Everybody Ripped Off Archer: Downsized Knockoff 1950s Archer Space Person Figures

I always go for the smaller sized stuff and upon learning various entities had fabricated reduced size versions of the classic four inch Archer Plastics space figures I was hooked. Have only found a few and some rate as favorites of the whole collection. I've enjoyed using the change in scale as a way to mess with perspective in artful pix of them, and many scale well with the Cars of Tomorrow vehicles Archer excelled at. Can't believe nobody thought of combining them into playsets.

And while being enamored with them I've always wondered how they came to be, a trait inherited from mom who was a library sciences archivist. We live for dates, names, connections, something I project onto my collecting. I also grew up in the 70s and 80s when there was more regular oversight of toy production and companies observed fair business practices unless they were China. So I'd always presumed there must have been a certain amount of cooperation between Archer and the different companies who pressed small scaled rehashes of their figure designs, and sat down to learn about it.

One company likely did, a pioneering British toy soldier company called Johillco. They produced a marvelous set of smaller scaled Archer figures in lead with painted details, fitted helmets, and an admirable enough attention to detail to suggest Archer themselves may have been involved. Johillco's boxed sets had the entire Archer crew and then some. If my understanding was correct were only made for export to North America, which resulted in this copy mayhem later on.

The two above made by followup company Cherilea Toys from the Johillco mold are among my favorites from the whole space bling collection. Well made, decently balanced on pod feet with admirable restraint shown in how they were decorated. I also think they look better in their helmets than the Archer figures do, most of whom I can see as "complete" without them. These would be sadly incomplete without helmets and I look after both with great care.

Cherilea marks across their backsides. So these two could be regarded as authorized, though there is no mention of any interaction between Archer and Cherilea in Blast Off! (2001). They inherited the mold, added their mark and kept making them. Fair enough.

Right arm is not raised to the degree the Archer figure's is but the rest of the pose is well translated.

Force Field guy leans forward a bit more and isn't as stout. Almost looks like he might be about to jump.

Larger Archer originals with reduced size versions by Tudor Rose. Which came in two sizes: Small, and smaller. If my understanding of the text from "Blast Off!" is correct Tudor Rose did not begin making their downsizers until 1957, by which time Archer Plastics had reformed as an educational toy company. Part of their compulsion to produce them was high demand for the Johillco space figures boxed up for export. So they just started making them from house-designed molds, some of which do a better job of approximating the larger figures than others.

The smaller size, no markings. The other size figures are marked.

Tudor's downsized Premier stacks up well to his fullsize version.

The Sentry is just sort of there. Smaller one coated with a semi metallic glaze, likely inflicted by a prior owner. Pretty sure they were meant to have the full rifle the blue Glencoe copy behind them carries. Mine don't.

I like the smaller blue figure, his big brother comes off as sloppy and very poorly balanced.

Now with green translucent Cracker Jack copy missing its charm lanyard ring.

That's the pose, and it's the Cracker Jack mini Archers that really make me scratch my head. You'd think they'd have noticed? Or someone mention "Dude, your spacemen are now Cracker Jack prizes and they made three million of them."

Rifle guy pose is more obvious including the triangular stance and upward angle at which the rifle is held.

They even copied the suit tanks. Did Bob Genin know about this? Was there any interaction between the two companies? It's thinking that even Cracker Jack took them to the cleaners that is most disillusioning. They made enough of them so that even today they are a common e-b4y find. Keep putting off landing more, wide range of colors and opaqueness.

Cracker Jack robots up front with Empire "Touchdown" robots, a Magic Robot game board figure and assorted Archer robots. How they got those heads off took effort.

The Walker pose, named (for my own reference) after Lee Marvin's character from the 1967 crime thriller "Point Blank". Now there's a movie.

More Walker poses including the figure in blue from the soft plastic Satellite Men group, which means it can't be a girl. But it's the same basic Archer pose re-worked for the hard plastic Men of Mars group, who don't mention anything about girls either. 

Just has super pretty eyes for a spaceman. And good at math.

I can take pictures of these things all day.

Empire Plastic's near comical Force Field guys. They just made em. No mention of any connections.

