Jump to content

v1 Cobra Commander Prototype


cobrasaboteur

Recommended Posts

CS, i just re-read this thread and skipped the bickering parts.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong at any point. The figure is cast in blue plastic, with the symbol and legstripe handpainted on, and it looks like the silver mask was too.

 

Looks like some one, probably the seller repainted it to look like the catalog page youre looking at, or even using Tazzs as a guide.

 

Did you read the post I made about people selling fake PDD figures in lots and not mentioning that they were included.

 

Dishonest sellers hoping that a buy with knowledge would bid and send the price skyrocketing which was happened as least 3 times that I know of. AND the guy that claimed he had a 2nd Ron Connor mystery figure until he was proven to be a hoaxtser, then claimed it was all a joke?

 

I think all signs point to it being a custom over any type of pre-production figure, which is obviously isn't since it uses production peices.

 

Its a custom...a bad one. Its a shame what base figure was used. I've been customizing since 1990...that is an area I would call myself an expert in.

 

I guarantee you I can make this exact same figure, exactly as shown with all its flaws, straight arms and all.

 

In closing, I'm not trying to make you feel bad or anything or come off as a jerk. From the evidence provided here from all sides and the pics shown, there isn't much that proves this isn't the uncommon MM Commander figure with a paintjob.

 

You know me from this board, I've been here for years and have nothing to gain or lose from this post.

 

So, take that as you will and I think that if you did try to sell this to anyone at a JoeCon you'd be accused of trying to sell a custom as a rarity -not that you've mentioned any intent to sell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 261
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

just to note the seller he got it from i trust implicitly. i dont think he did it if it was a custom.

 

But you know its not uncommon.

 

As I've said , I've seen PDD customs slipped into large lots of figures, and not advertised. This is a [bad] custom, plain and simple. If the guys like Shane and Rogers points aren't being taken with thier collective experience then theres absolutely nothing I can say to add to this.

 

I'm working on some customs for people this week. I really think I'm gonna make this figure just to show how easily it can be done.

 

Then I'll sell it on eBay and say I don't remember where I got it. Just kidding :)

 

"For starters, for the figure to have even gotten from the 2:1 hardcopy stage to the 1:1 first shot stage, i can assure you, the handpainted details that would be required for a photo sample would have to be MUCH sharper than that. A true handpainted first shot example, like you're claiming this to be, would have an immaculate paint job and it wouldn't like it was painted by a 4 year old, which yours does."

 

this bothered me.

have you ever tried to paint the cobra symbol? Probably not. It took me 8 tries to get it that good, and I can paint a realistic looking eye on any 3 1/4 inch figure.

it was the 80s man, if you think they are going to have all their production figures beautiful works of art, then you are as avid of a collector as you may think.

That was rude and insulting to compare that painting to a four year old, yes, it could have been better, but to insult paint jobs on such a great line of figures, in the midst of people that COLLECT them, that was not a good idea.

 

 

cobrasabateur, I think it could very well be a prototype. good job on the find.

 

 

what is this guy here saying....it took me 8 tries to get it that good? Is this the seller?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the whole argument can be compared to a McDonalds executive walking into a Burger King and telling the manager how his burgers are made at the slaughterhouse. Sure the executive may be completely right, or he could be completely wrong, but the manager has no idea who he is. So why should he take this guys word for it?

 

It's easy to forget that the Internet is made up of several different communities, and not just one big one. So where a reputation may be well known on one board, or even several, that doesn't mean that the same reputation is universal. And for that I personally apologize. I have been a member of this board for a few years, but I don't think I've ever previously posted here. So you guys don't know me, and have little reason to consider my statements as anymore valid than anyone else that decides to post out of the blue.

 

So allow me to introduce myself. I've been collecting G.I. Joe seriously since 1982. I had my first international items around 1987 or so, and personally saw my first prototypes in 1994. Though it took a few more years before I actually owned any. I've attended several conventions, and on every occasion I've had the chance to I spoken at length with not only Hasbro employee's, but employee's of any toy company I could come in contact with. I have an art/sculpture degree with the intention of working for a toy company, but fate has put me into the prosthetics manufacturing business instead. So I know at least a little about the production side of things. I also collect books on toy's and read them all cover to cover. Not to mention all of the toys magazines and their articles on toy production. I seek out this information and consume it.

 

Now back to the figure itself. I think it's safe to say that we have the 100% legitimate prototype option completely off the table.

 

As for myself, the crotch variation, the lack of production stamps, the T-hook, and the rivet's are completely unimportant. At best they place the figure in a specific part of the production run and nothing else. If you look at enough figures throughout the line, and even in other line's these types of running changes occur all the time, and rarely have any baring on the value of the figure. Mostly because they are primarily inside of the figure, and there for have no baring on the look of the figure. So those to are off the table.

 

If I'm not mistaken, all that is left is the paint job, specifically the Cobra, and it's possible origins.

