence of his Googling as a result of my educating him - too slowly!

Some companies such BLUE BOX and Red Box have their factories and export places there.

Errr...no they don't; firstly because it's an imaginary sheet of paper and won't take the weight of 'factories' and secondly because the one thing that has come from all this nonsense is a long list of Tai Sang, Blue Box and Redbox facilities, none of which are in the 'dock area' he may be referring to and which is actually an html version of a paper sheet? Fuck me sideways with the devils horns he's so fucking stupid he really has no idea how stupid he is - has he?

They also made for Fisher,IMPERIAL Ja ru ,AVON ….

Yes, all this is from the A-Z entry I published in October and was all missing from his Blue Box 'Expose' series, it's therefore rewarding to see him learning from me!


Company Limited  where Blue Box toys were made in HK mainly. (BLUE BOX) Factory and importer place was located since 1960 at…

The above sentence is not any form of recognised grammer, makes no sense and can't therefore be used to assert, imply or assume anything! However with up to three factories in Singapore and the die-casting plant in Macau (not to mention the vinyl factory I'm still trying to find a concrete address for) the use of 'in HK mainly' is very, very, wide of the mark!

9/F., Blue Box Factory Building, 25 Hing Wo Street, Tin Wan, Aberdeen , Hong Kong 

This is the Aberdeen building, now known as 'the Old Blue Box Building' and much covered in the A-Z entry and the rebuttals to their Part 1

Sykes Lau

Vice President of Sales ( OEM business) at Blue Box (OEM) Ltd

Worked for TAI SANG INDUSTRIAL before go to work for BLUE BOX.

And before that Lok Tai On Toys Limited, and before that Hoida International (HK) Ltd, he's a consummate businessman who moves around, Erwin's point is what exactly? That because he was at Tai Sang then Blue Box they're not connected? I think we have established the connection, the problem is Erwin/Paul published this Part 2 a few days before my rebuttal to their Part 1!

Mr Lau was a senior executive at Tai Sang, until the passing of Peter Chan Pui, when he - having proved himself at 'head office' - was sent to run one of the subsidiaries. Why is this all so hard for Erwin the 'factory visitor' to get his head round? Is he just fuckwitted, or deliberately dishonest?

Erwin Sell Verus Hugh Walter Part Two Red Box Red Box Information

RED BOX INFORMATION from official business data bank HK.

Where? Suddenly we're not getting links to either of the following cut-n-paste jobs? Are we to take this on trust? From the man who changes the title (and meaning) of a document he's nicked from Vectis! Who has just written-off an almost identical link provided by me as:
·         Not  an official company business data
·         Not  a law firm
·         Not an accurate information at all [sic]
And yet - his similarly formatted text is from an un-linked-to 'official business data bank HK.' [sic]

It doesn't matter, we're in the end game and it's getting so it feels almost cruel to continue.

1-The old branded,not longer in production

It's the same company! Still going, the fuckwit!

2-The actual (I was always referring too as main competitor from china in original disputed post )-Start in 1985

Ah! Clarity at last! He's now got two Redbox companies on the go, the one he meant and errr . . . the other one! Despite the fact that he has in Part 1 AND Part 2 managed to link 'both' of them to Blue Box production, catalogues or factories! It's embarrassing - if you’re the Jabbering Fuck or the alley-boot-boys of the PSTSM!

1-RED BOX COMPANY LIMITED-1964(ONE trademark register in above link posted by Mr Hugh)
Company Registration No.: 0009796
Red Box Company Limited was incorporated on 29 February 1964 (Saturday) and as of 1 October 2015 (Thursday) is a Live Private Company Limited By Shares.
This Private Company Limited By Shares have been operating for 19289 days. (19298 days
divided by a year (365.25) = 52 years, 81-point-something days, allow for leap years, the .25's, the millennium and computer glitches and take 52 away from 2015 (Thursday!) - ie it's still going the fuckwitted fuckwit of all fuckwits!)
CR No. 0009796
Company Name (Chinese)
紅盒有限公司
Company Type
Private Company Limited By Shares
Date of Incorporation
29 February 1964 (Saturday)
Active Status -Live - HEY! ERWIN! YOU FUCKWIT . . . It's active status is LIVE - because it's still going!
Remarks
Winding Up Mode
Blank because it hasn't been wound-up! Fuck he's thick!
Date of Dissolution
Blank because it hasn't been dissolved! Fuck he's thick!
Register of Charges
Available
Important Note
Name History
Effective From 29 February 1964, Saturday
紅盒有限公司

Oh, here's the link; it's a remarkably similar aggregator page to the ones I have been using, if not the same!

