Rogerpgvg's Britains collection: field horses

That's very interesting and it makes sense. Chalk is a kind of limestone, it is much denser than water and mixing little amounts with polythylene which is almost as dense as water, is enough to make some of these figures sink. It might explain the smell you feel but not the smell I feel. Now I'm not sure if it is a good idea to bath your figures because even mixed with the polymere, I don't know how chalk will react with water. I hope we have at least more 20 years on forum and you will let us know.
Seriously, it is great to see how different materials like pvc, polyethylene, polystone, polyresin and many others are basically different amounts of similar elements.

You are right, they are all composition models .

I haven't noticed any problems when I put the polythene models in soapy water. I suppose the chalk dries again. I should say that I don't put the polythene models in soapy water for long. In contrast to the PVC that Britains used, any dirt is usually quite easy to remove from the polythene models. If you put them in soapy water too long, then the paint comes off, quite possibly because water is absorbed by the chalk. I always rinse them well to make sure no soap residue is left on them.

rogerpgvg wrote:

You are right, they are all composition models .

I haven't noticed any problems when I put the polythene models in soapy water. I suppose the chalk dries again. I should say that I don't put the polythene models in soapy water for long. In contrast to the PVC that Britains used, any dirt is usually quite easy to remove from the polythene models. If you put them in soapy water too long, then the paint comes off, quite possibly because water is absorbed by the chalk. I always rinse them well to make sure no soap residue is left on them.

Nice to know! :)
... and exactly, they're all composition.
Composition models are made of such different combination of materials that I think composition is the only name that makes any sense.

I got a few new ducks and geese. I already had these figures, but the new ones are in a better condition. The “duck feeding” and “duck walking” were made from 1955 until 1964:


The “goose feeding” was made in the same years. These versions were made from 1959 onwards; earlier versions had no painted wings.


As you can see, they aren’t quite the same: They have differently coloured eyes. The goose with orange eyes is less common. I know, a very subtle difference, but it’s a great excuse to keep both.

Giving orange eyes to a goose shall be a kind of convenience. Though, it is great to capture all these variations. I like the walking duck.

Lovely additions,I only have copies of these models.
The model on the left in pic 1 is a goose-the outstretched neck is a feature of an angry goose!All the others I would say are ducks.

Taos wrote:

Lovely additions,I only have copies of these models.
The model on the left in pic 1 is a goose-the outstretched neck is a feature of an angry goose!All the others I would say are ducks.

I agree, the one with outstretched neck have a typical goose beak with a thick upper part while all others have a traditional flat duck bill.

Roger wrote:

This is an interesting testimonial, Annette. I have an old question, when you expose these figures to the sun for so long, do you notice any degradation in the color of the figure?

None of the figures I've left in the sun have changed colour that I noticed Roger. Though they were all old anyway, and I can't remember any of them being in pristine condition, so I didn't really take note of it.

rogerpgvg wrote:

Farm animals from the Britains Rosette Range (1993-96) have often changed colour. Whether that is due to sunlight or due to a different kind of decomposition, I don't know. Not all of them have it, so sunlight seems a likely culprit. I haven't seen any examples of other Britains models (polythene or PVC) that have yellowed.

Here is an interesting passage from "Suspended animation: An unauthorised history of Herald & Britains plastic figures" (2004) by Peter Cole (p. 51):

The difficulty with shrinkage had been overcome [in 1954]. Selwyn-Smith had discussed the problem with Herald’s plastic supplier, Caplin. “Caplin and I talked about putting fillers into the plastic. So Caplin started adding chalk in the processing.” As well as preventing shrinkage, the chalk gave a better base to the colour of the plastic, making it less liable to fade; and also it improved paint adhesion by making the surface of the cast figure slightly less smooth. We now know, however, that the chalk increased brittleness in the long term. The larger items, to which more chalk was added because there was a greater need to avoid shrinkage, are generally more prone to snap.

So the reason why some Britains models are heavier than others is likely due to the amount of chalk added. It may also explain why they have a smell (especially if they have started to become brittle): this is from the chalk. I previously couldn't define the smell, but it does have something a bit chalky.

Well that's very interesting indeed Roger!
I wonder if that's why the legs of the larger rhinos snap off easily? - I think it was the large Indian rhino that was prone to have body parts snapping off so easily, or was it one of the elephants? No, I think it was the rhino, and occasionally on ebay I would see broken ones too.

And, interestingly - with some of the Britains figures they have a noticeable texture to them - like the Suffolk horse and some pigs. Could this be the chalk effect??

I wonder if any other companies used chalk as a filler in their plastics too?

Taos wrote:

Lovely additions,I only have copies of these models.
The model on the left in pic 1 is a goose-the outstretched neck is a feature of an angry goose!All the others I would say are ducks.

