I'm a big fan of the 40th range but have always agreed that the quality of the figures leaves a lot to be desired. They aren't a patch on VAM but given that for 99% of them thier only purpose is as a mannequin to display a uniform, then they are 'fit for purpose'.
Some of the earlier one's are yes. I have a 40th blonde PH that's dated 1964, I must say, it's better quality than some of the later ones.
This has me thinking. Were there different 'generations' of 40th figures? They do seem to vary in quality. Some aren't too bad while others seem very thin and cheap.
I can tell a 40th just by looking at the head, the face is slightly different to a vintage.
Again, did the heads change over 40th's production run? A lot of my 40th FH's seem far better than some of the others and look distinctly different to the PH'S. More different than you can explain away by thinking it's the flock that's making them look different.
40th GI Joes. Way better quality, right up there with VAM. They have a 'love it or hate it' headsculpt and I'm definitely in the 'love it' camp. I have loads of them!