Hello Everyone,
It has been quite some time since I’ve posted on these forums, but the recent situation regarding figures originating from ToyToni is certainly one on a large enough scale to warrant my posting here. The following observations and opinions represent only my personal thoughts on the situation based on my understanding of what has transpired thus far. There is so much information, both in the form of well thought out observations, as well as unfounded accusations that it is difficult to fully wrap my head around everything, so please be advised that changes to some of my opinions are likely as more information is gathered.
Background
First, I would point out that this specific situation differs significantly from any other which has ever occurred within this hobby. IF true, this is not the same as previous instances where unscrupulous individuals have made fake or reproduction items. It isn’t even the same as when coins were allegedly re-struck using the original vintage dies or hardcopies allegedly created using vintage silicon molds. IF true, this would be an entirely new issue in the collecting community because it would theoretically involve all authentic vintage materials. This distinction is quite important for several reasons.
Expert opinions are formed from years of experience, proven techniques of observation and study, and available knowledge within the collectible community at any given time. Any experienced collector or expert can be adept at spotting reseals (i.e. blisters which at one point were opened and then glued back to the card) or detecting recards (i.e. cards which have been recently printed for the purpose of carding loose figures), but not one collector, dealer, or expert that I am aware of (including myself, CIB, AFA, or UKG) has any experience detecting something of the type being investigated here. This is because, to my knowledge, there has never been any substantiated find of a large quantity of unused vintage cardbacks and blisters previously. This is an entirely new animal. In fact, if there were a find like this today, the unused cardbacks would, in the vast majority of scenarios, be worth much more than carded figures, the only obstacle being the sheer quantities of certain cardbacks. There wouldn’t be any motivation to mount blisters on cards when the cards would be worth much more on their own.
The two primary methods used to detect altered items are entirely useless in a scenario such as the one being investigated. Detecting reseals by looking for signs that an item was once sealed and then opened do not apply because even if these items are what many collectors fear, they are not reseals. They would not have been sealed to begin with. With the countless combinations of card types, blister types, and blister seals present on European issue figures, it would be next to impossible to determine when an authentic blister was actually sealed to an authentic cardback. There is simply no known method to detect whether something was sealed in 1983 or 1993. There has never been a reason to develop such a method, nor could one likely be developed even if there were, especially in the case of primarily smooth blister seals. By the same token, methods used to detect recards would be useless as well. A loupe or higher power form of magnification can detect that an item was not printed using printing methods of the vintage era, but these authentic cardbacks would have been printed in the vintage era. Vintage cardbacks are vintage cardbacks and distinguishing which batch they were printed in is virtually impossible, as it would take a larger scientific sample of known authentic cardbacks from different sources than is likely to be accessible to the vintage collecting community.
It is important to keep in mind that not one collector, dealer, or expert in the world had any evidence or made any observations, outside of the high condition (which would be present for case fresh figures any way), that would have made a distinction between the figures in question and other similar figures known to be sealed in the vintage era, prior to the information recently provided by Jason Joiner, but apparently known to him for over two decades. The information is certainly useful now, but would have been much more useful to the community if divulged much earlier. However, that is neither here nor there. At this point, the only thing that can be done is attempt to confirm the true nature of the items. Are they authentic vintage carded figures or are they authentic vintage parts of carded figures sealed at a later date than the date of original issue? Using existing terms such as fake, resealed, bootleg, or reproduction are simply incorrect and not applicable to this situation. Nothing materially would be fake about these items, other than possibly the type of adhesive. That being said, very little is known today about the specific vintage adhesives used or blister sealing process any way. However, the nature of the items would certainly be different as they would not have been sealed in the true vintage era, making them intrinsically different.
Moving Forward
The bad news is that these figures are now likely to always be suspect within the collecting community. I believe it is more than likely that the court of public opinion will come to some type of majority consensus when this is over, but I think that short of some type of confession by Toni, there is unlikely to ever be enough evidence to be absolutely certain. This is primarily due to the relatively small number of control samples available to the collecting community and the very large number of production variations which are known to occur during different processes at different times and different locations. I have personally seen countless printing flaws which made it through QC to retail and are MUCH worse than any printing differences observed in the threads I’ve read on this topic.
As many contributors to these threads have mentioned, it is important to not rush to judgment. I haven’t seen any smoking gun which completely implicates Toni in any wrong-doing. I don’t know him personally, but like anyone else, he should get the benefit of the doubt until as many facts are out as possible. So far though, the numerous observations, while circumstantial, are adding up and his refraining from comment to a significant degree or attempting to defend himself are hurting his case more than any other factors. However, everyone is different. While some people immediately become defensive and present their side of a story, others choose to refrain from commenting for extended periods of time. This doesn’t necessarily support guilt or innocence.
