1950's doll trunks- part 3

Three dolls remain to be rescued from the chaos of trunk #3.

Trunk #3

 
The three are very similar. They are all the same size, can wear the same clothes, and are walkers.

The hard plastic Ginny was introduced in the '50's by Vogue Dolls, Inc. Her popularity led to other companies producing similar dolls like Muffie and Ginger. Ginny was sold undressed and her clothing and accessories were sold separately.

This is my Ginny standing on the box she came in. Her dress and capri set both have a Vogue Dolls, Inc. label. From online research I found that because she has molded eyelashes and straight legs without jointed knees she was made in 1955-56. My mother was furious when one of my little friends "restyled" the doll's hair and it's never been the same. (I was extremely careful after that incident and some of my later '50's dolls, like Ginger shown further down the page, still have their original hairstyles.)

Ginny

***
***

I adore Nancy Ann Storybook dolls. They have the most precious faces and beautiful clothing. The company's clone of Ginny was Muffie and I assumed that she was the doll stored in this box. Wrong. For some reason Ginger had been placed in the box. The mix-up was correctly when I looked for markings on each doll's back.This is the real Muffie who was part of the hodgepodge of unboxed dolls in the trunk and had lost her arms. I've restrung them and put her in a pretty Vogue Dolls dress.

Muffie

***

***

Ginger, who was stored in the Muffie box, is a Cosmopolitan doll. She's wearing one of two outfits that have no labels: a roller skating set with faux leather jacket and a lounging set with blue velvet pants and gold shoes.

Ginger

My Ginger came dressed as a Brownie Scout. Her dress shown on the left has a Terri Lee label and I always assumed they also manufactured the doll. While looking for more information I found that the Terri Lee company used unmarked Cosmopolitan dolls to dress and sell as Brownie and Girl Scouts. 



Finally, an insert from the Ginny box. It sounds to me like Vogue was concerned about losing sales to competing companies and tried to explain why Ginny was better. 

1950's Doll Trunks Part 2

Part 1 showed an unedited view of what happens when dolls are stored incorrectly. Trunk #1 wasn't bad but the other two... yikes! Let's take a closer look at what was in the remaining trunks.

 Trunk #2. Marie Antoinette and Blondie.

Thankfully the clothes are in far better condition than the unexpected decapitated doll. There are five outfits: shepherdess including a pipe-cleaner sheep, garden party, winter ensemble, ice skating outfit and wedding gown.

The rigid plastic dolls have no markings and I suspect they may have been designed for home crafting. Each has sleep eyes and painted lashes and a wig attached with glue. Only the head and arms move.

My cousin Barbara gave me handmade Christmas gifts every year and this was one of her creations. The quality and craftsmanship of the clothing and accessories are incredible.

Trunk #3. Attack of the poltergeist.

Inside, a nifty surprise. In the 1950's cloth handkerchiefs for children were often designed with appealing graphics. The Saturday hankie on the right was part of a Days of the Week set. The duck and frog are by Tom Lamb, an illustrator of children's books.

A hand towel for the beginner embroiderer.

The dolls that weren't in individual boxes...

The red-head is an inexpensive doll that my mom bought for me when we were grocery shopping. She's so cheaply made that the hair is rooted in a halo pattern and pulled back in a ponytail to cover her bald head. The only mark: "Japan".

The doll in pink- I vaguely remember my dad giving her to me after he returned home from a trip. She has movable arms and head, sleep eyes, painted lashes and odd wiry hair. Impressed on her back: "Duchess Doll Corp. Design copyright 1948."
 
The next doll and clothes were part of a set that was cleverly packaged as a clothing store. I took it to school for show-and-tell in 3rd grade. Big mistake. A couple of brats tore the whole thing apart when no one was looking. I believe there was a taller doll in the set. Perhaps that's her leg? The survivor has the same characteristics as the Duchess doll but her hair is finer and straight. On her back: " Plastic Molded Arts Corp. LLC. New York."

Part 3, coming very soon- The dolls in the boxes: Ginny and her clones.

Three '50's doll trunks- Part 1

An addictively entertaining resource for identifying old toys and dolls is http://www.wishbookweb.com/. The site's creator has scanned old catalogs from Sears and similar stores. While looking through a 1959 Sears catalog for information about Patty Playpal I came across one of my dolls that I have never been able to identify.

This is an inspiration to open three doll trunks that have been packed away for decades and take photos as I do. This will be fun but I'm concerned about damage. Gold leaf was flaking off the bodice of the Princess's dress so that's no surprise but I've seen damage done by mysterious tiny bugs that destroy natural materials like wool and fur. Let's cross our fingers and see what's inside.