 

First, let me address the 1982 pictures. Let's assume for a moment that the Cobra Commanders in question are all hand painted first shot's and not resin hard copies. I'm not saying that they are, or that they are not, just offering the possibility. My guess, based on the picture's and personal knowledge is that there where approximately hand painted Cobra Commander figures in 1982. That would be 1 for Hasbro's advertising, 1 for Sears, 1 for JC Pennies, and 1 for Wards. Pretty much anyone else that needed photo's for advertising or catalog's would have used Hasbro photo's. Odd's are that there may have only been 2 figures, 1 for Hasbro and 1 for Sears. That's because like Walmart and TRU today, Sears was Hasbro's number 1 account, and their contract with them included the stipulation that Sears would use their own photographs, not photo's provided by Hasbro. The other catalogs for the most part did not have that luxury.

 

So, since we don't really seem to have a clear photo from a Wards of JC Pennies catalog, lets look at the 2 that are left. From what I can see in all of the Sears photo's neither the Tazzman, nor the Cobra Saboteur figures remotely match that particular figure. The Sears figure looks to have a smaller, lower and more twisted logo. So as far as these 2 figures are concerned, the Sears photo sample is off the table.

 

Now I know this statement will be widely dismissed, but it does come from my art background. Everyone who's reading this, do me a favor. Pick up a pencil and draw a quick circle on a piece of paper. Don't try to be neat about it, just draw one. Odd's are that if your right handed, the left side of that circle is low, and the right side is high. By the same token, if your left handed the right side will be the low side. Now relate this to a paint brush. With that same stroke the Cobra symbol will be wider at those low and high points. That relates very well to what we are seeing in each of the pictures. Now if I had to guess, and we knew for a fact that either Tazzman's figure, or CS's figure was indeed the Hasbro figure, then Tazzman's would more likely be the original. They both appear to me to have the left handed stroke's while CS's figure has a higher right side indicating right had stroke. Now that is far from proof, that is just my observation. Between the 3 TM's and Hasbro's look more similar to me. Especially when you compare the point where the right side hood connects to the head. The one on CS's figure is much higher than the other 2.

 

Next I want to address the idea that this could be an early production variation. Lets put aside the differences noted in the figures for now, and for arguments sake, lets say they are somehow identical for the moment. First let me clarify the 2 possible paint applications used on figures. A paint mask is a hole cut into a steel plate that is molded to fit over a figure. Paint is sprayed trough the hole giving the final look. This method is most often used on area's that are raised or lowered from the surface to the figure providing a nice sharp stopping point for the paint. The other method is the tampo. This is a very different process, and the process generally used for logo's especially on relatively flat surfaces. At least that's the case today, in 1982 the case may have been different. In this version, a steel tube has the logo cut into the end of it and it is used like an extruder for paint. This interacts with a small rubber pad. The steel tube stands upright, and paint is very slowly feed into it so that it is always sitting right at the surface of the tube. The tampo brings the rubber pad down onto the tube picking up just the right amount of paint for 1 logo and then stamps that logo on to whatever surface is required.

With either method human error can occur. But it is only likely that a logo would be placed wrong, ie sideways, or upside down, or smudged in some way. It would be impossible for either method to start out with a standard Cobra logo and have these results.

The other point that I want to make is that all aspects of production are VERY expensive. For Hasbro to give the go ahead on making a tampo, or a paint mask that sloppy for temporary use would be cost prohibitive. We are talking about several thousand dollars to create each of these items. So they would only give the go ahead on a nice logo, nothing like these. On the other end of the scale, if you decided to have your Chinese labor force hand paint the first few 100 figures, your just asking for problems. No 2 would be alike, and the labor alone, even at Chinese factory prices would move you out of profitability. The total cost on producing each G.I. Joe figure very low when you take the total production run into account. And trust me the bean counters took EVERYTHING into account. The reason Snake Eyes was al black was to save paint application costs on the rest of the line. I don't know the exact cost, but I'm sure it was under 50 cents per figure, and another dime or so per package. Then add in shipping cost, advertising, and merchant profit margin. So the costs where very tight. To me that means that these figures being production variations is at least 99% off the table.

 

That brings me to hand painting the figures. If they are hand painted, and I'm 99% certain that they are, there is no way to prove who painted them. It could have been anyone, from a Hasbro employee, to a 4 year old kid, to the kid's 30 year old dad, or even a Chinese factory worker. The point is that there is no certainty when it comes to who painted it. And unfortunately brings us down to faith.

 

Personally I think it's just a remarkable coincidence that these 3 figures (CS's, TM's, and Hasbro's photo sample) look strikingly similar.

 

Take a look at the DeSimone convention Jinx figure. That figure started out as a bunch of fully painted Hasbro mail-order overstock. DeSimone, took them all apart and dumped them in something, paint thinner? Turpentine? I'm not certain exactly what it was, but it took off all the paint, and left the plastic untouched. They repainted 300 or so of them, made a super simple Cobra paint mask, and like magic they had a convention exclusive. I have no problem believing that something similar happened here.