Old Fuckwitted Fuckwit the God of Fuckwits is crying into his soup for Erwin's level of dullardery! He's posted information he hasn't understood and can't read!

2-RED BOX TOY FACTORY LIMITED-1985

This is the one I original refer to as main competitor for Blue Box from (“China”) Meaning funded by Chinese not as most HK old brands funded by western or others such GIANT-Arco,Imperial,Ja-Ru ….

How to unpack that? Can't be arsed, it's the same fucking company!

RED BOX TOY FACTORY LIMITED.

Company Registration No.: 0158560

Red Box Toy Factory Limited was incorporated on 20 September 1985 (Friday) and as of 1 October 2015 (Thursday) is a Live Private Company Limited By Shares.
Private Company Limited By Shares have been operating for 11415 days.
CR No. 0158560
Company Name (Chinese)
紅盒玩具廠有限公司
Company Type
Private Company Limited By Shares
Date of Incorporation
20 September 1985 (Friday)
Active Status -Live
Remarks
Winding Up Mode
Date of Dissolution
Register of Charges
Available
Important Note
Name History
Effective From 20 September 1985, Friday
BOX TOY FACTORY LIMITED
紅盒玩具廠有限公司

Oh, here's the other link; it's a remarkably similar aggregator page to the ones I have been using, if not the same!

Basically Erwin is confusing different plants/offices/legal entities of the same company for different companies, but only to try and wriggle-out of the fact that he was wrong to state as fact that they were " RED BOX is a 1985.Was original funded in HK and united with others from other toys line in China after 90’s. It has been BLUE BOX main competitor since from china market.
It has “”wrongly mentioned”” as same or part as Blue Box companies in PW magazine incorrect. They are two complete different companies
BB and RB are only original funded HK companies still in existence with out interruption and Chinese family owned till today .BB been much older of course in 1957
RD now produced most action figures and articulated learning toys most." When they weren't, aren't and errrr . . . aren't. Indeed, it would seem that what he's found here are the registrations for the factory (lower, later 'cos they used Blue Box facilities at the start) and the Company Office or 'entity' (upper), but there are so many branches of all the Tai Sang companies I'm only assuming that?

About RED BOX-1985
From Mr Hugh rant

(Erwin ) says…
RED BOX is a 1985.Was original funded in HK and united with others from other toys line in China after 90’s. It has been BLUE BOX main competitor since from China market…

Hugh Walter says….

Which is it? JB (as fact) (this pertains to an earlier 'fact' of his he seems not to have quoted?) or Red Box (as fact)? That is not empirical evidence-based research; that is someone bullshitting falsehoods like sugar-beet plops off an elevator.

Blue Box’s main competitor? Cattle-crud! What about [alphabetically] Arco (fancy - you said I said they weren’t in HK the other day, were you making it up again, I think you were!), Early Light, Jetta, Lion Rock, Lucky, Manley Toys, May Chong, Qualidux, Soma, or Universal (I’ve left-out those listed in the last paragraph of this section)? All still in existence in 2010 (to my knowledge) bar Arco – you’re making it up as you go along…again! ‘That is all I know’? You know nothing, you make it up! ‘Wrongly mentioned’? Bullshit, it’s a correct correlation; you’re making it up as you go along AGAIN, not PW contributors! ‘Only original’? Cow-turd! ‘Funded’? By whom? ‘United with others’? What ‘others’? Evidence? Steer-crap – you’re making it up! After 1990? What evidence do you have for such a specific statement? You’re making it up again! “Citation Needed”! “Citation Needed”! “Citation Needed”!

Still no citation? No Evidence, no notheing . . . ♫♫♫This is what it meeeeans when your word meeeeans nothing at'aaaaalllll♫♫♫ he's still making it up, though rather badly as he continues to publish stuff he's found which backs up my version - the truth!

ERWIN RESPONDED.

I said (It has been BLUE BOX main competitor since from China market.) .Meaning China ,NOT HONG KONG .-Did you understand that Hugh!???

He shouldn't get impertinent with me until he scores at least one strike, which he's singularly failed to do so far! I will however continue to call him a fuckwit because he's proving to be a fuckwitted fuckwit! 'Since from China market' is a meaningless collection of four words.

Why you mention companies funded in HK before ?

