Rogerpgvg's Britains collection: horses with cart and roller

I love the new fox, his sculpt style reminds me a lot of the way foxes were portrayed in 19th century art, with the very narrow waist and deep chest, and that very long thin nose into a rounded face.

Wonderful little fox, I love the running pose!
And I'd never seen that tree before, a really interesting model with all the animals on it!

Thanks, everyone! 

Rogério, the total length of the Britains fox is 4 cm. How long is the Blancherie Frères? I still don't know whether BF copied from Britains or Britains copied from BF.

George: Interesting what you say about images of foxes in the 19th century. 1928 isn't so long after that.

rogerpgvg wrote:

Thanks, everyone! 

Rogério, the total length of the Britains fox is 4 cm. How long is the Blancheries Frères? I still don't know whether BF copied from Britains or Britains copied from BF.

It is 51 mm total length, 32 or 33 from nose to the point where the tail is attached.

Thanks, useful to know. I thought it was more similar in size. The running pose is very similar, but their head is quite different: The BF looks more fox-like.

rogerpgvg wrote:

Thanks, useful to know. I thought it was more similar in size. The running pose is very similar, but their head is quite different: The BF looks more fox-like.

You're welcome, they're not copies, just similar designs. This pose for a fox was very common among old models.

Indeed the "who copied who" is still a debate without a good answer for me. After all it doesn't really matter 

This old fox has a lot of personnality

Kikimalou wrote:

Indeed the "who copied who" is still a debate without a good answer for me. After all it doesn't really matter 

This old fox has a lot of personnality

A very sly personality. No, who copied who doesn't matter for what we collect, but it matters for how we see their history. It would be interesting if Britains, which was so much copied by Hong Kong companies, started off their zoo range by copying BF. If BF did the copying, then it's interesting that they tried to improve on the originals.

rogerpgvg wrote:

Kikimalou wrote:

Indeed the "who copied who" is still a debate without a good answer for me. After all it doesn't really matter 

This old fox has a lot of personnality

A very sly personality. No, who copied who doesn't matter for what we collect, but it matters for how we see their history. It would be interesting if Britains, which was so much copied by Hong Kong companies, started off their zoo range by copying BF. If BF did the copying, then it's interesting that they tried to improve on the originals.

Surprising how many poses from Britains hollow-cast range were inspired by illustrations in this book:

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/118602#page/238/mode/1up

This was first mentioned in a post from the late Dave Scrivener:

https://sts-forum.forumieren.de/t8399p25-britains-zoo-models-book

Sorry to hear that Dave passed away, he made many very interesting contributions to the forum.

Given that this book was published in London, it might suggest that the Britains wildlife models were the originals rather than the BFs. Also, the Britains wolf seems to have been inspired by the book (p. 87) whereas the BF wolf (which looks different) was not. (Interestingly, the wolf on p. 90 appears to have inspired the TIMPO wolf.)

However, perhaps it isn't quite as simple. The book shows a picture of an eland antelope with head down (p. 262) similar to the models of both Britains and BF. But it also shows a picture of an eland with head up (p. 260), and only BF made an eland like that. This may be a coincidence though; so far, I haven't found any pictures that inspired other models that were made by BF only.

I remember that there was a topic with pictures from the book that inspired Britains, but I can't find it.

Indeed it isn't simple, the only models that are really the same are the ostriches and pelican, some are very similar like the bison, the tortoise, the lying lioness and grazing eland but they aren't the same.

The problem is we don't have enough information about BF, it is said it started the animal toys production in the 1920's and stop after WWII. Britains Started to produce their Animal line from 1929 to 1934 and some models were even made after WWII.

Some like the Lioness, Ostrich and Pelican are from 1929, but the Eland is 1930 and the Bison 1931. How a brand supposed to begin in the 20's could copy some models first produced in the 30's ?

Also, known real Britains copies are always less fine than the original, it's not the case with the BF models.

