G1 Butterscotsch question

[Rowan Badart]

I just got a great looking G1 Butterscotch US variant, very happy with her...but got 2 questions....
If i compare her to my other US collector pose ponies it seems that her hair is a bit thinner/ less full, but she isn't missing any plugs.
All i can see is that my other ponies have more plugs while my new butterscotsch have less plugs (but isn't missing any)

question number two is: my butterscotch has 6 butterflies on one side, 7 on the other, while is can see no fading signs as far as i can see.....

Is this a diffrent variant?  Which one is it?

[sweetiebabyfizzy]

Does your pony have concave or flat feet?

Does she have very deep, dark coloring?

There were 2 butterscotch released in the US during G1, the flat foot version, and later the Mail Order version.

There was also a retro release of this pony during the G3 years, I forget the year they released them but look same as the G1 release just darker colors (and maybe thinner hair)?

[SeashellnBubbles]

My flat foot Butterscotch has 6 butterflies on one side and 7 on the other as well. The 2007 re-releases seem to be made of a much harder plastic and have thinner tails. Some of the mail order butterscotches (there were a few years they were released) often vary in how thick their manes are as far as number/spacing of plugs. Some are quite gappy, while others are very tightly sewn.
Wonderfully, Buterrscotch seems to be one of those ponies where you can have 2 or 20 and find something individual to each one i love that about the CP ponies...sometimes her butterflies are more orange, some are more yellow...all of them are beautiful and each has its own story to tell!

[Rowan Badart]

She has Concave feet and isn't very dark colored so it seems....
She's just that lovely golden yellow with light brown eyes, with a tail that is just a little bit thinner than the other ones.
She has her tail a bit higher up , and her feet are a bit more apart then my other collector ponies.....
I will post a pic later on today

Post Merge: June 01, 2014, 12:25:39 AM

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Post Merge: June 01, 2014, 12:36:10 AM

I think i found it....
Check out the pic of the mail order version om strawberry:

http://www.strawberryreef.com/Index/G1/orange.html

[hathorcat]

She is lovely!

She could indeed be the mail order version - she sits higher at the back than other CFs and she has the right shade of symbol and body. Do you have a picture from the front? That will help clarify for certain.

As others have said, the different numbers in butterflies are perfectly normal. And her hair could simply have been caused by someone over brushing her years ago; pony hair is stuck in there pretty tightly but not that tight than an over groomed pony wont loose hair over the years. Its also perfectly possible she was just made that way in the factory with a little less hair in her mane. I am sure she has the same number of plugs...just fewer hair in each one Mail order versions of her do not have less hair than store bought versions. 

[QueenStarglow]

She could indeed be the mail order version - she sits higher at the back than other CFs and she has the right shade of symbol and body. 

I don't mean to get off-track, but why is this? Were the MO versions made from a new mold?

[Rowan Badart]

Well..there is a difference in "plug spacing" as you can see on the following pics, Butterscotch's plugs are farther apart then Cotton candy's (and so do the plugs from my other ladies) making it look like she has less plugs than cotton candy without missing any.
Butterscotsch is missing one row of plugs compared to cotton candy, what explains the lesser hair so i would say.

I posted a link to Strawberry earlier today, if you scroll down you can see a pic of the mail order Butterscotsch which looks the same as my butterscotch appearing to have the same amount of mane and forelock hair, also having the same thinner tail.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
[
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Also the rows of plugs are different, The ones on Cotton Candy's head are farther apart:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


there's also a difference in number of plugs looking at Butterscotch's forelock compared to cotton candy and the others:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Post Merge: June 01, 2014, 12:50:42 PM

@hathorcat, here's a pic from the front:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[sweetiebabyfizzy]

I have a MO Butterscotch (G1) I am half tempted to go dig her out to compare.

How are we sure that she isn't the G3 reto-release of this pony? Where did you find her?

http://mylittlewiki.org/wiki/G1_Butterscotch#Retro_Butterscotch

I don't mean to get off-track, but why is this? Were the MO versions made from a new mold?

Yes, well sorta. The mail order version of these ponies have their heads held higher and concave feet (vs flat feet) but you have to be careful because Blossom and Cotton Candy were released with the year 2 ponies (w/ Apple Jack & Bow-tie ect) with concave feet and heads held higher. I'm not sure how you tell the 2nd release apart from the MO for those two ponies. 

[Rowan Badart]

She isn't the retro release, the retro one is a re-release of the FF ones right?
Mine is marked 1982 while the retro one is marked 2007 right?
I got her from Another Arena member, a wonderful trade;)

[sweetiebabyfizzy]

She isn't the retro release, the retro one is a re-release of the FF ones right?
Mine is marked 1982 while the retro one is marked 2007 right?
I got her from Another Arena member, a wonderful trade;)

Honestly I don't know, my reto G3s are still MIB. Can anyone shed some light?

*edit* Wait... I found some photos online and YES the G3 retro ponies are flat foot and it does say 2007. Looks like you got yourself a nice MO girl there. Congrats!

[Rowan Badart]

Thank you;)
Did you see all my pics? What do you think about the differance in the amount of plugs?

[SeashellnBubbles]

What makes her odd is if she only has one row of plugs. ALL ponies in the CP pose have 2 rows of plugs, so she may be a variant after all!

[Rowan Badart]

She does have 2 rows, they are closer to each other than the other ones;)
*edit* the 2 rows of plugs are closer toghter , put there are less plugs in the rows itself compared to my other ones.

[hathorcat]

Perhaps the confusion here is the CF v FF - there were store released versions of all of the original 6 released with concave feet as well as their MO versions.

She could indeed be the mail order version - she sits higher at the back than other CFs and she has the right shade of symbol and body. 

I don't mean to get off-track, but why is this? Were the MO versions made from a new mold?

Its not a different mould; there would have been dozens and dozens of moulds made during manufacture. Its just that when the MOs were made the mould appears to have had a slightly raised rear and lower front in comparison to the first store bought CFs. Almost as though they use the FF mould but with the CF feet. Sometimes the difference is very obvious and sometimes its minor - all going to indicate there were a lot of moulds used at the time.

Well..there is a difference in "plug spacing" as you can see on the following pics, Butterscotch's plugs are farther apart then Cotton candy's (and so do the plugs from my other ladies) making it look like she has less plugs than cotton candy without missing any.
Butterscotsch is missing one row of plugs compared to cotton candy, what explains the lesser hair so i would say.

I posted a link to Strawberry earlier today, if you scroll down you can see a pic of the mail order Butterscotsch which looks the same as my butterscotch appearing to have the same amount of mane and forelock hair, also having the same thinner tail.

@hathorcat, here's a pic from the front:

Unfortunately, I am not 100% sure the MO pictures on the site you linked are exactly correct. I have them all MIP and the one on the site just looks like a regular Butterscotch to me. But it is very hard to tell without the size comparison and the picture you mention is a little over exposed so that can unbalance colours.

And do you have a picture with her from the front side by side with another CF pony?

The hair line you have shown does look MO - not the lack of plugs at the base of the neck or the forelock [neither of those are specific to MOs - they are just things which happen during production] but how the plugs are wider apart as you have described.

I do think she is a MO.

[Rowan Badart]

"The hair line you have shown does look MO - not the lack of plugs at the base of the neck or the forelock [neither of those are specific to MOs - they are just things which happen during production] but how the plugs are wider apart as you have described"


I don't completly understand, but did you mean the diffarence in plugs etc is not specific to mail order, but is just the way she's made in the factory?
Does this mean it's a factory error? or just the way the batch she's from was made?

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Just to be sure, here are some pics from the side:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login