 

As has already been stated though, there is no certainty with out at least having these 2 figures directly compared to each other. For now there is no clear answer because there is no clear evidence for either point of view.

 

Roger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the whole argument can be compared to a McDonalds executive walking into a Burger King and telling the manager how his burgers are made at the slaughterhouse. Sure the executive may be completely right, or he could be completely wrong, but the manager has no idea who he is. So why should he take this guys word for it?

 

It's easy to forget that the Internet is made up of several different communities, and not just one big one. So where a reputation may be well known on one board, or even several, that doesn't mean that the same reputation is universal. And for that I personally apologize. I have been a member of this board for a few years, but I don't think I've ever previously posted here. So you guys don't know me, and have little reason to consider my statements as anymore valid than anyone else that decides to post out of the blue.

 

So allow me to introduce myself. I've been collecting G.I. Joe seriously since 1982. I had my first international items around 1987 or so, and personally saw my first prototypes in 1994. Though it took a few more years before I actually owned any. I've attended several conventions, and on every occasion I've had the chance to I spoken at length with not only Hasbro employee's, but employee's of any toy company I could come in contact with. I have an art/sculpture degree with the intention of working for a toy company, but fate has put me into the prosthetics manufacturing business instead. So I know at least a little about the production side of things. I also collect books on toy's and read them all cover to cover. Not to mention all of the toys magazines and their articles on toy production. I seek out this information and consume it.

 

Now back to the figure itself. I think it's safe to say that we have the 100% legitimate prototype option completely off the table.

 

As for myself, the crotch variation, the lack of production stamps, the T-hook, and the rivet's are completely unimportant. At best they place the figure in a specific part of the production run and nothing else. If you look at enough figures throughout the line, and even in other line's these types of running changes occur all the time, and rarely have any baring on the value of the figure. Mostly because they are primarily inside of the figure, and there for have no baring on the look of the figure. So those to are off the table.

 

If I'm not mistaken, all that is left is the paint job, specifically the Cobra, and it's possible origins.

 

First, let me address the 1982 pictures. Let's assume for a moment that the Cobra Commanders in question are all hand painted first shot's and not resin hard copies. I'm not saying that they are, or that they are not, just offering the possibility. My guess, based on the picture's and personal knowledge is that there where approximately hand painted Cobra Commander figures in 1982. That would be 1 for Hasbro's advertising, 1 for Sears, 1 for JC Pennies, and 1 for Wards. Pretty much anyone else that needed photo's for advertising or catalog's would have used Hasbro photo's. Odd's are that there may have only been 2 figures, 1 for Hasbro and 1 for Sears. That's because like Walmart and TRU today, Sears was Hasbro's number 1 account, and their contract with them included the stipulation that Sears would use their own photographs, not photo's provided by Hasbro. The other catalogs for the most part did not have that luxury.

 

So, since we don't really seem to have a clear photo from a Wards of JC Pennies catalog, lets look at the 2 that are left. From what I can see in all of the Sears photo's neither the Tazzman, nor the Cobra Saboteur figures remotely match that particular figure. The Sears figure looks to have a smaller, lower and more twisted logo. So as far as these 2 figures are concerned, the Sears photo sample is off the table.

 

Now I know this statement will be widely dismissed, but it does come from my art background. Everyone who's reading this, do me a favor. Pick up a pencil and draw a quick circle on a piece of paper. Don't try to be neat about it, just draw one. Odd's are that if your right handed, the left side of that circle is low, and the right side is high. By the same token, if your left handed the right side will be the low side. Now relate this to a paint brush. With that same stroke the Cobra symbol will be wider at those low and high points. That relates very well to what we are seeing in each of the pictures. Now if I had to guess, and we knew for a fact that either Tazzman's figure, or CS's figure was indeed the Hasbro figure, then Tazzman's would more likely be the original. They both appear to me to have the left handed stroke's while CS's figure has a higher right side indicating right had stroke. Now that is far from proof, that is just my observation. Between the 3 TM's and Hasbro's look more similar to me. Especially when you compare the point where the right side hood connects to the head. The one on CS's figure is much higher than the other 2.

 

Next I want to address the idea that this could be an early production variation. Lets put aside the differences noted in the figures for now, and for arguments sake, lets say they are somehow identical for the moment. First let me clarify the 2 possible paint applications used on figures. A paint mask is a hole cut into a steel plate that is molded to fit over a figure. Paint is sprayed trough the hole giving the final look. This method is most often used on area's that are raised or lowered from the surface to the figure providing a nice sharp stopping point for the paint. The other method is the tampo. This is a very different process, and the process generally used for logo's especially on relatively flat surfaces. At least that's the case today, in 1982 the case may have been different. In this version, a steel tube has the logo cut into the end of it and it is used like an extruder for paint. This interacts with a small rubber pad. The steel tube stands upright, and paint is very slowly feed into it so that it is always sitting right at the surface of the tube. The tampo brings the rubber pad down onto the tube picking up just the right amount of paint for 1 logo and then stamps that logo on to whatever surface is required.