 Ugh! They're dirty and dusty. I'll carefully clean them later.

First, the Princess.

Ah! Wow! The fur looks fine. The metal wires that hold the doll in place have stained the front of her dress but otherwise she looks great! Incredibly, everything shown in the catalog picture-which is very unflattering, by the way- is still there. I'm happy!

Her only marking is a very faint "NEEDA" stamped on her back. A quick search at http://vintagedollcollector.com leads me to believe that this is Uneeda Doll Company's Suzette doll. She has modifications done to the doll during the late '50's- no swivel waist, unpainted nails, no earrings and an oddly short neck. Until now I'd never heard of Suzette. Interesting.

***I examined the Princess more closely later. The elastic in her slip, panties and bra had degraded and all are unwearable. I believe the stain on her dress was a result of this. The clothes have an odd fit, as if they were designed for a slightly smaller doll. Despite the clothing flaws she's still lovely. :)

Next, a trunk that was a Christmas present from a favorite cousin. I was too young to appreciate that the clothes were all handmade.

Eek! It's Marie Antoinette! Her little blond friend seems to be in shock. Instead of examining and photographing the contents I'm going to open the last trunk to check for damage.

Whose leg is that??? Why does the red haired doll have a baby bottle stuck to the top of her head? I'm going to sort through the mess and will resume shortly with Part 2.

Old and dirty

 

What are these and what's inside?

NotPatty

The Patty Playpal doll was introduced in 1959 and was #1 on my Christmas list. She had beautiful long, straight hair and a lovely face and was the same size as a toddler. The ad campaign stressed that Patty could wear human-child clothes. Cool! I couldn't wait!



So. I didn't get Patty. Instead Santa brought me an unattractive clone. Her face was plump and generic. The hair... oh, the hair. Instead of the long silky gorgeousness she had the ugliest poodle perm imaginable. I was disappointed and NotPatty was never one of my favorites. My parents, on the other hand, thought it was hilarious to place the faux-child on the back seat of our car and take her with us on drives.

Not Patty!

When my family moved here NotPatty was sent to the attic and spent 30 years staring at the rafters. I eventually brought her downstairs to see how my cats would react to a small, unfamiliar human. They weren't impressed. However, I felt sorry for NotPatty, gave her a bath, bought her some new clothes and didn't return her to the attic. Now I'm glad that she wasn't discarded because she's the right size to model my childhood clothing and accessories. And... well... she is kind of cute.

But I still don't like her hair.

Poodle perm. Even uglier after 50 years.

Playtime ephemera from the 1950's

In the Big Box o' Stuff mentioned in my previous blog entry I found instructions for two toys.
The first was an ELGO building set that I still remember playing with after almost 60 years. It took hours to assemble buildings from the small red plastic rectangles. ELGO and LEGO made similar products during the 1950's but are not the same company.
Click on each picture to see an enlarged image.


Front and back covers of the instruction booklet.

The Toni doll was introduced in the early 1950's, licensed to the Ideal toy company by Gillette, manufacturer of Toni home permanents. She came with a complete perm kit including harmless sugar-water setting solution and tiny plastic rollers. I still have my Toni doll and the "Play Wave" directions but the accessories disappeared long ago.

I found several boxes of 1950's paper dolls stored on a high closet shelf and forgotten for decades. Rediscovering these old reminders of my childhood was a nostalgic delight.

To me it was a boring task to cut out clothes using a dull pair of metal scissors with rounded safety tips. The results were ragged, to say the least. Small fold-over tabs that were supposed to hold the clothing in place on the doll didn't work well at all. Someone came up with a clever solution...

This is an early version of Milton Bradley's Magic Mary series of paper dolls. Her pre-cut clothes magically! stayed in place without the usual fold-over tabs. A small, flat piece of metal taped to each piece of clothing clung to a magnet embedded in the doll. Over time the tape has stained some of the clothes.

My Sweetie Doll, Honey, was produced by the Whitman Publishing Company. Similar Sweeties named Sugar and Ginger have been sold on Ebay but I haven't been able to find any further information about the dolls. Unfortunately most of Honey's clothes are gone.

I LOVE the vintage clothing styles in this 1950's bridal party set. There were so many different pieces I never finished cutting them out.
  *** I've had a series of silly mishaps while trying to photograph this and will add pictures later. Here's an example of what happened. The problem may not be immediately apparent... I used a terrible background.