Because he did! " RED BOX is a 1985.Was original funded in HK and united with others from other toys line in China after 90’s. It has been BLUE BOX main competitor since from china market.
It has “”wrongly mentioned”” as same or part as Blue Box companies in PW magazine incorrect. They are two complete different companies …
BB and RB are only original funded HK companies still in existence with out interruption and Chinese family owned till today .BB been much older of course in 1957
RD now produced most action figures and articulated learning toys most." Do you see? He has twisted himself in so many knots he is running out of wiggle-room and I have this awful fear that by the time I publish this, they will have published 'Part 3' and it will STILL be on Redbox-Blue Box!

He is never going to address the Australians, the French resistance sizes, the '33' character figures and all the other things he's made up as he goes along, he's just going to keep banging his head against a brick wall inventing ever more Redboxes to get to THE Redbox he was on about!

Even naming some others that are not active according to directory listing of Businesses and Companies registered in Hong Kong?

Or in some cases limited with out a single web site and factory adders information in the net or else?….

A lot of contract-manufacturers don't have websites; his point is?

See links bellow of some those you mention are “competing” with RED BOX.
Manley Toys Limited.?
Or this one!?
BUT;In fact MANLEY TOYS LIMITED file Bankruptcy in 2016.

Hummm . . . I said "All still in existence in 2010 (to my knowledge)" so I was correct on that one!

They were all competing with Redbox in 2010, as they are all contract manufacturers for Western companies, they may well have gone under or been swallowed-up, if Peter Chan Pui has passed away, those running older (longer lasting) businesses will also be falling off this mortal coil, sadly.

You mention too (MAY CHONG!?)I think you may refer to May Cheongs Toy products.
Another factory small distributes from Hong Kong ,not China.


No . . . I think I may refer to May Chong, the Ngan's original Chiu Chow 100,000-square-foot factory in Kwun Tong, the May Chong who started with toy-flocking, moved into contract-manufacturing injection mouldings for Durham Industies and Bandai as well as launching their own branded car range (MC TOY), the same May Chong who were the first HK company to import German injection-moulding machines, the same May Chong who were the first HK Co. to use computer-controlled die-casting (CAM) for later metal cars, the May Chong who expanded into Macau when the GSP gave them favorable rates and who now make the award-winning Maisto with a staff of 15,000 in the US, Hong Kong, China and France and who own the Bburago brand- the FUCKING FUCKED fuckwit!

I think you may refer!

I think you may refer!

What. A. Cunt.

Also you mention.SOMA Toys!?

It was dissolved and not longer in business.

Here.

I said "All still in existence in 2010 (to my knowledge)"

Also LUCKY TOYS. Disolved-Not longer in business. Here.


I said "All still in existence in 2010 (to my knowledge)" Also with seven or more 'Lucky's does he know if he's got the right one?! Given the dates in his link - very unlikely!

Also (LION ROCK!?) Disolved t-Not longer in business.

I said "All still in existence in 2010 (to my knowledge)"

I can go on but I left the link for you so you search every company for yourself.
Enjoy!!!

Why? I was right to stick with a cut-off date of 2010 - when I know they were all interviewed by Sarah Monks (a book I suggested he hadn't read back in October and which clearly he still hasn't or he'd not be coming out with half the shite he is), what's happened to them since is of little interest until I get round to their A-Z entries and as most of them were contract manufacturers only (no brands, or no 'known' brands) they have a low priority there.

The point was - he was saying Blue Box was first (it wasn't) longest lasting (it isn't) and gave the impression it and Redbox (his totally separate 'Rival' Redbox) were the only ones they weren’t/aren’t and he's yet to prove me wrong on any of it? Nor has he tried to address why? Why did he forget all those rivals? He has - however - clearly taken the names I gave him and Goggled them - hooray and well done to the lying cock-whacker!

What was it he said the other day, oh yes: "U can drop 10 links in a site all together use it and twist to make looks as one point because are mengle.", well, physician; heal thyself!

Like you can tell the thieves on a housing estate (Project) as they are the only chaps to have locks on their bin stores, so he reveals one of his 'making in up as he goes along' tricks - as he did with the Facebook-spying paranoia the other day in Part 1, how safe are you from Erwin's visits to Google, with your name? Probably safer than me!

Erwin Sell Verus Hugh Walter Part Two Red Box About Red Box

About RED BOX toys. I was referring as to be original Chinese funded IN 1985,meaning by Chinese owned original people,not companies funded in HK by Americans or others before or HONG KONG original people.

This is simply not English? Redbox (like Blue Box) is only funded from Tai Sang, a family owned privately listed (no public shares) company, he pretends to 'know' the toy trade, big business, China/Hong Kong (not forgetting the Japanese health ministry) but he clearly doesn't understand what's happening even though he's central to it!

