• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

A Strange Photo (Little Girl With Monkey(?) Figure)

The company premises were destroyed by fire in 1934 and by bombing in 1940. It finally ceased trading in the 1960s and the Farnell name was taken over by Merrythought in 1996.

Here’s another pyjama case from the 30’s

1611614704804.jpeg
 
Just a note.... my mobile seems to be deceased (will no longer charge), hence the need for using an older phone which doesn't have a photo editing app and that's why the three above images are raw screenshots! Will try to replace them with much tidier versions later. :)
 
What do you reckon ... Not far off?

I agree - not far off.

The pajama bag hypothesis accounts for what appears to be a seam running down the center of the mystery figure's back. A snapshot of a well-dressed little girl with her figural bag either departing or arriving on a weekend trip makes sense.

I can't find any images of an antique monkey pajama bag that has a tail that long, that un-fuzzy or so obviously of knitted construction.

The facial features - most particularly the lidded / veiled eyes - are more reminiscent of German rather than British manufacturers (e.g., Steiff; Schuco). Based on facial structure and the eye treatment I think the mystery figure is closest to certain rare Schuco offerings (rare within Schuco's product lines and rare for having survived to the present day).

Some of the larger Farnell / Merrythought pajama bag figures are similar in facial structure, but use separate face 'masks' attached to the fuzzy / furry main body. I have a hard time equating these masks with the mystery photo, except for the presence of painted or contoured lines or bands.
 
It looks African to me, some sort of tribal totem, to bring luck and for kiddees to play with. Might have something to do with the original Tinga Tinga Tails that inspired the Cbeebies Tinga Tinga Tails!
 
I would also at a guess say it's a female monkey totem. But not a mother monkey. A young female monkey.
 
True ... The fact that the tail doesn't match the rest of the body material is one of the reasons I suspect it may well be a one-off homemade, craft or custom-made item.

I'd agree. It looks somehow rigid, or semi-rigid to me - like papier-mâché or some sort of canvas fabric around a wire or light timber frame. My gut feeling is that it's a model, rather than a plaything - maybe something designed for a display of some kind. (I've worked in theatre construction, on and off, for many years - and the figure to me just has the look of a 'prop'; but, as I say, that's just a gut feeling.)

I completely get the point that's been made that there can be a certain cultural gap – a dissonance created by the passing of time - which may mean that we simply do not 'get' the figure in the same way; but I think that factor can be overstated, and I’d be wary of straying too far the other way. As I've said before - the past may be a foreign country, but it's not that far away, and they don't always do things that differently.

As a pretty keen museum goer I’ve visited many museums of childhood (including the previously mentioned Pollocks – very well worth an afternoon of anyone’s time if in London), and looking in detail – that is, aside from the very broad-strokes of the monkey likeness - I’ve never seen anything even remotely like the object in that image.

Also, antique toys are very collectible, and there’s a very healthy market for such objects; but similarly, I’ve found nothing even a bit like that thing online. (That comes with the proviso that my knowledge is certainly not exhaustive - but the last year I’ve been doing on and off research into renovating a couple of my dad’s old toys. He was born in 1920, but the family were fairly poor and the items themselves are Victorian/Edwardian hand me downs - including a Burmese tiger puppet gifted by an old soldier, which is not far off as disconcerting as that monkey thing).

It looks African to me, some sort of tribal totem...

I've been thinking in this direction too. I can’t help thinking – factoring in the marking - that it looks more like something that I’d expect to find in an anthropological or cultural museum, rather than a museum of childhood – maybe more Wellcome Collection, or Pitt Rivers, than Pollock’s Toy Museum.

There's another quite big issue for me:

Although I can see potential signs of articulation where the arms join the torso, I can see none at the neck. I can also see no evidence of scrunching that might suggest the head has been forcibly twisted to face the camera - or an indication of how it would be kept in place had this been done. If this is correct, then that would mean that the figure is constructed to have its head turned at a permanent 90 degrees angle, which strikes me as very problematic. I can’t claim an exhaustive search – but if anyone else can find an example of a large stuffed toy or doll type figure with it’s face fixed permanently away from the front of the figure, I’d be interested to see it. This is another reason I think that, if real, this is a fabricated model intended for a fixed position, rather than an actual toy.
 
...I guess I'm basically saying, this is normal photo of the time, of a small girl with a very odd toy. Anything 'off' about the shadows or proportions will almost certainly be due to the retouching, not anything really odd from the actual scene.

I think this is always a potential stumbling block when looking at old photographs. Image manipulation has been part of the process of photography since it was invented - it certainly did not start with Photoshop. A photograph is just a record of light, and the manipulation of that record covers a spectrum from simply making that recording more understandable to the human eye, to outright repainting of the image, or parts of it. Evidence of manipulation is not in itself necessarily evidence of outright fabrication - and this certainly muddies the water when looking at something like the subject of this thread.
 
...the last year I’ve been doing on and off research into renovating a couple of my dad’s old toys...the items themselves are Victorian/Edwardian hand me downs - including a Burmese tiger puppet gifted by an old soldier, which is not far off as disconcerting as that monkey thing...

For those who doubt that last statement:

20210201_084819.jpg
20210201_084831.jpg
20210201_084843.jpg
20210201_085542.jpg


It really doesn't help that he/she can't keep its gob shut, and is missing her/his ears. And I suppose it's worth keeping in mind that this was never intended as a toy - and was supposed to be pretty terrifying.
 
Last edited:
I remember those wrap around monkey puppet - come - pyjama cases from when I was a child . I didn't have one ., but I've seen and played with them before. Must have been a friends/neighbours house .

It's either a vintage toy contemporary to the photo , or shopped on .... Either way nothing paranormal .
 
Comfortably Numb - the second pic is a dead ringer for monkey thing from the pic . Good detective work.
 
Back
Top