(PICS!) Mickey Mouse Commander with blue waist piece? [Archive] - YoJoe.com Forums

View Full Version : (PICS!) Mickey Mouse Commander with blue waist piece?



L'Ombrageux
09-16-2005, 05:49 PM
I have a cobra commander 82 Mickey Mouse here that doesn't have any paint on the waist piece... and I really mean no paint at all (not like it was scrubbed away or something, the figure is in overall C9 condition...).

I tried to check if anybody ever heard of this before. I suppose it could be possible that there was a first version that came with unpainted waistpiece since this is after all one of the first ever joe figures... and they weren't big on the paint apps in the first serie..

Anyone?

danyanda
09-16-2005, 09:16 PM
I'm guessing just a paint error where that piece got missed. You should post some pics.

L'Ombrageux
09-18-2005, 05:38 PM
Well.. that was a safe guess :P

I thought about that one too, but that's why I posted here, anyone else have one of those "factory error" that we could actually call a variation?

Anyway here's an attached pic of the item, I was thinking about selling or trading it lately for a scarce SE piece... but I'm not sure about it.

Patrick A. Riley
09-18-2005, 06:10 PM
Does it have the date stamp and "Made In" markings on the back of waistpiece?

L'Ombrageux
09-18-2005, 06:17 PM
Yep, 1982 Hasbro, made in Hong Kong

Patrick A. Riley
09-18-2005, 06:25 PM
Well then, I guess you should find out if there are any "full" unpainted CC prototypes out there. Maybe someone just swapped waists (don't know why but it's possible)

L'Ombrageux
09-18-2005, 06:46 PM
Well then, I guess you should find out if there are any "full" unpainted CC prototypes out there.

Nah, this mold wasn't used recently in any figure, and it has a 1982 marking... if this was switched from an actual 1981-82 prototype test shot (not that we actually even know some of them exists..)... wow... that would be a stupid move..

Well, I guess it's an 80s factory error then, they forgot to paint the piece.. or the first few figures that went out didn't have a painted waistpiece... but then again, who has a Mickey Mouse Commander here that could add to this discussion? The figure is quite scarce.. there could be 5-10% of the production with a straight blue waist piece and this could be the only one to pop up on these forums I suppose...

danielmd06
09-18-2005, 09:58 PM
Well, I guess it's an 80s factory error then, they forgot to paint the piece.. or the first few figures that went out didn't have a painted waistpiece... but then again, who has a Mickey Mouse Commander here that could add to this discussion? The figure is quite scarce.. there could be 5-10% of the production with a straight blue waist piece and this could be the only one to pop up on these forums I suppose...

I have two Mickey Commanders, two straight-arm second logo Commanders, and three swivel-arm Commanders. All seven have the same waist-piece stamped 1982 Hasbro / Made in Hong Kong in two separate lines on the back. I have never seen or heard of a Mickey Commander with an unpainted waist.

My opinion is that you've got one of two things. (1) Someone was "building" a Mickey Commander and used a separate waistpiece from a different Commander figure. (2) A bona fide Hasbro paint error. I've seen plenty of cardback mistakes and heard of paint mistakes on figures. Why not one more?

I don't want to "burst your bubble," but I think that the first scenario is the simpler and more likely explanation. I also think it highly unlikely that this is a prototype or test shot figure, or that the earliest few Mickey Commanders had unpainted waists. If the second scenario is true, then I still wouldn't consider the figure to have any great value beyond that of a typical Mickey Commander in the same condition.

Caveat: I'm not pretending to be the Mickey Commander expert here. You asked for opinions and that is all I am giving.

L'Ombrageux
09-18-2005, 10:11 PM
I'm not pretending to be the Mickey Commander expert here. You asked for opinions and that is all I am giving.



Sure, that's why I posted here.. I'm not pretending to have a holy grail piece in my hands either.. just checking up if someone else ever saw or heard about this strange piece. Because all the theories so far don't really stand:

1- Someone "build" this Mickey Commander and took the piece from another cobra commander: well which Cobra Commander came with the 1982 stamped unpainted blue piece? If someone is "building" a Mickey commander from a perfect logo torso and CC straight arms, how come he doesn't use an easy to come by standard "painted" Cobra Commander waist piece (straight or swivel.. they're easy enough to come by, and with all the bad logos 1st version CC out there, there must be more than enough waist pieces to spare in the world..). EDIT: Just checked, it would have to be a straight arm waist piece, since swivel are marked 82-83... that kind of throw out the window that theory in the first place, I doubt there's any other CC figure than the Straight arm CC that have this waistpiece...)

