Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="lizjewel, post: 4330469, member: 13874"][USER=965]@judy[/USER] Thank you, Judy, for this summary. For the record, I never once mentioned  monetary worth or collectible value of OP's doll. I did agree with you that it was not a doll that collectors particularly desire, that it definitely was of lower quality. However, the fact that it had sawdust and an older construction led me to believe that it was an earlier doll than from the 1950's, 1960's that was suggested in this thread. Here's another thought that came to me: the head could be a modern replacement as well as the clothing. I have a personal example of this: When I was a child in the late 1940's I was given a very old doll by an old aunt of my dad's. The head was made of thin celluloid. My little sister "borrowed" my doll without my knowledge and took it to the sandbox outside. Some boy there broke the doll's head to be mean to my sister. She came back with the broken doll, crying. I was none too pleased although I was nearing the age when I didn't play with it much. My mother took the doll to a doll "hospital" in town where it got a new head. The new head was smaller, not as pretty as the old one, and made of a hard composite. I never liked it thereafter but my sister did; she got it from me as a forgiveness for having caused it to be broken so all was well. The original doll with its celluloid head dated from the 1920s or so. It had kapoque stuffing I remember, not sawdust. My point with this reminiscence is that even a head can be a later replacement on an old doll. Not because it would add any value to it but because a distraught child liked her doll better than she would a new one. Doll "surgery" was popular in those years because toys/dolls were not as disposable then as they are now.[/QUOTE]

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches