35 Anniversary Collectors ponies - Thread 3!

[SaraMari]

Making Twinkle Eyes without their Twinkle Eyes would just be stupid, if I can be blunt for a second. Can't see any logic in that at all.

No need to call people's musings stupid

The logic is cost savings, the original idea posed was "well they didn't do flutter ponies because of the added cost, what could they do to save money on twinkle eyes? Not do twinkle eyes?" from a business perspective it has logic to it. Now I know a bunch of people are going to jump up "oh the accuracy!" But as a discussion of what's best for a companys profits it's a legitimate pondering. I feel if it became too costly they'd move onto another set and just skip them like the flutters

I feel like things are getting a bit too heated/aggressive over a simple what if scenerio

That being said I would love to see and will buy gingerbread, fizzy and sweetstuff they are all lovely choices. Masquerade was my childhood te it came out when I was just a couple months old, but I won't complain if they don't make her.

[Leave a Whisper]

Making Twinkle Eyes without their Twinkle Eyes would just be stupid, if I can be blunt for a second. Can't see any logic in that at all.

No need to call people's musings stupid

The logic is cost savings, the original idea posed was "well they didn't do flutter ponies because of the added cost, what could they do to save money on twinkle eyes? Not do twinkle eyes?" from a business perspective it has logic to it. Now I know a bunch of people are going to jump up "oh the accuracy!" But as a discussion of what's best for a companys profits it's a legitimate pondering. I feel if it became too costly they'd move onto another set and just skip them like the flutters

I feel like things are getting a bit too heated/aggressive over a simple what if scenerio

That being said I would love to see and will buy gingerbread, fizzy and sweetstuff they are all lovely choices. Masquerade was my childhood te it came out when I was just a couple months old, but I won't complain if they don't make her.

She's saying it would be stupid to make them that way. She's not calling Sunset stupid. The whole point of a faithful reproduction product is to make it as it was. Maybe a little better if it had issues, like how the repro Flutters were initially supposed to have stronger wings. But don't make a gimmick set without its gimmick and call it that set.

If you'll recall, people weren't thrilled with the scented Rainbows because it was causing rapid discoloration, so BF amended that. And SDCC Majesty got mixed results because some people thought she was over-the-top and/or didn't like her eyelessness.

[lovesbabysquirmy]

BF has reproduced enough sets that I feel they know we would refuse glitter-eyed ponies.  this why they abandoned the Flutters - we wanted delicate unbreakable wings and they were like, no way that can happen.

Also, inserting the eye gems is not as difficult under industrial settings. 

[Leave a Whisper]

BF has reproduced enough sets that I feel they know we would refuse glitter-eyed ponies.  this why they abandoned the Flutters - we wanted delicate unbreakable wings and they were like, no way that can happen.

Also, inserting the eye gems is not as difficult under industrial settings.

What are you talking about? And speak for yourself on that one. They abandoned them because stores wouldn't stock them. Not because people wanted a toy that's gonna break in a few days.

[Carrehz]

Leave a Whisper - thanks dear, that's exactly what I was trying to say. I absolutely wasn't trying to trash anyone's ideas, not sure where that came from.

[Taffeta]

since among other things they've used "Earth Ponies" as a set name which didn't exist in the toyline back in the '80s (pretty sure the term came from the cartoon, and collectors have used it to distinguish sets that were originally just sold as "My Little Pony").

Earth Pony is an official term. I would have to go through stuff to find out if it may have been bequeathed from the US TV show to the toy line, but I know for sure it's here in Hasbro's Fact File in 1987. At least, to be strictly accurate, they say "EarthLY ponies" on at least two separate occasions I can see. There's also "earthbound" in Glory's entry (most elegant of all the earth-bound ponies). And finally on the page for Baby Ponies, "the earth babies often tumble into mischief."

I have too many cards and leaflets and not enough time to go through all of them to see if it tracks back to US backcards, which at least some of the UK lore does...but I feel like earth pony is Hasbro and not Sunbow. Like rump mark was also Hasbro.

"Collector Pony" is a fan term, though, as is G3, which indicates they've been looking at us and our sites.

On the other subject (and this not from Lilja's post but from other comments).

I don't want to get heated on this, but I admit I find the "nobody will care it's the same pony" angle of the eye discussion insensitive rather than 'fun'. While there's nothing wrong with speculation, I think there are other ways it could have been raised.

In other notes.

First - comparing SS to TE. It just doesn't wash. SS is a bigger set, but it's also complicated by the fact about half of the release is available in a regular version. Either because the SS is a reissue, or because there is a Movie Star release. If you ignore poses, I think the only SS ponies from the largest SS set (1) not to have a regular release are Paradise - and she was projected - Lofty and Ribbon. Because there are so many people who grew up with the movie versions, having versions of others - like those three are quite high on the deflock list for a lot of people in the UK Deflocking also does happen often because flocking ages or comes off. I am a fan of flocking and I am not a fan of deflocking ponies that don't need deflocking. But several members of this release are not only SS ponies, they're also "My Little Pony" (see Lilja's definition).