At last it is fun to read everywhere, even on a French forum I know that The Argentine company  E.G.Toys copied Britains models, it's true for some, even if it is obvious E.G.Toys Rhino and sitting Dromedary are BF copies.

Roger and Christophe

It is highly likely that toy animal figures from the 1920's/1930's were inspired by photographs and illustrations from books.

Here is an interesting post from Duna_ depicting Starlux prehistoric animal and human poses and referencing them with book illustrations:

https://sts-forum.forumieren.de/t23881-starlux-dinosaurs-la-prehistoire-complete-collection-and-some-curiosities

This is in much the same way as the book I referenced above.

In Barney Brown's Britains Zoo book there is a thread here https://sts-forum.forumieren.de/t8399-britains-zoo-models-book that did have illustrations by George Ford who sculpted all the new zoo animal poses issued in the 1960's. With these he used live animals to aid his work. One image appears in the 1965 Britains catalogue and one was in Barney's book.

It is far easier for a company to copy a pose from a competitor than do an original. Hence all the copies of Britains not only by Hong Kong manufacturers but those in Argentina and even in the UK!

Yes Chris of course, but in that case the main debate is "From BF and Britains, who is the hen and  who is the egg ?" 

Kikimalou wrote:

Yes Chris of course, but in that case the main debate is "From BF and Britains, who is the hen and  who is the egg ?" 

In my quest to seek answers I came across this site: SP1/32

And I see that you are active on this site too.

Toy Animal Wiki doesn't help relating to dates as information for Blancherie Frères simply states introduced in the 1920's without giving a specific year. Doing searches on the internet doesn't offer any solutions particularly with Blancherie Frères. However, regarding Britains we have an actual year a hollow-cast animal was issued.  

My take both Blancherie Frères and Britains animal figures relate to how it 'poses' in a zoo and there are limited to static poses with little or no animation they just produced animal figures without knowledge of what each company were doing.

In defence of the above statement I interviewed Marcel R Van Cleemput for Toy Collector: Planetdicast

During the interview I asked why didn't Corgi issue their 1:36th scale models in 1:32nd scale so they matched products that slot companies like Scalextric made and Airfix car kits. His reply was that he didn't have time to see what his competitors were doing and went ahead with plans Corgi were making.

BTW Britains were plagued with companies copying their models since the 1900's even despite putting (c) on their products!

rogerpgvg wrote:

Let’s show the Britains lead fox that I got a few weeks ago. I collect very few metal figures, mainly because they are difficult to find in a good condition and, well, I can’t collect everything. But when I saw this fox, I didn’t hesitate to buy it, because it is in a great condition and I love the running pose:


According to TAW, this fox was made from 1928 to 1941, and was then reissued after the war between 1946 and 1959. I guess this one is post-war, but the sculpt is very old. It has a hollow nose. Well, we all have.

It also has the only Britains squirrel, owl and pigeons, as well as the only plastic swan (I believe Britains did make a lead swan).

A wonderful addition to your Britains collection Roger. According to British Toy Figures by Norman Joplin the running fox was first issued in 1924 catalogue number 616. The fox's nose is hollow as this was the point of release of the molten lead. This is a feature of the hollow-cast technique.

To confirm Britains did issue a hollow-cast swan with cygnets in 1930 catalogue number 622.

In their Floral Garden range Britains did issue doves in two poses. These must be, along with the other Floral Garden birds, the smallest animals in 1:32nd scale.

Chris I edited your post because some links are too big, some people have problems for openeing the page then. It is better to ue the link button in the toolbar 

About SP1/32, yes I am a member but this forum is mostly for Plastic toy collectors. In the topic you are showing it is almost a dialogue between my friend Christian and I. WE lack a lot of knowledge about the old French brands because they collapsed too soon.

I understand the Corgi answer but it is hard to imagine that Britains and BF created separately exactly the same mould for the ostrich.

Of course Britains was copied since the beggining since they invented the Hollowcast technology. I was only talking about zoo animals which are not from 1906 but from the early 30's.