You spend too much time extracting and deviating or adding words to minor short comments posted by me and trying to twist or confuse my words …..

I have only ever quoted him in full with all typos and dumb-phone related spelling and grammatical errors, so the above sentence - while not recognised English - is libellous, though, not for the first time!

IF Actual RED BOX Toys is related to the 1960’s same trade mark listed register by TIN SANG Industrial or similar brand with base in HK too which I did not imply but you did in your comments. I do not know for sure but actual Red Box has a very likable logo and very looking as older RED BOX brand logo as well. Any ways. I did not mention it as been same as you assume I suggested.

Tin / Tai / Tain; hey - let's just not even bother with the facts today! More non-standard English makes it very difficult to decipher this paragraph, but as he seems to be sticking with the two Redbox theory; it can be ignored.

Never Assume !!!!

He really doesn't understand the concept of assumption does he? It's far better to assume something (provided you make it clear that that's what you're doing) than it is to make stuff up as you go along, or draw conclusions (assumptions) from half-of-nothing and present it as fact - which are the same thing - telling lies!

Assumption for Beginners - I went to the bus stop at 8.59 to catch the 9.00, at 9.01 the bus still hadn't come so I assumed it was running late? I didn’t imagine it was consumed by a large frog after deliberately turning down the off-ramp for the motorway and fighting on-coming traffic until it was swallowed by the enormous amphibian! I rang my boss and told him I assumed it was running late, I didn't go on Twittsface.com with a Photoshopped meme of the frog thing - Erwin is running around our hobby with lots of frog-things.

In fact after this post you corrected and said now a different tale.

It was not a 'different tale' it was more/additional/updated information, again a lack of a link to the Post shows he's being disingenuous!

Here from you(Mr Hugh) in your blog site.

Mr Hugh says…

(Therefore Tai Sang weren’t renamed Blue Box (the impression given by the owner of both companies in his interviews with Sarah Monks), but rather that Blue Box were created as a separate entity following the conversation with/visit to Cecil Coleman, with Red box following a few years later – they first appear in the mid-1970’s; allowing for the brief entry in Garratt, published 1980/1.)

ERWIN RESPONDED -conclusion.

So again Mr Hugh.

Are you confused or confusing all in your blog.?

Errr . . . no, I was not confused, I was sure that Peter Chan Pui in favouring 'his baby' Blue Box as the stand-alone brand (in a way Redbox never was) in the interview with Sarah Monks had given the false impression (in a primary reference source) that Tai Sang had been replaced after the Colman's incident and the 'invention' of Blue Box.

In point of fact, subsequent research reveals that up until his sad demise he was head of all three (and several other companies) and indeed his 2 'CK' remains at the head of them to this day (or a few weeks ago when I was last looking!).

Because - unlike Erwin - I don't make it up as I go along, and assuming (that tricky word he doesn't actually understand) other people also believed or might believe the common story, I thought it best to update people with the facts, it's called a learning curve? And - had I not - you'd have had very little to go on in these two shit-fest rants of yours!

We now know (the one and ONLY) Redbox followed a little sooner - mid-'60's) which will be in the corrected A-Z entries, so it is fair to say I should have used a question mark after the 'Garratt dates' point, as I was a few years out, but other than that there's nothing to be ashamed about in that Blog Post!

Last samples pictures samples of older RED BOX brand trademark toys copies of Blue Box sold under the sole(RED BOX ) LOGO

Erwin Sell Verus Hugh Walter Part Two Red Box Photos

Both two brands packing clear show different logs individual brand packed-cards using similar toys.

But under different brands. (Brands aren't 'Rival' companies; I do believe you've just admitted defeat?)

More possible packed by TIN SANG INDUSTRIAL factories for both different separated companies.

Uughh! TIN again! Furfuckssakes!

Once again indicating both RED BOX and BLUE BOX sold as separated entities/companies with respective logo since 60 s.

Is he saying they are entities, companies or brands, the three being very different, but then; his total lack of knowledge of these things - while trying to bluff it - means he's not too sure himself, he's just never going to admit he made it up as he went along! Pathetic really?

Picture Below show individual figure horse stamp mark (Red Box bellow) Indicating figures were separated identify to be for RED BOX not Blue Box when made .As well every BB is mark BB bellow.

Not RB & BB .