This isn't the case for the TE ponies. That's why I compare them to Rainbow Ponies, as it's a more accurate match. When you see ponies that fit into the generic "My Little Pony" category, then they won't have the name of a set on the card. You will have MLP on the rainbow, but there'll then only be the name of a pony. With the Rainbow Ponies, TE ponies, and other sets that do not have regular/alternate versions, you get the name of the pony AND the name of the set. So there's one collective that can be generic, and one that can't.

Basically my point is remixing the gimmick is a later generation trait. You do get some rereleases or alternate version in G1 - like the Movie Stars/SS ponies/Pony Friends - but they're not uber common. Mostly they're very late in the line (after the US ended) or they're special sets like Megan & Sundance or playsets (regular/BBE versions of babies). Again, TE doesn't fit any of those categories either.

As we've already mentioned, the G1 animation promoted them as having TEs. It's true the UK comic dropped the twinkles in the later artwork but that was a long time after these ponies were on sale and they were no longer trying to sell them (it was more about Guy Fawkes/Fizzwhizz, which is ironically tonight!). The retro artwork, frankly, I see in the same way. It's an image not related to a toy or a release, but a stock image conveying an idea. If we are going to use that as a benchmark, we're going to have to start expecting a release of Talk-A-Lot or Birthflower Rose - both often also used in stock artwork. Maybe that's realistic to some folk, but I'm sceptical. There are a lot of ponies in retro art who have been chosen for unknown reasons - but I am sure they don't relate to the retro releases. They're just for merch.

Those images are also related to Hasbro's retro and licenced art, but we know BF goes from the ponies themselves. They must, in order to get the poses. So they're not looking at Hasbro's retro art or style. If they were, we'd probably see these ponies looking more like the G3/G1 hybrid that Hasbro's retro Twilight etc looks like. That's not what BF have gone with, so the idea that the retro art has any bearing is a bit odd to me.

...The scented Rainbows was a weird thing, it was not popular, it got phased out because of the discolouration. But if you want to argue the toss, there's nothing in "Rainbow Pony" that says, "can't be scented." They didn't remove the rainbow hair and make them scented instead. That is basically what is being suggested with the idea of removing the eyes and making them SS or TAF instead. It's just a bit...weird. And anachronistic. And...yeah. Weird.

And amongst all this rationalising - for me personally, my inner five year old who loved Masquerade's eyes as a kid is offended. I still feel if BF don't want to make gem eyes, they choose another set. We heard rumours about baby ponies, and we still have Powder and Skyflier outstanding. Those are all options if they don't want to do gem eyes. Plus, let's not forget that they were WILLING to consider flutter wings. Yes, it didn't happen, but that was because stores didn't take up the idea (not I don't think because we had doubts, that was all on the stores). But if they are willing to make something complex and delicate like flutter wings, it's a bit strange to think they wouldn't go for gem eyes.

They may NOT be identical to what we have now. But if customisers can find gems and make customs with gem eyes, the possibility for a toy manufacturer to do it seems high. And it seems far more likely they would do that than some of the other things I still see people suggesting - like buy up all the expensive ponies to reproduce so collectors can get them for $10. In comparison to that, gem eyes seems pretty simple.

@Carrehz - I also understood your comments in the same way as LAW did.

[Wardah]

The method they used to coat the eyes isn't even a Hasbro secret lost to time. There have been toys from multiple companies that have had the same kind of finish. The problem for us is that that coating is done the same way that "vacuchromed" toys are and that method is not available to most of us who don't have the resources that a factory would.

[SunPony]

My Gusty arrived awhile ago and she finally finished her quarantine period so I opened her up and wow!  She's gorgeous!  I'm so glad they made her and I was able to get one.   I really like how her mane lays on her NDS instead on the front like the original had.  It's easier to see her face.  I haven't had Gusty since we moved when I was four, I'm so happy 

I see on her box that Glory is listed, did that set come out already?  I haven't been keeping up on the releases really well other than checking the endcap in Target each time I went before covid hit (except for Gusty haha).  I hadn't really wanted any others but seeing this unaged white plastic might be changing my mind.

[Taffeta]

We can still get Glory's set here, online at least, but the US had them a long time ago now so I don't know about over there.

Congrats on Gusty

I still have to debox Surprise. She still weirds me out with her whiter than white body and straight hair. I keep thinking she's Honeycomb xD. She's not cream enough for Surprise!

[SunPony]

We can still get Glory's set here, online at least, but the US had them a long time ago now so I don't know about over there.

Congrats on Gusty

I still have to debox Surprise. She still weirds me out with her whiter than white body and straight hair. I keep thinking she's Honeycomb xD. She's not cream enough for Surprise!

I wonder if my Target never got them, I only ever saw the collector's pose set, pretty parlor,  and a few rainbow ponies, oh and stranger things Applejack  Or they sold out really fast?  Alas!

[Sunset]

I will say this and then I will leave this discussion.   I never once said or implied that “no one would care” about Twinkle Eyes.  I was just merely trying to point out that not everyone needs a re-make to exactly match the original.  Some people even enjoy having the alternative.