2- Torso piece from a prototype: No recent figures used the waist piece of CC 1982, this mold is probably long gone, so to get a prototype test shot piece of this particular piece would mean to have a test shot that is more than 20 years old... kind of insane to think someone would have used this to "rebuild" a Mickey CC...

So basically the most logical possibility to date is a genuine factory error... an unpainted waist piece that bypassed their 80s Quality control... unless there's more than a few out there and we have a genuine variation.

Anyone else?

danielmd06
09-19-2005, 12:07 AM
I rechecked my swivel-arm Cobra Commanders and they all have the date 1982, not 1982-1983.

As to "building" with a blue waist piece? Stranger things have happened, though in rereading it seems less likely to me now.

It would also be logical for the paint to be cleaned off by a collector if there was paint wear (say on the belt buckle) to begin with. Perhaps a collector had the intention of repainting later?

Where did you purchase the Commander from? Could the original owner give any additional information?

L'Ombrageux
09-19-2005, 07:09 AM
I rechecked my swivel-arm Cobra Commanders and they all have the date 1982, not 1982-1983

Really? Could they be rebuilt from straight arms crotch pieces? Even on this site they mention this:


Yojoe.com:
In 1983, swivel arms were added and the date stamp on the figure was changed from "1982" to "82-83".

As for cleaning up the paint.. ouch, have you seen that belt buckle? or even the details under the pouches... it would be next to impossible to clean it up, and believe me, this piece is virgin, not a single possibility of a spot from an old paint, not a scratch from someone trying to remove paint in a hard to reach area, not a mark of abrasion from something strong enough to "melt" paint away from plastic. Would probably have been easier to simply retouch the spots with a matching paint if the paint was so badly damaged (but then again, the mickey logo is perfect, so why wouldn't be the crotch piece if it had paint? and even then, how about grabbing a waist piece from a beat up CC to "rebuild" such a collectible piece?)

I think everyone will agree that is sounds more like a factory error than anything mentionned yet... like you said earlier, this seem to be quite common back in the days (and even today).

msv
09-19-2005, 11:16 AM
I remember seeing the cobra commander you speak of on Ebay. I think it is just a mistake, I have owned a 1982 grand slam figure with an unpaited foot.I replaced it with one that is correct but your figure might actually be better; what does Cobra Commander need two belts anyway? Also I thought it looked good with only one belt so, when I made a custom red Cobra Commander, I gave him only the top belt.

robot_sonic
09-19-2005, 12:10 PM
I used to have a MM CC with a non-painted waist. I sold it a few years ago, though. I heard stories of other people finding them, too. The story was that it was just a missed paint app, though.

CGC
09-19-2005, 04:41 PM
snip...

So basically the most logical possibility to date is a genuine factory error... an unpainted waist piece that bypassed their 80s Quality control... unless there's more than a few out there and we have a genuine variation.

Anyone else?
I think you're probably right about it being a factory error, but I think that would make it a paint app error, not a full variation. robot_sonic said in his post:

I used to have a MM CC with a non-painted waist. I sold it a few years ago, though. I heard stories of other people finding them, too. The story was that it was just a missed paint app, though.
- but that seems to be the only other instance of it so far. I don't know where the line is drawn, what kind of numbers would be needed, but with so few, I think it's an error. If it were a different colored paint app, or different parts painted, I think that a much smaller number would be enough to confirm a variation, but on any fig that simply has a paint app, or a couple of them, missing, seems like an error.

danielmd06
09-25-2005, 12:50 PM
I used to have a MM CC with a non-painted waist. I sold it a few years ago, though. I heard stories of other people finding them, too. The story was that it was just a missed paint app, though.

That is interesting information to add to an intriguing topic. Could the figure(s) possibly be the same one? Are there any other board members who have a Mickey Commander with an unpainted waist piece or who can shed more light on this?

keg_daddy
09-25-2005, 01:28 PM
I have a MM CC sealed in the bag. The waist is painted.

Snake-eyes01
09-30-2005, 09:16 PM
That is interesting information to add to an intriguing topic. Could the figure(s) possibly be the same one? Are there any other board members who have a Mickey Commander with an unpainted waist piece or who can shed more light on this?
I don't think it's the same one. It appears that the one in danielmd06's post has some light paint wear, the other is in mint condition. Just my 2 cents! :)