Roger wrote:

Taos wrote:

Lovely additions,I only have copies of these models.
The model on the left in pic 1 is a goose-the outstretched neck is a feature of an angry goose!All the others I would say are ducks.

I agree, the one with outstretched neck have a typical goose beak with a thick upper part while all others have a traditional flat duck bill.

Congratulations on such pristine models Roger!

I always thought these models were made as geese - because of the irregular fluffy wings and not cute shaped heads like the normal cute little ducks that Britains made - with the smooth body and small curled up tails.

Were these models infact made as ducks then?? I think they are larger than the Britains white+yellow duck models.

sunny wrote:

Taos wrote:

Lovely additions,I only have copies of these models.
The model on the left in pic 1 is a goose-the outstretched neck is a feature of an angry goose!All the others I would say are ducks.

Roger wrote:

Taos wrote:

Lovely additions,I only have copies of these models.
The model on the left in pic 1 is a goose-the outstretched neck is a feature of an angry goose!All the others I would say are ducks.

I agree, the one with outstretched neck have a typical goose beak with a thick upper part while all others have a traditional flat duck bill.

Congratulations on such pristine models Roger!

I always thought these models were made as geese - because of the irregular fluffy wings and not cute shaped heads like the normal cute little ducks that Britains made - with the smooth body and small curled up tails.

Were these models infact made as ducks then?? I think they are larger than the Britains white+yellow duck models.

I remember some duck models which are running ducks and everyone thought they were geese. Wasn't it about Britains?
Also, these smaller ducks with curled tails might be call ducks. There are lots of different breeds and types.
I have no idea how those were identified in catalogues and maybe that's the reference we should use.

Taos wrote:

The model on the left in pic 1 is a goose-the outstretched neck is a feature of an angry goose!

That’s a very interesting observation. I agree that this is a typical pose for a goose and not for a duck. However, Britains (or “Herald”, the company that designed the models and was bought by Britains) didn’t seem to think so. Barney Brown’s Britains farm guide shows this very first price list, which lists both geese and ducks:


It doesn’t say which figures are the geese and which are the ducks, but because one of the feeding birds was later given grey wings to make it more similar to the other Britains geese, we can conclude that the feeding bird with outstretched neck was intended to be a duck.

There was also a “goose walking”, which I haven’t shown you yet:


It was made from 1955 until 1958, so it’s a bit rarer than the others, which were made for a longer period of time.

sunny wrote:

I always thought these models were made as geese - because of the irregular fluffy wings and not cute shaped heads like the normal cute little ducks that Britains made - with the smooth body and small curled up tails.
Were these models infact made as ducks then?? I think they are larger than the Britains white+yellow duck models.

I prefer them as geese rather than ducks too. The fluffy wings and their bill indeed make them look more like geese to me. I wonder whether the sculptor originally intended them all to be geese. Herald/Britains generally cared about the size of their figures, so it’s surprising that the geese and ducks are equally large. And if the original intention had been to make both geese and ducks, I’d have thought they would have tried to make them look more different. Perhaps Britains thought they had too many geese; they also had two other geese using the moulds from their earlier lead range.

Roger wrote:

I remember some duck models which are running ducks and everyone thought they were geese. Wasn't it about Britains?
Also, these smaller ducks with curled tails might be call ducks. There are lots of different breeds and types.
I have no idea how those were identified in catalogues and maybe that's the reference we should use.

I think you mean these runner ducks:


They were introduced later (1982). Britains also had two ducks from their lead range (1957-1981):



They clearly do look like ducks. And there was a duck with ducklings designed by Herald (1955-1969):

sunny wrote:

I wonder if that's why the legs of the larger rhinos snap off easily? - I think it was the large Indian rhino that was prone to have body parts snapping off so easily, or was it one of the elephants? No, I think it was the rhino, and occasionally on ebay I would see broken ones too.

I’ve had both a rhino and Indian elephant whose legs had snapped in the post. Yes, I think it’s because the larger polythene models tend to be more brittle.

sunny wrote:

And, interestingly - with some of the Britains figures they have a noticeable texture to them - like the Suffolk horse and some pigs. Could this be the chalk effect??

My impression is that the effect of the chalk on the texture is very subtle and that the texture is due to the engraving. For example, Barney Brown says about the shire mare: “First issued in smooth black plastic […] Around late 1956, the moulding changed to textured plastic with extra engraving”.

sunny wrote:

I wonder if any other companies used chalk as a filler in their plastics too?

Hausser Elastolin and VEB Plaho used plastic that was similar (but not identical) to polythene. I don’t think their figures became brittle over time, so they may not have used chalk.

The "goose walking"I would say judging by the pose and slightly looking angry is a goose.The Indian Runners I have as well but I also have a trio that are all single,I think they are from the garden set.

