Restored vintage decoupages

[B-Manic]

All in favour of Uyraell's definition - Aye

[billy.leliveld]

Originally Posted by cjwalas

Thanks Billy. That's what I was assuming, but just wanted to see it in print. I've got some old simple cereal box cut-out kits I've been thinking of digging out.
Chris

I think those old cereal box kits are no problem, those where put into public domain for free when they where pubished,
It's more the old stuff that was published and sold as a cardboard model, like Schreiber, Maly ,Kranich etc

[Uyraell]

Originally Posted by cMags

That definition sounds pretty good to me. If someone wants to start a thread with this definition and outlining the purpose of this forum, I can make it a sticky to stay at the top of the forum.

cMags, my friend, "Vintage Paper Models, a Definition" thread has been opened as you have outlined.

Thank you for your kind offer to make it "sticky" and in Accepting the definition as it has evolved from the relevant discussion.

Kind and Respectful Regards cMags my friend, Uyraell.

[cdavenport]

Originally Posted by cjwalas

Thanks Billy. That's what I was assuming, but just wanted to see it in print. I've got some old simple cereal box cut-out kits I've been thinking of digging out.
Chris

Could you be convinced to scan them at high resolution? Send the files to me and I'll clean them up and post them for everyone. I used to build those cereal box premiums!

[Don Boose]

A lot of the old cereal box models seem to be in the public domain, but I think that one of the most prized - the Kix cereal box model trains - may still be under copyright. I note that it is very difficult to find them on line, other than for sale.

I think the following sites that discuss and show low-resolution images of the trains are legitimate and will give an idea of what I am talking about:

Kix: 1947 Kix Cereal Box
Kix: 1947 Kix Cereal Box
An Interview With Lionel Model Trains Author Robert Schleicher | Collectors Weekly

Don

[SJPONeill]

Just curious - would the pre-1960 Mon models fall under this definition?

[Uyraell]

The issue in any such case hinges on the current status of the copyright.
The status of the copyright itself was the main driver in my attempt to form the definition.
C.Davenport and Vermin_King refined my definition, which, once it was formalised, was accepted.
I spent 3 hours today trying to find, via Google Search and Yahoo Search, any information on Mon Models pre-1960. I was spectacularly unsuccessful.

However, since you seem to know of the Mon models, SPJ, I'd gently and respectfully suggest you examine their copyright status prior to and post 1960, to better aid you in determining whether they fit within the recently accepted definition of Vintage Paper Model.

I'm sorry I have not been of greater assistance to you.

Kind and Respectful Regards SPJ my friend, Uyraell.

[Pat_craft]

I agree with the definition of Uyraell.
I have no many time to think about it. But this morning, some ideas came to me.
First : what is vintage ?
(Vintage comes from a french word "vendange" wich means harvesting the grapes.)
In Wikipedia english vintage is from 1920 to 1960
In wikipedia french vintage is until 1980
Cultural differences ?
(that remind me the spontaneous definition of "old" in the society
- for an old person, old means : more the 50 years
- for youg people, old means : more than... 1 or 2 year, sometimes an old thing is only 6 month... )

Now we are in 2012, but in 2030, vintage things will be from 1990 ? 2000 ?
So I suppose that vintage will be more for things created 30, 40 or 50 years before the present, without a reference of a precise year.

[billy.leliveld]

Originally Posted by SJPONeill

Just curious - would the pre-1960 Mon models fall under this definition?

They were published by the Polish Ministry of Defense, that was the old communist government , I suppose nobody will claim the copyright anymore, but it still is a grey area.
I know a very well respected vendor who has an absolute anti-piracy standpoint, who has all Maly kits for sale on CD, I suppose he knows what he's doing; modellservice - der Kartonmodellshop - Kartonmodelle auf CD
The cover of the CD reads " Wszelkie prawa zastrzezone", or "All rights reserved " so somebody still owns the rights..
But maybe we should stay with the really old stuff like the Epinal kind of models, like what is on Agence Eureka, I think Pillipat knows what she's doing too..

[Rubenandres77]

I love the discussion here. I agree to Uyraell’s definition, which is a great point to start from. He has shown a good judgment and thought.


About the word “vintage” I use to think that it doesn’t have to do much with the *year* something was produced. But instead, “vintage” refers (at least for me) to the very first types.

