Hing Fat "Space Astronauts" Lunar Module - Using Grumman's Design? What In God's Name Is THIS??

Click here to open video in a new window.

Yup, that's all wrong. Our Sailor's Tale goes that this oddity turned up in a "Lot" listing of plastic space vehicles produced by Hing Fat Toys for one of their "Space Astronaut" bucket sets. Only vehicles too, none of the distinctive Hing Fat astronauts were included and those shown above chosen at random from my collection. At right the standard Hing Fat lunar lander based on Convair / General Dynamics' 1963 proposal for a LEM which lost out to Grumman's iconic Apollo LM design which flew the actual moon missions.

Here is a link to a prior blog entry examining how Hing Fat adapted General Dynamics' design to arrive at their distinctive lunar lander: https://spacetrucks.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-space-buckets-lunar-module-made-in.html

At first I suspected that some enterprising collector had glued a Grumman LM ascent stage from a model kit onto the Hing Fat made General Dynamics descent stage, which appears to be unchanged but went through a significant design change which included a pressure peg connector to hold the two parts together. The two stages are mismatched, and astonishingly were meant to be that way. Just when the set which included it & why they used a Grumman ascent stage for this particular is unknown to me at this time. It took significant changes in tooling to accommodate the variation, and I've never seen the likes of it before. Only hints that my kind vendor could offer were that it was likely obtained by a family member who used to "pick" second hand & Salvation Army type thrift stores for goodies to re-sell i.e. e-B4y, which is where I found them. The collection was also used when obtained and had not been a family owned toy set. So just when it was originally packaged remains unknown.

Missing is an antenna dish right over the front door and the egress ladder. The gray antenna array on top is oversized but does resemble what should be off to the right (I think?). The boom antenna in white is missing a dish on its right side. 

Apollo 16, 1971.

General Dynamics, 1963

Which also lacked a ladder for astronaut egress to the lunar surface, GD's solution (at this stage in the design proposal) being that the crew would toss a rope ladder over the side from the only hatch at the very top (not seen from this angle). The idea of pressure suited astronauts clambering up & down a rope ladder being silly enough to sink the proposal outright.

The simplified Hing Fat version of GD's lunar lander with astronaut. Lander and figures from a set produced during the mid 1980s, and representative of the lander I had and destroyed sometime between 1971 (age four) and 1977 (age ten). By the time I was in middle school the busted up parts had been discarded and I was saving up for a guitar or binging on Queen albums rather than buying space toys. 

Point being that Hing Fat as the company we know now did not exist until 1980, by which time what was left of my Space Bucket set was buried in landfill somewhere in Central New York. 

SO, WHO MADE IT???

Just to show the Grumman ascent stage wasn't just stuck on top of the Hing Fat descent stage, and that significant changes to the mold (and decal) had to be made to accommodate the peg.

Why is the form not more common?

Left: 1980s

Middle: Unknown.

Right: Brand new from a "Darron Industries" space bucket set.

Hing Fat produces the plastics in China and sells the parts in bulk to companies like Darron who package them for retail sale. So far I've found something on the order of twenty US based companies who packaged these sets, ranging in size/complexity from a bagful of figures on a header card to elaborate collections of vehicles, figures, playmats and sculpted terrain segments fitted into a large tub or handled bucket. Which is why I call them "Space Bucket" sets -- Had one as a kid, destroyed it by the age of 10 and want to find the components matching what I had as a kid again.

Top plates of the three lander descent stages, left to right: 1980s, unknown and brand new. I had a Space Bucket kit as a kid and its lunar lander did not have a sticker on the descent stage, leading me to conclude that it was a somewhat later addition to add verisimilitude in the era of Kenner "Star Wars" toys and their ilk.

Underside of the three ascent stages. Note post pegs on the two General Dynamics tops which are also hollow -- You could at least stick one of their spaceman figures in there to rattle around like a maraca. The Grumman designed ascent stage has no access hole by which to insert an astronaut but is otherwise of superior manufacture. 

Comparing the two descent stage stickers. They didn't just punch a hole in it to accommodate the pressure fit, it was re-designed around the hole.

The lot also included a Lunar Rover with enough differences between the standard issue Hing Fat rovers to also warrant mention. Left to right: 1980s, unknown and brand new by Darron. The rover at center is wider than the other two, has a differently designed seat, and its antenna is more complex with a bend & dish fitted on at the factory. The other two's antennae are simple stalk posts with the dish slid on or off by the owner.