With either method human error can occur. But it is only likely that a logo would be placed wrong, ie sideways, or upside down, or smudged in some way. It would be impossible for either method to start out with a standard Cobra logo and have these results.

The other point that I want to make is that all aspects of production are VERY expensive. For Hasbro to give the go ahead on making a tampo, or a paint mask that sloppy for temporary use would be cost prohibitive. We are talking about several thousand dollars to create each of these items. So they would only give the go ahead on a nice logo, nothing like these. On the other end of the scale, if you decided to have your Chinese labor force hand paint the first few 100 figures, your just asking for problems. No 2 would be alike, and the labor alone, even at Chinese factory prices would move you out of profitability. The total cost on producing each G.I. Joe figure very low when you take the total production run into account. And trust me the bean counters took EVERYTHING into account. The reason Snake Eyes was al black was to save paint application costs on the rest of the line. I don't know the exact cost, but I'm sure it was under 50 cents per figure, and another dime or so per package. Then add in shipping cost, advertising, and merchant profit margin. So the costs where very tight. To me that means that these figures being production variations is at least 99% off the table.

 

That brings me to hand painting the figures. If they are hand painted, and I'm 99% certain that they are, there is no way to prove who painted them. It could have been anyone, from a Hasbro employee, to a 4 year old kid, to the kid's 30 year old dad, or even a Chinese factory worker. The point is that there is no certainty when it comes to who painted it. And unfortunately brings us down to faith.

 

Personally I think it's just a remarkable coincidence that these 3 figures (CS's, TM's, and Hasbro's photo sample) look strikingly similar.

 

Take a look at the DeSimone convention Jinx figure. That figure started out as a bunch of fully painted Hasbro mail-order overstock. DeSimone, took them all apart and dumped them in something, paint thinner? Turpentine? I'm not certain exactly what it was, but it took off all the paint, and left the plastic untouched. They repainted 300 or so of them, made a super simple Cobra paint mask, and like magic they had a convention exclusive. I have no problem believing that something similar happened here.

 

As has already been stated though, there is no certainty with out at least having these 2 figures directly compared to each other. For now there is no clear answer because there is no clear evidence for either point of view.

 

Roger

 

 

Well put sir!

I couldnt agree more. I think youve taken the whole thread and summarized a great conclusion. Over the length of 8 pages there were many points and counterpoints.

 

There is little left here to discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thought I would throw this out there...

 

It was Definately not an early mail away item, because when Hasbro first made the CC available for mail order, they would send a "sorry its taking so long" notice out first that had a picture to color in of the original Gijoe mobile strike team. (see link below for pics)

 

http://home-and-garden.webshots.com/photo/...046357083wzaCfX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent post Roger. I think you summarized things very well!

 

back on topic- if this is what the current theory says it might be, a production sample or sales sample etc. it would technically make this figure a "prototype figure" by definition.

 

This is true. *IF* it were a salesman sample, etc it would be considered a prototype. But as this thread has determined, we're a long way from determining that to be the case and due to the lack of provenance, most likely won't ever be able to conclusively prove it - much like that Scarlett i found in Mexico.

 

if this was a handpainted sample (the current theory), then that would suggest that it was a predecessor to the v1 cobra commanders and the model (along with the resin hardcopy) to which the v1 cc's were painted.

 

I wouldn't be so quick to say it's the current theory. It's A theory, presented by one person. There are plenty of others here who have made very vaild points for it being a homemade refurbishing job.

 

shane- the two symbols slight difference in shape does not mean anything if they were handpainted, as this can be attributed to human error. The things they do have in common show that they must be related, as i mentioned in another post, because there was no detail for two unrelated kids to look at.

 

IMO, the things that the two logos have in common are common things related to the basic design of the original Cobra logo itself. It's irresponsible to state that just because they have *some* similar features that they *have* to be related.

 

shane, as did others, cleared up the fact that this was not resin, so therefore could not be a very early prototype (when i first posted this thread i did not know that ALL picture samples had to be resin, *i still dont know how they can know that for a fact especially if more samples were made that didnt make it to any photos*

 

I actually didn't say that "ALL picture samples had to be resin". I said in my second post:

 

"Many of the items photographed by Hasbro for use in their internal publications, inserts, packaging, etc were often hardcopies (resin) or first shots (plastic)."

 

They were also often production figures from the previous year which were carried over into the following years new figure assortments. However, in dealing with the images from the 1982 catalogue and the carrying case, those figures are all hardcopies.

 

I just don't want people thinking that only hardcopies were ever used for photography purposes because that's not the case. Like said, hardcopies, first shots and even production figures were used but hardcopies are often seen, especially in early photography, because the production examples weren't ready.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has to be some relation between mine and tazzzman's. period. Like i said before...close to IMpossible that two unrelated kids made up these figures from a picture with NO detail whatsoever. I would also guess that there is no variation in paint color if the figures were looked at in the same light.

 

Also, like bigfan said, this seller would not have painted this figure, and the seller says he is the original owner.