An example of what I say above: the vintage Barbie dolls are said to be those of the first generation; here we don’t take into account when the Barbie dolls were introduced in the market, but we take into account the very first incarnation of that doll.

I have applied the same thought to the very first car and airplane types, those which were produced within the first years of such inventions, and that show certain characteristics of a “first” generation, before specialization or mass-production. That’s why I’m inclined to consider a Ford T model as a “classic” car, but definitely not as a “vintage” car.

Considering this point of view (which is my own, and is very arbitrary and debatable), I think we cannot (should not) try to establish (at least at first) a strict time-limit when considering production of paper kits or decoupages. Maybe we must have a look at the characteristics of that material, and by comparing to the current known examples of paper models we (probably) may be able to define a “first generation” of paper model constructions. I think early Maly and old Mon kits, and cereal box cut-outs were definitely not first generation examples of paper kits. They were at some degree different.


From what I can see (which is not much), vintage kits, tatebankos, early examples of decoupages and cut-outs all had in common that:

- they were released in one or more pages, but never exceeding more than (x) pages (“x” can be 2, 3, 5, or whatever amount of pages depending on what we can see in the available examples, but I suppose they were never more than 5. Probably not more than 3 pages?).

- they were very simple models that once built were fairly good and identifiable representation of the real thing (though not very detailed). And if they were not representations of a real object, they were still simple models based on real things.

- the simplicity mentioned in the point above allowed the kits/decoupages/cut-outs/models to be built in the course of very few days. Actually, most of them could even be built in just one afternoon, and apparently didn’t have “skill level” indications.

- at least in the case of the Epinal items, that editorial was not devoted only to the production of those kits. Epinal was immersed in editing other kind of material (illustrations).

- they were released so long ago that copyright issues are probably not an issue anymore.


We can start to see some things:
The vintage kits, tatebankos, early examples of decoupages and cut-outs we are currently discussing, and collecting were all produced before there was an established paper modelling hobby and market. Before there were publishing houses devoted only to that kind of items. Before care was taken to produce precision models that represented perfectly certain subject. Before kits with several pages and lots of parts started to appear as commercial products in the market. Before there were kits that took several months to finish.


I still wonder what was the *intention* of those kits? Were they intended for the kids to have a good family time with their parents helping them? Where they intended to teach kids how was the world they lived in? Or just to fill a couple of pages in certain magazine? Probably the context where they appeared may provide more answers.


Now, if we can try to pin down some more specific characteristics specific only to the vintage kits, we may be able to establish when (in what year) those characteristics ceased to appear, and when a new generation was born.

Notice that I didn’t say a word about the paper they were printed in, or the inks used. I consider those aspects as secondary and not relevant in my thought as much as metal and rubber are just materials used in the construction of cars and not considered to define “vintage cars”. But probably one of you may have useful information on printing techniques that should be considered. For example: were vintage models only printed in lithographic form? If so, could an off-set printing be also considered vintage, or not?

Please notice that my intention is not to create a new definition, but just to help to clarify more characteristics of what a vintage paper model is, independently of the year they were printed.

I'm aware the things I’ve written above are not complete, and may still be not very useful to enrich the already base definition. And actually adhering strictly to some of those characteristics may plainly discard many well-known examples appeared in the known blogs where this material appears.

For example: the beautiful convertible car by Jouets Ellen (LINK), and probably the Spanish “Instrumentos de Guerra” series (LINK) can not be fully considered “vintage” (using the characteristics I posted above) since they were produced and sold specifically as paper models in separate from, and in the case of the convertible it can not be build in just one afternoon. And they may still fall under certain copyright. But it is clear that they do have something that makes us consider them as part of all this.


So, further classification of the characteristics is required, in such a way that we could also include those specific cases. To those two specific cases mentioned in the previous paragraph (and maybe many other cases) a special consideration about copyright may be needed. Fortunately Uyraell already has some of that in his definition (copyright no longer enforced, abandoned etc). Or is that too problematic, and we must just stay with "vintage"?



So far this discussion has been very fruitful! It has already helped to get the new building section established. I think we can still work a bit more to give more depth to concept, and if we are careful maybe to get the vintage downloads too!

Please feel free to refute my ideas if you consider them inappropriate, or to complete them if they are deemed incomplete. The more you can contribute, and the more you can discuss here, the better for the community and for this specific sub-category of paper modeling!

Warm regards.