About TAW the lack of precision is because of me . I can't do it better now.

Britains doves :) Truly tiny!!

Kikimalou wrote:

Chris I edited your post because some links are too big, some people have problems for openeing the page then. It is better to ue the link button in the toolbar 

About SP1/32, yes I am a member but this forum is mostly for Plastic toy collectors. In the topic you are showing it is almost a dialogue between my friend Christian and I. WE lack a lot of knowledge about the old French brands because they collapsed too soon.

I understand the Corgi answer but it is hard to imagine that Britains and BF created separately exactly the same mould for the ostrich.

Of course Britains was copied since the beggining since they invented the Hollowcast technology. I was only talking about zoo animals which are not from 1906 but from the early 30's.

About TAW the lack of precision is because of me . I can't do it better now.

Thanks Christophe for changing the websites I highlighted to a link button.

A simple answer is this both Blancherie Frères and Britains looked at the photograph in that old animal book and thought this pose is good enough so went ahead with producing their ostrich models. Looking at SuY Flightless birds which included ostriches to be honest the vast majority of poses are just the ostrich walking as per the Blancherie Frères and Britains versions. Later we have an ostrich running pose as with Starlux and then we had companies producing ostriches with a slight turn of the head but basically the same walking pose. Interesting even today the most popular ostrich is one of a male walking and very few companies offer a female ostrich but it is nice to see ostrich chicks now being made.

I don't think Britains were bothered with what any other companies were producing in the 1920's/'30's they simply wanted to make stuff and get it in retail establishments as soon as possible particularly in the USA. Hence the reason for my Corgi link.

Britains hollow-cast ostrich was issued in 1930 and we know the year as we lucky to have professional researchers like Norman Joplin to provide these details. Unfortunately, relating to Blancherie Frères there doesn't appear to be this level of detail available so in the light of this lack of information approximations have to be made relating to production periods. There isn't usually an issue with this unless we are trying to ascertain manufacturing comparisons with other companies.

I have just looked on ebay and found some Blancherie Frères animal figures available and the seller states that they were produced prior to 1940. If we use this as evidence but with no actual Provence then we could put forward a case that Britains came first followed by Blancherie Frères.

Dates recorded on TAW are not a criticism for anyone providing details such as yourself I for one am grateful that people like you put this information on that site to assist collectors. It is just unfortunate that French companies such as Blancherie Frères do not have collectors like Norman Joplin to provide accurate production details and dates of introduction.

Chris Sweetman wrote:

A simple answer is this both Blancherie Frères and Britains looked at the photograph in that old animal book and thought this pose is good enough so went ahead with producing their ostrich models. 

But that would be quite a coincidence and that coincidence happened again with the pelican (which isn't in the book?) Not only that, many other animals made by Britains and BF have a remarkable similarity. Not exact copies, but too similar for it to be coincidence. Either Britains imitated BF or BF imitated Britains.

We don't have good information about the production years for BF, so I am thinking that instead, the book may solve the puzzle.

We have evidence that Britains were aware of the book, because their wolf is very similar to one of the pictures in the book. This wolf cannot be a copy of a BF, because their wolf was different. There are probably other examples, but I'd need more time to check it.

It is less clear whether BF saw the book. The lioness, hippo and wild boar are similar to the pictures of the book and perhaps others are, but they may be Britains copies rather than inspired by the book. The eland with head up might suggest that BF were aware of the book, but this may be a coincidence, because it is so similar to the eland with head down. I can't find any other BF models that are similar to pictures in the book but that weren't made by Britains, so my feeling is that BF copied Britains rather than the other way around. But I think it would need a systematic search of all the Britains and BF models in the book. Perhaps one day, when I have a lot of time ...

Christophe, where did you find the information that the BF models were produced from 1920? 

Is there any evidence that either BF or Britains copied their models from other manufacturers?

Thanks for mentioning the Floral Gardens pigeons again, Chris, I had forgotten. The date for the fox in the Joplin book is earlier than on TAW; perhaps TAW has to be corrected.

