Remove this ad

Lead

May 30 11 11:08 PM

Tags : :

Does anyone have any comparisons between vintage painted head 'bodies' and 40th ones and what to look out for I know they are taller, but less sure on the body style and joins etc? 

Retired    Retired   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#1 [url]

Jun 2 11 9:20 PM

Does anyone have any comparisons between vintage painted head 'bodies' and 40th ones and what to look out for I know they are taller, but less sure on the body style and joins etc? 

-generalcombat2

If I  get time then I'm sure that I can take some nude photos (not trying to sound perverse ) if I remember and have time of one of my 40th and PH VAM's for comparison  everything'll be original on the VAM apart from the hands which are replacements on all my VAM. I'm no expert but, so far the main differences I've noticed are that the 4oth bodies are shinier and tighter than the VAM ones although I guess that this will vary particularly with the VAM  so far all of my 40th have the bigger more detailed feet and all of my VAM have the smaller 'baby feet' could just be coincidence though, hope this will be of help

Retired    Retired   

#2 [url]

Jun 4 11 12:05 PM


If I  get time then I'm sure that I can take some nude photos (not trying to sound perverse [image][image]) if I remember and have time of one of my 40th and PH VAM's for comparison  everything'll be original on the VAM apart from the hands which are replacements on all my VAM. I'm no expert but, so far the main differences I've noticed are that the 4oth bodies are shinier and tighter than the VAM ones although I guess that this will vary particularly with the VAM  so far all of my 40th have the bigger more detailed feet and all of my VAM have the smaller 'baby feet' could just be coincidence though, hope this will be of help [image]

-drdalek

Thanks it is always good to know what 40th bodies are like - all I know is that they seem to be taller and like you say shinier. I think the tightness is probably due to them not being decades old, as I'm sure vintage painted head bodies were tighter in general when they first came out.  

Retired    Retired   

#5 [url]

Aug 30 12 4:45 PM

If I  get time then I'm sure that I can take some nude photos (not trying to sound perverse [image][image]) if I remember and have time of one of my 40th and PH VAM's for comparison  everything'll be original on the VAM apart from the hands which are replacements on all my VAM. I'm no expert but, so far the main differences I've noticed are that the 4oth bodies are shinier and tighter than the VAM ones although I guess that this will vary particularly with the VAM  so far all of my 40th have the bigger more detailed feet and all of my VAM have the smaller 'baby feet' could just be coincidence though, hope this will be of help [image]

-drdalek

Are the 40th dated 1964 as well?

Retired    Retired   

#6 [url]

Aug 30 12 7:18 PM


Are the 40th dated 1964 as well?


-vintageam75


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.
I recently bought a 40th 2nd issue soldier FH....it's really light in weight and is terrible quality, the pelvis is way too small for the top leg ball joints so he can't stand up too good....rubbish!
The US G.I.Joe 40th are far better.' 

I can tell a 40th just by looking at the head, the face is slightly different to a vintage.


Retired    Retired   
Remove this ad

#7 [url]

Aug 30 12 9:06 PM

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.

-action-johnny


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.



-action-johnny


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!

Retired    Retired   

#8 [url]

Aug 31 12 2:53 AM




Some of the earlier one's are yes. I have a 40th blonde PH that's dated 1964
   



-action-johnny



Have I purposely forgotten this fact or are they not stamped 1964. It's things like this that dissapoint me and ruin my day.

Retired    Retired   

#9 [url]

Aug 31 12 9:23 AM

I am surprised they could get away with it. I dont own any 40th but thinking about buying some to ensure i dont pick any up in error.
There are some good guides on bits in here but a lot of info not known?

Retired    Retired   

#10 [url]

Aug 31 12 9:46 AM

       thinking about buying some to ensure i dont pick any up in error.
 
   

-vintageam75

thats funny. The error would be buying them in the first place. Just spend your money on vintage mate.wink

Retired    Retired   

#11 [url]

Aug 31 12 10:26 AM

The 40th outfits are generally superb with a few notable exceptions like the boots (especially the laced ones), British Officer Sam Browne and Russian Binos Case, but the figures are without exception totally pants and should be avoided at all costs.  They don't fit together properly, the eagle eye figures fall apart far too readily, the 64 body figures suffer significant stress cracks, the heads look awful and the flock comes away extremely easily.

Retired    Retired   
Remove this ad
Retired

Retired

bbcode help