Which I am okay and (sometimes) totally on board with this impulse as a collector. As a historian, though, I see it as another shortcut to madness.
By necessity, I have to stick to more notable (or noticeable) variations, rather than document the entire spectrum. If something appears to be especially attractive or unusual compared to the norm, I'll make note of it, but generally those kinds of variations are of such specialized interest that the likelihood of an average enthusiast noticing it is very low.
(I tend to exit out of most conversations, for instance, that involve the phrase "semi-gloss variation". Mostly because everyone’s definition is so different, and so nebulous, that it’s as meaningless as the word "RARE" in an eBay listing. But I digress.)
The modern impulse to seek even the subtlest variations also stems from the fact that there’s a lot less variation than there used to be in Breyer models, too. Newer releases are more consistent - to the point that I’ve had a few hobbyists tell me with an absolutely straight face that all Breyers are painted completely by machines now - but it's more a matter of bland sameness thumbing a ride with consistency.
There’s still some minor variation built into the more modern masking techniques. When you think about it, there has to be: it’s a relatively thin and fragile adhesive masking material that’s being placed on an irregular and three-dimensional surface.
(Regarding the latter: I see it all the time, and it never fails to be amuse me.)
2 comments:
I must see the stickers on their..... Bikini areas.
~ Candace
Spot Variation? Give me a break!Seems like a bit of stretch of the term to me.
Post a Comment