{Two pictures provided - See Stad's post}

Two shots of what looks to be a well sculpted large-scale (dolls?) horse, proves he can find stuff on eBay and download it! Nothing else? But all his 'evidence' is what he can find on t'Internet spun to say what he wants it to say?

All three main arms make and design their own, other peoples and each other's products, the fact that you can find a new sculpt on-line marked with one logo says nothing other than this house was sold (or only made?) by Redbox at some point. Remember the male dolls have Redbox equipment in a Blue Box carton with a Blue Box doll.

Zoo sets (original copies of Britain and other brands ) pack and sold under older Trademark RED BOX with Old logo in pack.

{See Stad's for picture}

No, the old logo is on the above horse, the zoo sets have the later ('till quite recently) logo as all four logos I've found are for THE SAME COMPANY!

Zoo sets by BLUE BOX using same animals and pack as BLUE BOX from 60’s-70s as well.

{See Stad's for picture}

Well, they possessed the moulds, so no surprise there? His point is what exactly?

So - let me get this straight in my head . . . he wants us to believe that because he can prove (with eBay images) that Red Box and Blue Box sold THE SAME farm and zoo animals, they MUST be unconnected! This is too lame!

As an aside; It's worth noteing that the Redbox are garishly decorated with airbrushes in bright colours; the Blue Box being more muted and hand-painted, Redbox were aimed at a lower price bracket, despite often containing the Blue Box factory product.

Dinosaur Pin ball pocket game show the Original BLUE BOX early 60 all plastic case

next to later verssion from 80s from BB too and the RED BOX exact copied sold by Red Box

{Three images provided - see Stad's post}

So - let me get this straight in my head . . . he wants us to believe that because he can prove (with eBay images) that Red Box and Blue Box sold THE SAME dinosaur bagatelle, they MUST be unconnected! This is too funny for one of Byron's farces!

"Un'CONNEC-TED?!!!"

"Yes Lady Bracknell, it appears they were made in the same factory to the point of being identical with identical backing-card artwork of a T-Rex but then sold by two totally unconnected firms!"

Too funny! The picture's the fucking same - the dimwitted fucking dullard! They've got the same stock-code for fuck's sake! They're both made in Singapore - where Blue Box had at least 3 plants . . . Fuck!

The cards are both late-1970's or early 80's full-colour photo-realistic artwork, Blue Box in the 1960's used errr . . .  blue boxes! Fuck! And all three are identical so I don't know what the 'all plastic case' point means, but then I'm beginning to realise nothing Erwin says means anything!

♫♫♫This is what it meeeeans when your word meeeeans nothing at'aaaaalllll♫♫♫

Garage parking lot(also sold and distributed under SEARS made generic in HK was sold by RED BOX and Blue box as separated pack box.

Note two different packing case with logos.

{Three images provided - see Stads post}

So - let me get this straight in my head . . . he wants us to believe that because he can prove (with eBay images) that Red Box and Blue Box sold THE SAME multi-story, they MUST be unconnected! This is too funny for Gilbert and Sullivan!

And it's not 'made generic in HK' it's a Tai Sang, Blue Box or Redbox OEM which all three admit to in the very links he's posted! Jesus wept for the knowing that we'd all be reading this shit! What evidence does he have for such a sweeping statement? Instead of dealing with the existing queries over his 'facts' he's back to making it up as he goes along!

This last section is particularly tedious, proving only that his entire database appears to be (and can be 'assumed' to be!) the Internet, he clearly hasn't read-up the books I suggested he hadn't read in my J'accuse, although he is starting to regurgitate the stuff I posted in October with gusto, he fails to use it wisely, nor with any logic at all.

And so here we are; At the end of the second devastating mauling of a log by a feather. 5,000-odd words so far and Erwin has done nothing but prove (or help me prove) Redbox and Blue Box are the intimately connected subsidiaries of Tai Sang (not Tain Sang, not Tin Sang!). He hasn't dealt with any of the other charges I laid against him and has proven to be stupid to the Nth degree, dishonest, blind to the facts and argumentative without the saving grace of logical thought . . .

. . . he has mistaken Japan for China, deliberately mislabelled a catalogue he nicked and generated a whole port authority and multiple, toy-factory supporting, industrial complex out of a shipping docket and because he can't do simple maths we have resurrected a company he said was dead without leaving our chairs . . . this is a staggering lesson in the post-truth world and I will be amused to read part three.

One Response to Erwin Sell Verus Hugh Walter Part Two Red Box

Darren Hatley says:

December 31, 2016 at 6:12 AM

Thanks for the information Erwin

Slurrrp! That tongue not tired yet Darran?