#(by backwards i mean the bulgy bit is facing the wrong way) | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

ducktracy · 5 years

Text

vintage toys and appeal

i love my vintage toys. i think they have a lot of personality and character, and it’s also fascinating to see how the standard of toys have evolved. i thought it’d be fun to compare various vintage toys (as in 30s-50s vintage) with toys from now, around 90s-20s (god that’s weird to say).

starting off with my favorite toy, a windup toy from the 30s. they had a whole line of these, sometimes he was a cowboy, or dressed in a suit and top hat, i’ve even seen one of him beating a drum.

what makes it appealing? porky translates well into toys because of how round and circular he is. he has good construction, and toys (especially in the 30s and 40s) took advantage of that. even though his face is kinda smooshed in, he has a solid construction. his body builds up—he has a foundation. parts aren’t just slopped on. not to mention, the aging makes the colors like even nicer, a nice yellow tinge. even though he has a standard expression, it isn’t blank. he isn’t staring off into space. he looks warm and inviting and even playful—they weren’t just like “ehhhh, let’s put his pupils to the side.” the toy maker thought he’d look best with the pupils to the side, and they were right.

here’s a goodie from the 50s, a squeaky toy. very appealing! the proportions are just right. the key for cuteness is to make the head bigger than the body (think of every cute cartoon baby, usually their heads are way bigger than their skinny bodies). the giant bow is another good touch. his cheeks are full and round, and he still has a relatively solid construction. good pose with the hands behind the back AND the legs together. it translates better than normal shoulder-width-apart legs. he’s been slimmed down (though he’d continuously get thinner and thinner as the years wore on), but still has a bit of a potbelly going on. it makes it fun to hold and touch.

so, what about toys today?

here’s a toy from around today. it’s cute, don’t get me wrong—cuter than some of the stuff i’ve seen as i frantically scrolled through my “porky pig toy” google image search. but it certainly feels lumpy, doesn’t it? i know it’s a plush toy, so it’s going to be lumpy, but there can be plush toys that aren’t too lumpy or bulgy. there are worse ones out there, but anyway. he doesn’t feel like he has a foundation. not necessarily discombobulated, but it seems like whoever made him just attached the various parts to him like a mr. potato head instead of stepping back and analyzing the hierarchy of his body. his legs stick out and his arms stick out, and his head looks flimsily attached, like it would flop back if you picked him up. and what is he looking at, his nose? i love my crossed eyes, but this feels like they didn’t know where to put his pupils and just put them to the bottom of his eyes. i think that’s my biggest problem with these toys—i guess all toys have some sort of a vacant stare, but this feels even more aimless and vacant. still cute nonetheless, though.

here’s some more. thay first one is what i was talking about with the squeaky toy’s legs and the arms behind the back—that toy does have the legs together, but it feels like they’re backwards. if you want him to be cutesy and bashful, put the knees together, not apart. instead he looks like he’s lining up in the von trapp family, ready to sing for a bunch of party guests. his head also doesn’t feel very well constructed, and his eyes feel like they’re sliding down his face. he doesn’t have a discernible expression except for happy neutral. that open mouth can’t fool me! do something with the eyebrows! body language! and he’s also really thin. second one, too, with the aimless pupils placed haphazardly towards the bottom. what is he looking at? why is he looking away? i know the vintage toys have him looking away, but he still feels like he’s acknowledging your gaze, somewhat. here it looks like he’s purposefully avoiding you, like he’s hiding something. i do like the subtle line of action, though.

here’s what i mean by toys feeling lumpy. another mr. potato head syndrome. i think the biggest difference between toys 80 years ago and toys now is that there was some form of artistry involved. the people making the toys back then had an eye for graphic design and knew how to translate a character onto a toy. they wanted kids to enjoy them and play with them, they wanted the toys to be FUN. and they were! now these just feel like the equivalent to “here, play with this thing while i watch tv and drink a beer”. i’m sure all of these recent examples were made in a factory somewhere, though, so that’s obviously a big factor.

i do like this one—at least it has some personality, somewhat. but again with the indiscernible expression. his cheeks slightly turn upwards, hinting at a smile buried in there somewhere, but it looks like he’s hesitant to take a bite, like he shouldn’t be doing it. where’s the excitement? anyone who gets to eat a sandwich that big should be happy! make the eyes and eyebrows speak for themselves!

here are a few more vintage goodies. some of the porky toys (well, a lot) looked “off model”, like the second one, but it’s still really appealing. solid construction and good body language, he looks happy and confident. and when’s the last time you’ve seen a porky toy using his design from the mid 30s? and i love the first one. who doesn’t want a porky bank with a log? i can only imagine what it looked like as a brand new toy!

this isn’t to say everything made today is BAD, certainly not. those newer toys are still cute, but they lack personality and confidence. the love for vintage toys also comes from “wow, i’m looking at something from 80 years ago that’s still been preserved. even though i’m not even 20 years old, i’m lucky enough to be looking at these relics from a time way before my own”, but i think there’s still a discernible difference between the two eras.

#long post #analysis #lt

9 notes · View notes