Some odd differences between the two smaller. These shown here all soft plastic but an earlier hard plastic version was made as well, with colors in your standard hard plastic spaceman ranges of metallic shades. Did Archer knew they made buckets and buckets and buckets of them for every gumball machine on the east coast? Five cents each, times a couple million. You'd want to know.

I used to think the Tudor Rose figure at left was a pretty snappy looking approximation of Archer's Walker. Now he looks like a droopy drawered punk from Brixton alongside the better proportioned Cherilea. 

Yeah I know, the right arm. Haven't a pix of the full Cherilea set onhand, they may have done another with the arms at exact matching angles. Wasn't bent. More I see that pale green the more I like it. Has that Lost Russian Cosmonaut thing going on.

Perspective studies, all vintage. It matters.

Orange and blues are Glencoe reissues.

Now we're just posting pix cos they're cool and no other plans for them exist. With Magic Robot game board piece. I guess they just went ahead and made a million of him too?

Up on their asteroid, looking for more suckers to come along.

Archer Spaceboy cleaned up real good for a new Family Snapshot. Space Girl looks a tad larger in scale to the guy. I know the lady with the Space Baby should be his match but lack a confirmed vintage example. The girl passed all vintage indicator tests which can be applied, so she gets to play Mom.

Spaceboy with dubious colorful cronies from Prudhoe. Looking like a power pop Space Menudo trio.

Hey! and they're Off to the Brewpub. Told ya that's a girl.

The Blue Guy - Annoying Glencoe Models "Archer Spaceman" Recast with Upside Down "Vintage" Markings

Everything is wrong with this guy, and I hold him up here as an example for other collectors to avoid. Have trotted him out before as an example of Glencoe Models' effort to re-issue the classic Archer Space People in or around 1991. They are fine figures, you can still get sealed boxes brand new, but they aren't the vintage Archer product and yes, it matters.

Dude ...

Hopefully less so now for myself as a collector, having landed an unlooked for bale of vintage survivors which instantly completed my collection of the original Archer spacemen. It also precipitated a review of the collection of figures obtained previously and this one's many faults have come back into the fray. I did post about this subject at the Alphadrome.net forums and am hoping one of their veteran regulars can help shed light on what the living hell is up with this thing.

The story behind his acquisition is sad and avoidable: One of the only "Archer" figures I specifically went shopping for (most obtained in space figure lots) late 2020? the goal being a vintage 50s figure in his Sentry pose with the rifle barrel fully intact. Only explanation I can provide for having instead purchased an easily identified 90s recast is that I saw what I wanted to see and ignored what should have been obvious indicators. Starting with his non-metallic blue color which is incorrect for vintage Archer. I thought they had done a blue for the males. 

Nope. "Dumb rookie."

What my eyes latched onto was the PAT.PEND. script on the rifle stock, which when seen on its own looks convincing as a vintage indicator; Glencoe utilized a smaller modern font that is easy to spot. What my eyes ignored was the size of the C in what is a copyright stamp just above his suit tanks. On vintage figures that C will almost fill the circle. That one doesn't come close. How the two markings ended up on the figure is the alleged mystery here, which bamboozled me into spending money on something I now regard as a lingering warning to be more careful.

I now have four figures in the pose. The silver and lavender colored figures bear all the indicators of vintage manufacture including passing the Clink Test, where the figure is carefully tapped on a hard surface. Vintage figures will produce a high pitched Clink! where the 90s recasts will usually create a dull thud or click, though not always. The blue and painted figures failed the Clink Test, and the orange demonstrates the eventual fate which awaits all of my Glencoe figures: Being absorbed into the art machine. Either that or demonstrating an industrial garbage shredder, something I do not own. So we paint em.

Now comes the mind-screw: The Pat.Pend. lettering on the blue figure is upside down relative to the silver and lavender figures. Same font but wrong direction, something that went right over my head when seeing it. At the time I only had the known Glencoe figure painted orange in that pose, and all my brain registered was that the blue one had the vintage font.