Ros: Great to see that you have the Floral garden birds; I am still looking for them.

First of all friends, I think it's clear but I still prefer to say it again given our respective nationalities. Whether it was BF who copied or Britains doesn't matter to me, it's just a little mystery that I may never elucidate. As I had quite a few models from both brands in my hands, I had the time to check which ones really look alike and which ones are more or less closely related.
As for my sources, since I've been collecting every toy magazine says BF started production in the early 1920's and unlike Britains BF was more known for its wild animals than its toy soldiers. BF has also, as Britains have exported their models to the USA and even to Australia, I have already bought models in these countries. Of course Britains had a longer lifespan and therefore a wider audience.
On ebay when people say that the model dates from before the 40s it is to attest to its seniority. You can find plenty of Britains models made after the 1940s, for BF it's something else. In 1940, France was occupied by the Nazis and metal left for the war effort. The Blancherie family therefore stopped production in 1940 for lack of material. On the other hand they hide a whole stock of figurines in the walls of their residence. After the war, aluminum and the arrival of plastic will mark the end of the BF company. At the beginning of the 90s, the figurines stashed in the walls were rediscovered and put up for auction, which explains why we can still find today BFs like new even though they date from before WW2.
What intrigues me in this story is that Britains production is very homogeneous and prolific so why copy? It's the same for BF, prolific and homogeneous. Why copy an ostrich when you know how to carve an emu, why copy a grazing eland when you know how to make an eland or an Oryx, or to make three different elephants without copying the excellent Britains?
What also intrigues me is that if BF copied Britains it would have taken only about ten years to produce an impressive range for the time and very quickly disappear.
This is all very weird to me.

Like you Christophe I am not really interested in whether Blancherie Frères copied Britains or vice versa. Both companies had a diverse range of animal figures and it is only a few that look similar to both ranges anyway.

I don't see that both companies being inspired by illustrations in a book or books is an issue either. It is well known that books of this type were used by artists when drawing, painting or sculpting animals. No television or the internet to seek images from in the time period we are considering. Plus I remember when I was in art class in the late 1960's using similar books to copy from. We were not given a day out at the zoo to draw live animals!

Sure Britains were famous for soldier figures but they introduced their Home Farm range in 1923 followed by the zoo series in 1929. However, horses, mules, camels and elephants were included in the soldier lines due to being used for military purposes.

In the 1920's/'30's there were loads of companies making lead animal figures and most 'wild' animal poses were static for using in a zoo display. In this case they are similar poses but very few direct copies within UK companies.

During WWII the UK halted toy production in around 1941 and firms like Britains were deployed in manufacturing items for the war effort. UK toy firms didn't return to making their key products until around 1948 and most of these were exported to gain revenue.

In the plastic era it took Britains eight years to produce a wide range of zoo animal figures so this doesn't come overnight to develop a series to satisfy the needs of the market.

Sorry Roger to pollute your topic (you can say stop whenever you want )

Of course Brands used books to make their models, Hausser, Starlux... It was also true after WW2.

Of course the British Toy industry, and German too, were deployed for the war effort, I just said BF didn't survive the war.

In the 1920's/30's loads of companies made lead figure in UK and France. The British companies did not copy each other but on the other hand some French companies have models similar to the British. We could replay the game of who copied who. I guess this time French copied probably the British models but I'm not sure.
Only for Wend-Al the answer is clear since they had negotiated with Quiralu (plus some Clairet) to produce the French models.

ros wrote:

Britains doves :) Truly tiny!!

That's a nice set Ros. I only recently managed to buy one courtesy of ebay after searching for years at toy fairs.

Thanks Chris and Roger, I have managed to extend my range of floral garden, farm and zoo animals mainly courtesy of ebay, and am fortunate to have a couple of the dovecotes, so am now on the hunt for a complete birdbath as the one I have has only one bird (the others have flown). What I do find fascinating now is identifying how many colour variations there are in Britains production...both animals and people! Happy collecting :)

You are right, the different colour and paint variants make collecting Britains very interesting.