 

I took very close up pictures of the symbol like bigfan and zombieguide wanted...if they want i can post them, but i would like to know what it will prove.

 

Lets say i send this figure to bigfan...he looks at it and says that it was not a custom...then what? are we going to need to send it around to every collector in the us?

 

I will say it again, we are really waiting on details from tazzzmans figure...if it has the painted stripe (which isnt fully visible from any of the pictures) and other similarities it will shed more light on this.

 

The stamps, rivets, crotch only are relevant because they are somewhat rare. This means that if tazzzman's figure has these variations, then it just increases the likelyhood of these figures being related.

 

Like i said before, if we send these two figures to someone, they see that the same paint was used, their is no sign of prior paint job, etc...then what??

 

It's irresponsible to state that just because they have *some* similar features that they *have* to be related.

The two figures are as identical as a handpainted job would expect. They have not *some* similar features, but most similar features. And, like previously mentioned, it is HIGHLY unlikely two unrelated kids would paint these symbols only using the template of the undetailed pamphlets. Both me and tazzzman describe the symbol paint to be similar as well.

 

Its very easy to just write these figures off as customs, but when the clues are looked at, and the figures are compared, there just is no way.

 

 

-saboteur

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why if they are repainted old figures, it would have to be by a kid. Did you consider that some guy is repainting these old figures and pawning them off on people, they get around and end up in different people's hands. Your's and Tazz's were probably painted by the same guy but entered your collections thru different channels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff- the person i got this from said he had it since he was a kid... Also, one reason the rivet/crotch/stamp is relevant is because they are somewhat rare variations and it is even more unlikely that these figures would both be made from these variant figures. If his figure does not have the variant crotch/lack of date stamps then your theory is more likely, however we already know that he does have one of the credentials, the rivets, so it is highly likely that his is the pre-changing run figure. A forger doing this is HIGHLy unlikely, especially with the background of the figures...that theory, therefore, is very farfetched.

 

-saboteur

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, no offence, but it's quite clear you're very selective in what information your applying to your reasoning and it's also clear that there's just going to be no convincing you so i'm not even sure why we're bothering anymore. You're already repeating information incorrectly to make your case which is VERY frustrating.

 

There has to be some relation between mine and tazzzman's. period. Like i said before...close to IMpossible that two unrelated kids made up these figures from a picture with NO detail whatsoever. I would also guess that there is no variation in paint color if the figures were looked at in the same light.

 

OK, here's a simple reasoning *IF* that were the case - Testor's Red. How many kids in the US and Canada do you think had a bottle of that lying around? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? I'm not saying it is Testor's paint, i have no way of making that distinction, but there could be a lot of reasons for a colour match, IF they even match at all.

 

Also, like bigfan said, this seller would not have painted this figure, and the seller says he is the original owner.

 

Again, this is false. It's been determined by two people, Curt included, that the seller is a known collector and dealer who has no recollection of where he got it from. He is not the original owner.

 

Lets say i send this figure to bigfan...he looks at it and says that it was not a custom...then what? are we going to need to send it around to every collector in the us?

 

I don't think so. I think we can trust Curt to take some seriously detailed photos of this piece and look at it objectively. But as i said, both figures need to be in hand before any conclusions can be looked at.

 

Its very easy to just write these figures off as customs, but when the clues are looked at, and the figures are compared, there just is no way.

 

There are plenty of ways, Mike. Several of us have pointed them out to you. You just refuse to see it. And as i said a few times in this post, i can understand that you're excited and you think this could be something new. But i think you're letting that cloud your reasoning. There's no point in even continuing this debate anymore, until new pictures of Tazzman's surface or both figures are in someone's hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, so lets say i send the figure to curt and he decides its not custom...then what.

 

I stick to my comment 100% that there just isnt a logical way that these figures were "coincidentally as identical as it gets in terms of a hand paint job" and still just customs done by unrelated kids...the paint just isnt like that, and there is too much in common.

 

I would like this to get a second on hand opinion...but like i said before, i would like to wait on tazzzmans figure.

 

-saboteur

 

OK, here's a simple reasoning *IF* that were the case - Testor's Red. How many kids in the US and Canada do you think had a bottle of that lying around? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? I'm not saying it is Testor's paint, i have no way of making that distinction, but there could be a lot of reasons for a colour match, IF they even match at all.

 

here would be the sequence of events that would have to occur for this to happen

 

1) two boys buy the sears set/missile hq set.

 

2) both of them buy the sets VERY early in the sets' production and get the pre running change cobra commanders

 

3) both kids play with their cc's until the symbol wears off enough to want to redo the symbol

 

4) both kids use paint thinner/turpentine/nail polish remover(well, not nail polish remover because the plastic melts) and completely strip the paint from both of their figures.

 

5) both kids happen to also have the carrying case or a pamphlet with the prototype cobra commander on it.