However, it is my personal opinion that moving forward, honest sellers should disclose the questions surrounding these figures when they are offered for sale. This greatly affects me personally (possibly more so than any other individual) because in addition to the 30-40 figures of this type I had stashed away, I just spent about $10,000 at the recent Vectis auction on additional figures of this type. I thought the prices were decent and that they would be a good long term investment. While that is still possible, it seems less likely than a significant loss in value.
It is also my personal opinion that both AFA and UKG should continue to monitor the situation and decide what both companies can do to warn collectors about the possible nature of these items if that course of action seems warranted once all information which can be brought to light is brought to light. I agree that the response from AFA seems too curt and should have included something about continuing to monitor the situation as it develops. I am traveling now, but will personally bring that up with them after Christmas.
At the present time, it would seem that an important issue is what should be done by AFA and UKG. As suggested by Joseph_Y and several other forum members, but going a step further, IF, after additional research and investigation it appears that anything below board can be substantiated, EVERY example of any carded figure variation on the suspect list should potentially be labeled with a qualified label moving forward. The accompanying document should briefly summarize the situation and the possibility that while the item can be verified to be vintage in regard to material, no absolute determination can be made in regard to when the blister was originally sealed to the card. Again, with such a limited number of control samples and hardly any qualified to be labeled as ‘scientific’, with everyone taking everyone else at their word and items changing hands so many times over the years, I have little faith that anything will ever be entirely conclusive. Additionally, this same disclaimer should be added to the verification page on AFA’s website when the serial number of any previously graded figure which represents a suspect variation is searched for / verified by any user of their web site. Furthermore, I agree that if requested, any suspect figure should be re-evaluated free of charge by AFA and re-cased with a Qualified label. Keep in mind, these suggestions are my opinion at the moment. I have not discussed this with AFA, but I believe it is in their best interest to make collectors aware of the possibility that these specific carded figure variations may have first been sealed after the original issue date, assuming ongoing analysis supports this approach.
Regarding use of a black light, it is with significant experience that I will say that this will more than likely create more misinformation than help. It helped with hardcopies, but I believe that was due to age and not specific material type. With carded figures, it can help detect ink and RE-sealing. However, both black light and significant magnification in regard to an original blister seal (i.e. not resealed) usually create more confusion and suspicion than help. I can say based on very significant experience that if you analyze most blister seals under extreme scrutiny of this type, you’ll begin to think that maybe everything is suspect. Expect very mixed and inconsistent results.
Being that I have 80-100 carded figures of these types from different sources over the years (most of which likely trace originally to Toy Toni) I would be uniquely suited to compare decent quantities side by side, some of which I know are from different sources and absolutely authentic. However, I cannot start on this until after the holidays. In addition to traveling, I am in a mad rush to complete a huge My Little Pony wonderland for my oldest daughter before Christmas. While that may sound trivial to many on here, others with children of their own will understand that the children absolutely come first.
Additionally, I am in the final stages of completing the long awaited book and planned to devote most of my time immediately following Christmas to completing that project so that it can be sent for printing. After that, I have agreed to start February 1st on several web projects to improve multiple websites for which I have already committed my time. I will designate a contact at CIB, Rob (
rob@collectinvest.com) to be a communication point for the forum members most knowledgeable in regard to this topic and most active and integral to these threads. You know who you are and if you want to bounce information back and forth with Rob, please feel encouraged to do so. He could also address or relay questions to me about any specific characters that I have available to examine and photograph.
All of this makes my head hurt because the situation is so complicated due to the sheer numbers and large amount of time spanned.
The only good news moving forward is that this affects only a handful of specific carded variations from Palitoy and General Mills. It would be incredibly unlikely to occur in the future for the simple reason that truly unused cardbacks carry so much value in the present day market and as stated earlier, are in most cases more valuable than an identical carded figure. You’ve got to find the silver lining, though it’s not much of one. I certainly hope Toni prepares a detailed response and/or additional information comes to light which clears all this up. Until then, I’ll reserve any final judgment.
I don’t have time to respond or comment in such detail moving forward. I do however have faith that many of the more experienced and level-headed members of the multiple forums involved will do a good job focusing on finding the truth, whatever that may be.
Thanks for reading,
Tom