After studying the illustrations in “Living animals of the world” by Cornish et al. (1903) more, I believe that they show good evidence that Blancherie Frères copied Britains. Sorry, it’s a long argument, but I can’t make it convincing without trying to explain it well. 

First, let’s have a look at the illustrations. The book contains 567 illustrations, most of which weren’t used by either BF or Britains. I have found the following illustrations that are similar to animal models that BF or Britains made.

Lying lioness: Both the Britains and BF are somewhat similar to the illustration. Not very similar, it could be coincidental. The tail in the illustration is on the other side, the front legs are further apart, the head is different from the models. The BF and Britains models are more similar to each other than to the illustration.


Eland with head down: Somewhat similar to both the BF and Britains. The neck area is a bit different from both, but the positioning of the legs in the illustration is similar to both. Again, the BF and Britains models are more similar to each other than to the illustration, although both are closer to the illustration than in the case of the lioness.


Eland with head up: Quite similar to the BF eland. Again, the neck area is a bit different. Britains did not make an eland with head up.



Wolf: Extremely similar to the Britains wolf, completely different from the BF wolf.


Bactrian camel calf: Extremely similar to the Britains camel, BF didn’t make one.


Warthog: Very similar to the Britains warthog. As far as I know, BF didn’t make one.


Wild boar: Extremely similar to the Britains boar, somewhat similar to the BF.


Hippo: Extremely similar to the Britains hippo, somewhat similar to the BF.


Jersey cow: Very similar to the Britains. I don’t know whether BF made one. Other illustrations may also be similar to Britains farm animals, but I am not so familiar with their lead farm range.


There are many other Britains and BF models that show remarkable similarity, but they aren’t based on illustrations in the book. The illustrations of the ostrich, the pelican, etc. are different from the models. Many Britains and BF models are not direct copies, but the similarity is so striking and there are so many that it can’t be a coincidence.

We need to distinguish between two hypotheses:
A. Britains used illustrations from the book and then BF copied Britains.
B. BF used illustrations from the book and then Britains copied BF.

There are two pieces of evidence for hypothesis A, BF copied Britains.

1. There is evidence that Britains used the book, whereas there is not much evidence that BF did. The Britains wolf, camel calf, warthog and Jersey cow are all based on illustrations in the book, but BF did not make these. The illustration of the eland with head up is the only model that BF made but that Britains did not. However, this BF model also looks very similar to BF’s own model of the eland with the head down; they could just have repositioned the head. So I think it isn’t very good evidence that BF used the book. This then leads me to conclude that Britains based several of their models on the book, and some of them (the eland with head down, the hippo and the wild boar) were subsequently copied by BF.

2. The hippo and wild boar look extremely similar to the Britains, but less similar to the BFs. Let’s have another look. I don’t have a picture of the lead hippo, but it is very similar to the later plastic version. The way the head and the mouth of the Britains is sculpted is virtually identical to the illustration. In contrast, the BF’s head, especially the mouth, looks different, less detailed. This suggests that Britains used the illustration and that BF subsequently used the Britains model as an inspiration, hence, the BF is less close to the illustration.


The wild boar really nails it for me. The Britains and BF have obvious, more than just coincidental, similarities to each other: The head and body shape are very similar. The Britains is an almost exact copy of the illustration, whereas the BF’s positioning of the right front leg and the shape of the tail is different. It’s strong evidence that Britains used the illustration and subsequently, BF used the Britains model as an inspiration.




We need to rule out a third hypothesis: Both Britains and BF used the book. This seems very unlikely. First, many models that are not in the book are also very similar, so we’d have to assume that there is yet another book that both companies used. Second, if they both used the book, then we’d expect that both Britains and BF used some illustrations that the other company did not use. However, apart from the doubtful eland with head up, there are no illustrations that only BF used. Finally, the BF models are often more similar to the Britains models than to the illustration.