 

6) both kids decide to completely repaint the black parts on their figures

 

7) both kids decide to repaint the stripe on the side of the leg thicker than the one previous to it (even though this isnt really shown in the preprod pics so they would just be doing it for fun)

 

8) both kids use the same paint...lets say they both have a bottle of testors red lying around also the same blue for the rivets, and a bottle of black.(the symbol isnt testors red btw, but i understand what shane is trying to say)

 

9)both kids can not see ANY detail on the pamphlet/case, so they pretty much just guess, and miraculously, the two come out VERY similar. the mouth, fangs, scales, and outside curves are both painted in exactly the same style.

 

10) both kids decide to paint all four rivets, even though in the preprod pics there are only two shown painted.

 

just wanted to throw a list out of what would have been the sequence of events for these to be customs. This is if tazzzmans is the same as mine, which he has said he thinks is. All we know now is the handpaint, the rivets, and the symbol.

 

those are the parallel events that would of had to have occurred for these to be customs, if anyone can dispute that, please let me know why.

 

-saboteur

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has to be some relation between mine and tazzzman's. period. -saboteur

 

But unfortunately is may not be in the positive way you are insisting. Period.

 

You keep on insinuating that because TWO of these odd CC symbols have shown up, that there MUST be some sort of authentic/Hasbro issued/produced/authorized etc. connection.

 

So far...there has been NOTHING uncovered that points to this. Nothing at all. The only thing that we see is some photos of a similar (but very different in it's size and shape) CC with this odd-shaped logo from the old Hasbro catalogues.

 

That so far is the ONLY thing that we know is Hasbro related and authentic.

 

Next we have two CC figures uncovered which show a similar logo (but again...different in size and shape) appear in the hands of two collectors who both received them through Ebay.

 

So...that's the connection so far, Sabateur. Similar (but noticeably different) logos on two CC's, owned by two collectors, puchased on Ebay.

 

Now, let's look at the time line of the two figure's appearance to the public:

 

Tazzman's: He first made it public Feb. 18, 2004. It was in this thread.

 

http://forums.toynewsi.com/index.php?showtopic=1957192

 

Sabateur's: Won on Ebay Nov. 26, 2006. Posted by you on Nov. 28, 2006 in this very thread.

 

Now, that's almost TWO FULL YEARS that a photo of this "variant" and "rare" logo was posted on Tazzman's thread on TNI.

 

In that time, any customizer could have very easily copied this odd logo (to the best of their ability). I do not believe the seller of Sabateur's did this, as he seems like a respectable seller. But he himselft said he didn't know where he got it from and it was perhaps obtained in one of his purchases of lots.

 

Basically in order for you Sabateur to approach this reasonably, you've got to be open to the idea of the facts that this item was viewable for two years. Anyone could have copied it. And the logos are similar, but not the same at all.

 

Does that mean it's absolutely a custom figure? No! It could be an odd Hasbro item. What...even the experts don't know for sure (which isn't a good sign). ANd there's a heck of alot of supposition. Well, let's suppose it's this! Or that!. It's great to ask questions and propose ideas, but not while turning a blind eye to any more obvious possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, so lets say i send the figure to curt and he decides its not custom...then what.

 

If Curt has both figures in hand and decides that they are in fact too similar to overlook, then we do what's always been done with these types of things. We conduct more research to try to find out more information. We talk to other collectors and possibly even people at Hasbro who *might* have some recollection of these. We wait for more to turn up to compare them to. We basically do as much as we can while we wait for more info.

 

But bear in mind, this could take years.

 

In that time, as i said many posts ago, you'll have in your collection a conversation starter. A neat piece that, at the very least, now, has some hobby history to it after this thread. It's something you can tell this story about, you can theorize about but you can't make hard facts about.

 

As of now, it's not something that can be archived because it has no real history. And after this thread, we're going to have to be very skeptical of any others that surface. As Zombieguide said, there are a lot of dishonest people in this hobby and if things like Ron's grey figure and PDDs are faked, then you can bet, if word spreads on this, we're going to see fakes of it as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that this thread has taken on a whole different life since my last post and since the last time I read it, so I'm not even sure if my pics are relevant or needed anymore. Either way, here is a quick image of the front torso and the head:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/bigklop/DSCF0773.jpg

 

I'm not sure why the head looks 'streaked' (maybe the flash plus the light blue background?) but again as you can see there are no stamps on the torso or the head. I can get more/better images later if needed.

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, that's almost TWO FULL YEARS that a photo of this "variant" and "rare" logo was posted on Tazzman's thread on TNI.

 

In that time, any customizer could have very easily copied this odd logo (to the best of their ability). I do not believe the seller of Sabateur's did this, as he seems like a respectable seller. But he himselft said he didn't know where he got it from and it was perhaps obtained in one of his purchases of lots.

 

that is a VERY good and valid point...and we must assume it is a possibility UNTIl tazzzman posts more about his figure. The only thing that holds it back a little is the crotch/stamps/rivet variation. Tazzzman never mentions them in his post, so a customizer/fraud would have had to picked up one of these rarer (notice i didnt use the term extremely rare or impossible to find) figures and customized it without knowing that it is a vital criteria to this figure.

however, this is a possibility, and right now we do not know if tazzzman's figure has the exact same paint or stripe like mine, which would debunk this theory. A fraud would not know to customize the red stripe because tazzzman did not post a pic of his. But until then, it is a good and valid possibility.

