Mystery Monday! Hong Kong cartoon animals

When I thought of this feature, it was obvious I was going to have a lot of potential material to work with. I decided it wouldn't be enough just to have a weird little toy without an identifiable manufacturer (see the nuclear samurai guy). It would have to be something that eluded even my best efforts for a long time. For the comeback post, I decided the one to cover was an odd little set that I have had lying around as long as I can remember. I simply think of these as the Funny Animals. Here's a closeup of the one that I suppose started this misadventure.

This is reasonably clearly a tiger, though the only trace of stripes is a red blotch on the back. I have noticed him now and then, and been moderately impressed by the quality of the sculpt. It's clearly cartoonish but with a good level of detail. I especially like the jowls and the chest patch, which are both sculpted. You the reader should just about be able to see a marking on his haunch. It reads, "Made in Hong Kong" (which for this kind of thing is slightly less unhelpful than "Made on Earth"), and adds, "NO.923". Here's another closeup.

"Who framed thy fearful asymmetry?"

Eventually, I realized that I had a few more creatures lying around that must have been from the same set. What finally started that train of thought long enough to create this post was running across another of these, a wonky broken camel I had loose in a random box. This was the one that clearly had the most painted detail preserved, and something like an expression to boot. When I did think to look for others, I was briefly unsure if I could even find the tiger. As it turned out, the next one that turned out was one I hadn't thought of, a smudgy horse or zebra. Here's a few pics of that pair.

With these two, I had a pattern. They both had the Hong Kong mark and a number. On further examination, I discovered the camel was numbered 907 and the zebra bore 908. It was less fortunately clear that they were cheap even for the toys I usually deal with. One of the camel's legs was obviously broken, and on closer examination I found a fracture in the remaining hind leg. Strangely, it proved easier to get the camel upright than the zebra, which is why the latter ended up on the rock landscape piece. At least one leg is clearly warped. on top of that, there's even less left of the stripes than the photos might indicate, though at least there's unequivocal traces of them. And I can't for the life of me figure out the deal with the mouth. The camel is at least an exaggerated version of a real camel, whereas the zebra looks more like a sea horse than a horse.

After finding these two, I went to a shoebox that's been my main repository of little junky tows for at least the last decade. With some digging, I recovered the tiger and one more I vaguely remembered, a donkey. He's the most (or closest to) realistic of the bunch, and well-preserved enough to have the mouth still painted on. As it turns out, his number is 917. Here's a couple pics of him.

It was only after gathering this group that I tried to investigate online, literally with terms like "cartoon animal toy". Almost disappointingly, I did get enough results to place these. The important thing I found out is that they were part of a Noah's Ark set. When and by whom proved elusive, however. Most accounts said they were made in the 1970s, before my time but in the age range for my older sibling, while a few said the 1960s, less likely unless (as is quite plausible) someone was churning them out for at least 10 years after. Tantalizingly, some held that they were from Arco toys, previously met in connection with the patchisaurs and the Rogun Robots. Alas, my own investigations showed that while Arco had indeed released at least one Noah's Ark toy line, the known specimens were of a very different style. Here at least is a picture of a relatively complete set.

Things started to get heartbreaking when I finally got a good look at the colors on the well-preserved specimens, especially the tiger's stripes. Then I had the really big break: I found an online listing of a good set, complete with the damn boat, represented with pics far better than I have found before or since. The price was good,  and I took enough interest to see if the seller could find a manufacturer or copyright date. 

The answer was no.

I didn’t buy it. Not because I was disappointed, but because knowing a little more was enough. And that’s the end of this story, at least for now. As always, more to follow!