The rucksacks fitted to the back of the seats is markedly different than the two flanking. The hubcaps also have detailing missing from the other two vehicles, the yoke of its control console is less slanted upward, and its console sticker matches the brand new rover at right.

Center rover chassis is wider and shorter, lacking the forward section on the two at left & right. Seat detailing also very different.

In all honesty I despise the Space Shuttle -- it was a scam from day one, the necessity of which is the only point of debate -- but the shuttle included in the Lot with the Grumman LM & rover has some fascinating differences from the standard Hing Fat shuttles, most notably that its cargo bay hatches open and its cockpit windows are cutouts. Both are solid on the 80s kit shuttle at left and the newly manufactured shuttle packaged by Darron at right.

Engine nozzles likewise differ, with the unknown at center lacking the two smaller upper nozzles seen on the examples at left & right.

"Fascinating, Captain."

Even the fonts on the stickers are different, with the 80s produced shuttle at top, our unknown in the center and new shuttle packaged by Darron at bottom.

If anyone out there has a Space Bucket set with a Grumman ascent stage on its lunar lander (or vehicles matching the differences noted above) I would love to hear from you, and the search for a 1970s issued set in original packaging goes on. And on.

Gold Soft Plastic "Rex Mars" Four Inch Figure - Is It A Marx Original? OH THE DRAMA

UPDATE: Two noted Marx authorities have chimed in, one saw no problem with the gold color and the other declared "Either Marx or Plastimarx" without hesitation. Good enough for me, and if the latter it'd be the first Plastimarx item in my stash.

Click here to open video in a new window.

Factors to consider:

1) Gold is not one of the described original colors.

2) Gold is not one of the described recast colors.

3) Wear, aging and dust consistent with a vintage figure which has been on display.

4) Helmet has slight discoloration consistent with having been on display.

5) Wearing down of the front helmet notch consistent with described originals.

6) The flashing of overspill plastic at the mold seams is more pronounced on the recast.

7) The gold figure has the correct notches on the bottom of his feet consistent with Marx figures.

8) The vendor was an estate specialist, had a nice selection of other confirmed vintage spacemen.

If it is a copy it's likely "vintage" as well: He stood on someone's shelf long enough to collect dust and for the helmet to be slightly yellowed by pollutants. What I would ask is, if it's a bootleg why would it have the notches on the bottom of his feet?

Figure cast in a very soft semi-translucent gold plastic with an interesting marbling swirl. Which does remind me of the marbling on a known Hong Kong copy of an Ajax female also cast in a soft semi-translucent plastic but was significantly altered from the original pose. This is either an original, an exact copy of a Marx figure, or was cast in the same molds as the Mexican recasts by someone other than Marx before the Mexican figures were made. 

With known Mexican recast from the 1990s at right. The recasts are only described as being cast in a "smoky metallic silver". By my eyes the gold figure is also "older" in the sense that it was somebody's toy, played with for many years before coming into the hands of a collector.

Described original figures cast in metallic blue, metallic green, silver and white. Though the reference source cited their size as 5 inches. If they got that wrong ... Counter point is that I have metallic blue, green and silver figures of the 70mm "Rex Mars Official Planet Patrol" figures released prior to these and their plastic is less waxy and stiffer than this gold stuff.

Note wear to helmet notch, a described trait of the original figures due to the softness of the plastic. The Mexican recasts use a much stiffer plastic and my recast example was new/unused. This was played with extensively.

Known Mexican recast helmet at right.

Left: Semi translucent light absorbing plastic.

Right: Opaque light reflecting plastic.

The seam overspill / flashing is much more pronounced on the Mexican recast.

Note the difference in the hands.

Better trimming to the gold figure. The thumb on the gold figure also appears to be further away and better defined than the thumb on the silver recast.

Pictures are helpful but are only a representation of the figure. 

Do I think it's a Marx original? Unsure just what to think. 

Do I hope it's a Marx original? Not any more, though I did at first. Man enough to admit that.

My collecting motto runs "You buy the spaceman and not the story." No claim was made about the gold figure other than it was vintage so nobody got had however it may work out. The price was very reasonable and it's different enough from the recast to be of interest regardless of what it's story might be. In terms of probability my call is a 60% chance that it was not made by Marx and likely to remain an unknown. Only thing which can be said for sure is that he's cast in a very different plastic than the Mexican re-issue and has been around much longer than they have. He was somebody's toy once until ending up in an estate liquidation. Now it's my turn to have him, and someday he'll pass along to another enthusiast at my estate liquidation. We just rent these things for a while.