If anyone can help explain the upside down "vintage" lettering with small copyright C, I am all eyes to read your input. One does not need to sign in or register to leave a comment. Go for it.

The orange figure with its smaller modern Pat.Pend. font typical of the Glencoe re-issue series. He also has the smaller C seen on the blue guy. Silver figure at right gets all vintage indicators correct including passing a Clink Test the blue and orange figures failed.

One last indicator is mold flashing around the feet where (if my understanding is correct) excess plastic pooled during the mold shot, cooling as a fringe or halo of plastic in this case around his feet. One has a crescent moon of flash, the other evidence of more having been trimmed off. By contrast the feet of the Archer made figures in silver & lavender have no flashing at all, a trait shared with all of my Archer made figures.

Only the Glencoe made figures evidence flashing, for which they can be forgiven as (if memory serves) they were juggling other paid projects during the day and working the Space People castings after hours as a side project. Archer likely had more time to perfect their pour methods and could afford tighter quality control. Though the flashing attribute does have a potentially useful method in eyeballing modern figures from vintage originals. In fact, it was when contemplating his crescent moon of flashing that I recalled another figure which I'd wondered about with a similar issue.

Bingo.

"Baby Lady" now ratted out as a Glencoe by her untrimmed nails. The Archer female designs had no indicators to evaluate by, and for whatever its worth she appeared to pass her Clink Test. But there's no 75 years of exposure to atmosphere on her or any evidence of playwear handling. No way Archer would have let those feet pass control. Blue Guy helps draw the conclusion, and remains a welcome part of my collection for Clink Tests. Perfect control specimen to compare others against.

BUSTED! "Vintage Archer Spacewoman" Ratted Out as Glencoe Models Re-Issue

Pretty sure I've been over these three on the blog before. All obtained separately and under the premise of being "vintage" 1950s Archer Space People females. One probably is, one surely isn't, and the other one continues to elude a simple answer.

Video sets out the case and how the conclusions were arrived at.

Click here to open video in a new window for fullscreen viewing options.

Blue baby's hair is very softly defined compared to the silver lady's baby.

It was while studying their backs that I noticed the blue figure's helmet lacks the decorative ridge spanning the bottom of the two silver figures' helmets. 

The dead giveaway: Flashing from mold overspill ringing the feet. None of my known vintage Archer figures have any mold flashing at all, let alone around the feet.

Figure in blue with rifle established as a Glencoe Models re-issue.

Knockin' the boots. And his foot is bounded by a crescent moon of flashing, with evidence of more on the other foot having been trimmed off.

Her response to The Clink Test is also inconclusive or open to subjective opinion. Which has to mean she failed, and along with the other "evidence" is now classified as a Glencoe re-issue.

If you blew off the video, the Clink Test is when you very carefully rap the figure against a firm surface. Vintage 1950s polystyrene figures will reward the rappee with a bright metallic sounding clink. Glencoe re-issues pressed in their modern plastic blend will usually respond with a dull click or thud, but as the video demonstrates that is not always the case. 

The lavender Force Field Guy ratted out over the weekend as Glencoe also passed his Clink Test. But he failed all other indicators instantly and should have been an easy call even without others to compare against. The females have no indicators other than plastic color, with the flashing only amounting to a good hint since it won't be consistent on every figure.

Last point of consideration for Baby Lady is that her surface lacks the patina and yellowing of age seen on Space Gal with hands on her hips. She was also the only one of the three to obviously ace the Clink Test. That yellowing took decades to build up. By comparison, Baby Lady is still out of the box clean.

So given all of the above I am confident Space Gal is vintage 1950s.

<3

Puzzling. Am told her color is wrong for both Archer and Glencoe, and believe it in both cases. Her response to the Clink Test was ambiguous, which likely has to mean she failed it. But most of the Glencoe females I have seen tend to have a teal or greenish look. Or silver as I can now attest, which also means that any surviving Archer style space female is likely a Glencoe. 

Chances improve if the figure be cast in metallic green or metallic lavender. But I'd recommend studying as many figures as you can -- especially known recasts -- before shelling out for any Archer style female purported to be 1950s.

Space Boy still looks unimpressed.