Taos wrote:

The "goose walking"I would say judging by the pose and slightly looking angry is a goose.The Indian Runners I have as well but I also have a trio that are all single,I think they are from the garden set.

that's interesting, I'm not sure if I can remember seeing the runner ducks individually!

rogerpgvg wrote:

I prefer them as geese rather than ducks too. The fluffy wings and their bill indeed make them look more like geese to me. I wonder whether the sculptor originally intended them all to be geese. Herald/Britains generally cared about the size of their figures, so it’s surprising that the geese and ducks are equally large. And if the original intention had been to make both geese and ducks, I’d have thought they would have tried to make them look more different. Perhaps Britains thought they had too many geese; they also had two other geese using the moulds from their earlier lead range.

Roger wrote:

I remember some duck models which are running ducks and everyone thought they were geese. Wasn't it about Britains?
Also, these smaller ducks with curled tails might be call ducks. There are lots of different breeds and types.
I have no idea how those were identified in catalogues and maybe that's the reference we should use.

I think you mean these runner ducks:


They were introduced later (1982). Britains also had two ducks from their lead range (1957-1981):



They clearly do look like ducks. And there was a duck with ducklings designed by Herald (1955-1969):

sunny wrote:

I wonder if that's why the legs of the larger rhinos snap off easily? - I think it was the large Indian rhino that was prone to have body parts snapping off so easily, or was it one of the elephants? No, I think it was the rhino, and occasionally on ebay I would see broken ones too.

I’ve had both a rhino and Indian elephant whose legs had snapped in the post. Yes, I think it’s because the larger polythene models tend to be more brittle.

sunny wrote:

And, interestingly - with some of the Britains figures they have a noticeable texture to them - like the Suffolk horse and some pigs. Could this be the chalk effect??

My impression is that the effect of the chalk on the texture is very subtle and that the texture is due to the engraving. For example, Barney Brown says about the shire mare: “First issued in smooth black plastic […] Around late 1956, the moulding changed to textured plastic with extra engraving”.

sunny wrote:

I wonder if any other companies used chalk as a filler in their plastics too?

Hausser Elastolin and VEB Plaho used plastic that was similar (but not identical) to polythene. I don’t think their figures became brittle over time, so they may not have used chalk.

this is fascinating! all the many different ducks and geese that they made - both the Heralds and Britains.
if mine weren't all packed away I would have taken them out to compare and study them.
I will see if I have photos of them somewhere.
yes it's the yellow billed ducks I remember - with the curly tail, similar to a Mallard's curly tail.

Ah, I understand about the texture now. And here we are 50 to 70 years later discussing the addition of chalk to figures that are showing their fragility now! If only the person making the decision knew what we know now

And Roger - do you have the smooth black shire mare??

found my pics
here are some ducks with ducklings - can't check underneath but the 1 at far top left seems to be Britains


old Herald duck family


curly tails


runner ducks in front. Not sure what make the ones behind are


running geese pairs, ones at back are another make I think


and angry goose at bottom right



group pic
including Riesen, Hong Kong and China ones too


I may have more but haven't collected them all together yet.
I thought I had a Britains angry goose running, but it doesn't look like it. Those two above are made in Hong Kong I think.

Roger, those are the running ducks I was referring to. Very good ones to be made at a larger scale.
It seems Annette can't put those ducks altogether. Is there a duck shepherd dog in Britains range or only pointers?

Wonderful collection of ducks and geese.I remember quite a few of the made in Hong Kong models form my childhood!

Roger wrote:

It seems Annette can't put those ducks altogether. Is there a duck shepherd dog in Britains range or only pointers?

I think the geese are the 'shepherd dogs'

sunny wrote:

Roger wrote:

It seems Annette can't put those ducks altogether. Is there a duck shepherd dog in Britains range or only pointers?

I think the geese are the 'shepherd dogs'

These are my Indian Runner ducks on separate bases.

Your runner ducks are from the "animal tree", Taylor:


I hope I'll find the runner ducks and other animals individually one day. It's difficult to play with them: the tree can't run very fast .

found my pics
here are some ducks with ducklings - can't check underneath but the 1 at  far top left seems to be Britains

Yes, that one is Britains. The duck and ducklings to the right of it are an interesting imitation that I've never seen.

runner ducks in front. Not sure what make the ones behind are

The ones behind are New-Ray.

running geese pairs, ones at back are another make I think

The geese at the back are also New-Ray, clearly inspired by Britains.

and angry goose at bottom right

Yes, and more New-Ray.

group pic
including Riesen, Hong Kong and China ones too


Great collection! Which ones are Riesen?

Thanks Roger,that's the set I though they came from.I also have the swan from that set but thats all.

thanks for the makers info Roger! When I get these out of storage I will check the one you asked about.

here are more pics of the Riesen and others I have.
The mallards are bigger than 1/32nd. You can see them in the group pics for comparison

I like your animal tree! Though I did notice that the rabbits are not as detailed as the individual ones. However the individual ducks are beauties! And that swan too - lots to like about it:)