 

-saboteur

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

here would be the sequence of events that would have to occur for this to happen

 

1) two boys buy the sears set/missile hq set.

 

2) both of them buy the sets VERY early in the sets' production and get the pre running change cobra commanders

 

3) both kids play with their cc's until the symbol wears off enough to want to redo the symbol

 

4) both kids use paint thinner/turpentine/nail polish remover(well, not nail polish remover because the plastic melts) and completely strip the paint from both of their figures.

 

5) both kids happen to also have the carrying case or a pamphlet with the prototype cobra commander on it.

 

6) both kids decide to completely repaint the black parts on their figures

 

7) both kids decide to repaint the stripe on the side of the leg thicker than the one previous to it (even though this isnt really shown in the preprod pics so they would just be doing it for fun)

 

8) both kids use the same paint...lets say they both have a bottle of testors red lying around also the same blue for the rivets, and a bottle of black.(the symbol isnt testors red btw, but i understand what shane is trying to say)

 

9)both kids can not see ANY detail on the pamphlet/case, so they pretty much just guess, and miraculously, the two come out VERY similar. the mouth, fangs, scales, and outside curves are both painted in exactly the same style.

 

10) both kids decide to paint all four rivets, even though in the preprod pics there are only two shown painted.

 

those are the parallel events that would of had to have occurred for these to be customs, if anyone can dispute that, please let me know why.

 

-saboteur

 

That could be a sequence of events. But there could be many others. You can't make matter-of-facts claims when hypothosizing. Let's break down your points one by one.

 

1) Set of which THOUSANDS were made, despite their current rare status in the hobby.

 

2) Of which there were still thousands made.

 

3) Which happened to CCs or any other figure. I don't think anyone can argue that decals wear off and kids repainted them.

 

4) The decals could just as easily have worn off in regular play. *If*, and that's a BIG if, these were early figures, then perhaps the logos that were applied were much more fragile, especially if they were MM logos.

 

5) I still don't think that has any bearing on this and i'll cover why in point 9.

 

6) If the paint wear was bad and they were repainting the figure, then why would it be unlikely for them to repaint the black as well?

 

7) See point 6. The red stripes would be thicker because a kid repainted it and doesn't care if it exactly matched the old stripe, much like the logo he repainted.

 

8) But at this point we don't know if the paint is the same.

 

9) They come out similar because that's just how the cobra logo looks. There are a lot of people who have posted in this thread who don't think the logos are even close to matching. It's a matter of conjecture.

 

10) See point 6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beating a dead horse...

 

The figure was posted and this thread was started to get a 'second opinion'. A second, third, fourth and I think fifth opinion has been given.

 

I think that if there are any 'experts' in this area, theyre already here.

 

If we don't want to listen and value thier opinion, then why continue to beat this horse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm not trying to prove anything by listing that list, that's why your comments about

1)

2)

3)

6)

and others are unnecessary. All i was doing is listing what would of had to have happened.thats it. I understand that wear on cobra commanders are common, that it is possible for two kids to buy that same set, etc...i had to put it in the list, so i dont really see what you are disputing.

 

-saboteur

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, so lets say i send the figure to curt and he decides its not custom...then what.

 

I stick to my comment 100% that there just isnt a logical way that these figures were "coincidentally as identical as it gets in terms of a hand paint job" and still just customs done by unrelated kids...the paint just isnt like that, and there is too much in common.

 

I would like this to get a second on hand opinion...but like i said before, i would like to wait on tazzzmans figure.

 

-saboteur

 

OK, here's a simple reasoning *IF* that were the case - Testor's Red. How many kids in the US and Canada do you think had a bottle of that lying around? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? I'm not saying it is Testor's paint, i have no way of making that distinction, but there could be a lot of reasons for a colour match, IF they even match at all.

 

ok i am going point by point on this one:

 

 

 

here would be the sequence of events that would have to occur for this to happen

 

1) two boys buy the sears set/missile hq set.

 

true..this actually adds weight to what you will ask later

 

 

 

2) both of them buy the sets VERY early in the sets' production and get the pre running change cobra commanders

 

 

again an obvious must but not unlikely. back then sears was the store for families so this is not a stretch

 

 

 

3) both kids play with their cc's until the symbol wears off enough to want to redo the symbol

 

easily done with those first symbols

 

 

 

4) both kids use paint thinner/turpentine/nail polish remover(well, not nail polish remover because the plastic melts) and completely strip the paint from both of their figures.

 

again this could be because of various reasons. maybe they at first didnt like the red or maybe one didnt like the red and the other just plain wore his out

 

 

 

5) both kids happen to also have the carrying case or a pamphlet with the prototype cobra commander on it.