Obviously some of you are extremely passionate about it.  So much so that maybe you don’t realize how very aggressive and even a little hurtful your replies have been.

[brightberry]

I will say this and then I will leave this discussion.   I never once said or implied that “no one would care” about Twinkle Eyes.  I was just merely trying to point out that not everyone needs a re-make to exactly match the original.  Some people even enjoy having the alternative.

Obviously some of you are extremely passionate about it.  So much so that maybe you don’t realize how very aggressive and even a little hurtful your replies have been.

I agree that people have been really passionate.  We do love our twinkles.  I would be really, really disappointed if they made a Mimic with no twinkle eyes.  However, I do see your points.  We shall see what happens!

[LadyMoondancer]

Collector Pony isn't a fan term, it's what Hasbro called the six original ponies when they started advertising them as mail orders.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


When I sold most of my childhood ponies at a garage sale, I kept Cotton Candy because I remembered she was a "Collector pony" and I thought that meant she was more valuable than the others.  Yep, sold the flutters with wings and SS Angel and kept VALUABLE Cotton Candy . . .

Customizers don't use the same kind of gems, we use gems that superficially look similar from the front.  They aren't child-safe. The real TE gems look like "gems" on the front, but the back have a peg and a flared base.  (I know this from cracking open a Sweet Stuff years ago).  Which is why they sit so securely.  Basic Fun will have to make the gem eyes themselves if they do gem eyes.

They're certainly capable of manufacturing the eyes.  But I think "will they do it?" is a completely legitimate question.  Because producing the eyes + the insertion of the eyes + coating the eyes = increased cost of production.

I think they'll do the gem eyes.  But I don't think it's a cRaZy idea to suggest they'd consider something else . . . We've seen them change Moondancer and Sparkler's hair, for reasons unknown.  They were going to release Lemon Drop with a pink Pretty Parlor.  They are open to changing things.

I do think people could practice phrasing things . . . less abrasively?  And get less worked up.  Ultimately Basic Fun is going to do what they're going to do whether you get angry about it or not, and whether it's discussed or not.  I know it's a stressful time, personally I've been refreshing the New York Times election page for three days straight, maybe step away from the computer if you start getting too invested in what should be friendly speculation.

[Taffeta]

Thanks for the correction on CP. You're right. I'd forgotten that insert

Sunset, you asked for people's thoughts on your idea, and you got that. I don't know if some people were abrasive - it seems pretty even to me - but I also think if people got heated it's because you maybe didn't word everything you said in the best possible way. I imagine you hurt other people's feelings too. Sometimes it goes both ways.

In any case, when you ask for opinions, you have to accept those opinions are going to be different from different people.

@LM - when I mentioned the gems people use for customs, I know that's not the same as BF would use. I was just illustrating that the concept of producing eye gems is not something mystical and alien beyond human understanding. It's definitely within the realms of a toy company's capabilities was really what I was getting at.

I have never cracked a TE, but I have also seen the eye mechanism before and I imagine BF have probably looked at it themselves too. (Horrible thought ><).

It's not that it's crazy to suggest something else, but I think it could have been handled better. But most of all I feel like, if you ask for opinions you shouldn't be surprised when you get them. Nor should you ignore points being made like the G1 animation including the TE eyes, or the fact Basic Fun is not affiliated with the retro artwork. It's fine to have a different view, but not great to not engage with these counter points. That's going to annoy people as well, because it comes over like those points don't matter - and of course they do.

Of course, none of us know BF's intentions. But I also don't think the G1 animation is factoring into their decisions either. Thinking about the sets they have made so far, only some of those ponies have even been featured in G1 animation. They certainly didn't pull the Rainbow Ponies out because people were fans of the G1 animation. So it seems probable they're banking on the toy line nostalgia. That again feeds into the idea of TEs being included.

I'm sorry, I just think there's no logic in picking a set that has a key named gimmick and then eradicating that gimmick. There are so many ponies with regular eyes they could choose instead (including the Movie Stars, if they wanted to avoid flocking), that it just wouldn't make any sense to actively choose a set and then remove its key feature. Removing Twinkle Eye from the Twinkle Eye Pony is exactly the same as removing the Rainbow from the Rainbow Pony. It's pretty strange to me to suggest it's different because someone likes Rainbow hair more than gemstone eyes. :/ Suggesting that TEs are not part of the design in a set called Twinkle Eye that was promoted on the basis of having Twinkle Eyes...is...very...difficult...to...process. Obviously it's the core element of their design.

I also imagine *most* G1 fans would want their TEs with gems. But that may be my assumption.

[SaraMari]

"She's saying it would be stupid to make them that way. She's not calling Sunset stupid. "
I didn't say she called sunset stupid if you'll recall. Sunset come up with that idea, then y'all called it stupid. Maybe it's not needed to call people's ideas stupid, idk maybe that's just me

"What are you talking about? And speak for yourself on that one"
See phrasing like that is aggressive, a simple I disagree can get the job done just as well, especially when just replying to a neutral opinion.

Regardless of the "passion" BF will do whatever is best for it's bottom line