 

here is the hitch. the sears hq box has a pic with this symbol on it

 

 

 

6) both kids decide to completely repaint the black parts on their figures

 

easily done

 

 

7) both kids decide to repaint the stripe on the side of the leg thicker than the one previous to it (even though this isnt really shown in the preprod pics so they would just be doing it for fun)

 

hand painting a stripe with a brush will cause a wider stripe.

 

 

8) both kids use the same paint...lets say they both have a bottle of testors red lying around also the same blue for the rivets, and a bottle of black.(the symbol isnt testors red btw, but i understand what shane is trying to say)

 

back in the 80's car kits and models were huge. both having the same paint would be very easy

 

 

 

9)both kids can not see ANY detail on the pamphlet/case, so they pretty much just guess, and miraculously, the two come out VERY similar. the mouth, fangs, scales, and outside curves are both painted in exactly the same style.

 

again back of the missile hq box shows it.

 

 

 

10) both kids decide to paint all four rivets, even though in the preprod pics there are only two shown painted.

 

 

i am leaning towards the rivets were painted at production but obviously did not stay on very well

 

 

 

 

 

now taken as a whole the events would not have been as far fetched as you say.

 

i am not saying this is a custom until i see it.

 

but there are monstrous glaring holes in the theory of a sales sample or whatnot

 

1. the uniqueness of the rivets and stamps and crotch actually hurt the cause here because a normal stamped mickey cc has the same attributes. so a running symbol change or early variant logo is out

 

2. it isnt so far to stretch for 2 seperate kids to painrt this figure. and even further this could have been the same kid.

 

buys the 3 figure set aND THE missile hq and then trashes or modifies both figures.

 

3. without provenance there will never be a solid answer.

 

again we need this in the hands of someone who has seen other figures of unique characteristics to be able to really tell where we go from here.

 

having both is a must as well for comparison of brush strokes and symbol size.

 

there are striking similarities but that is not to say they confirm a rare or unique item.

 

coincidence is only that until proof shows otherwise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

like i said, i wasnt trying to prove anything by posting that list, just pointing out what probably would have happened had it been kids.

 

curt- what does the picture on the box look like??? is the symbol decipherable?

 

also

1. the uniqueness of the rivets and stamps and crotch actually hurt the cause here because a normal stamped mickey cc has the same attributes. so a running symbol change or early variant logo is out

 

the figure that had the variant crotch and silver rivets wasnt a normal stamped mickey cc, it did not have any f1 stamps. the other mickey mouse ccs have stamps and have blue rivets and the regular crotch.

 

edit: does anyone have better pics of the missile command box?? The pic on the back has the normal symbol and the one on the front i cannot even tell if you can see the symbol.

-saboteur

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, I find my CC and here are the pics, they are big so I will take them down when CS sees them. I did notice that on my figure, there were 0 markings/stamps (such as 1F, F etc.) in the inside torso, inside legs and on my other CC's the inside of the torso had a whole, this one that I took pictures of does not have a whole inside. and still to this day I am looking for a right straight arm lol, also this auction did not come with a torso.

 

enjoy :)

 

http://users.adelphia.net/~tazz436/images/cobrainparts.jpg

 

http://users.adelphia.net/~tazz436/images/...torsoinside.jpg

 

http://users.adelphia.net/~tazz436/images/...rsoexterior.jpg

 

http://users.adelphia.net/~tazz436/images/cobraarms.jpg

 

 

CS, please let me know when you see these so I can remove them.

 

****

edit, CS will be posting the pics at a smaller size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tazzzman's Goofy Cobra Commander:

 

resized1ro1.jpg

 

the enlargened stripe (which WASNT shown in tazzz's original post) identical to mine:

resize2uv4.jpg

 

resize3rj5.jpg

 

resize4we9.jpg

 

My Goofy Cobra Commander:

 

pc010017og6.jpg

 

and...the stripe

pc010014ck7.jpg

 

Thanks for posting Tazzzman!!!! It looks like the stripe and symbol have the same paint as mine!

 

an interesting note: my rivets are almost yellowish if anything. and the black from the belt continues into the inside of the body, just like i mentioned before that happened on mine.

 

-saboteur

Link to comment
Share on other sites

like i said, i wasnt trying to prove anything by posting that list, just pointing out what probably would have happened had it been kids.

 

curt- what does the picture on the box look like??? is the symbol decipherable?

 

also

1. the uniqueness of the rivets and stamps and crotch actually hurt the cause here because a normal stamped mickey cc has the same attributes. so a running symbol change or early variant logo is out

 

the figure that had the variant crotch and silver rivets wasnt a normal stamped mickey cc, it did not have any f1 stamps. the other mickey mouse ccs have stamps and have blue rivets and the regular crotch.

 

edit: does anyone have better pics of the missile command box?? The pic on the back has the normal symbol and the one on the front i cannot even tell if you can see the symbol.

-saboteur

 

 

sorry i meant the sears christmas catalog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Find Action Figures on Ebay

×
×
  • Create New...
Sign Up For The TNI Newsletter And Have The News Delivered To You!


Entertainment News International (ENI) is the #1 popular culture network for adult fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE