|
|
Post by Mr. Fusion on Feb 29, 2008 3:24:07 GMT -5
Need I really say more?  -Josh |
|
|
|
Post by GCR on Feb 29, 2008 9:05:12 GMT -5
That Toys McCoy looks like he's got some serious hat-hair! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by IndyBlues on Feb 29, 2008 18:50:29 GMT -5
Considering it was the only Indy figure around back in the day, it's not too terrible. It's a shame the price to get one was/is so outrageous, but it's still considered a prized posession for those who got one. I mean, it's got a REAL leather jacket.
Still, I'm glad I didn't cave a few years ago and buy one for $550 at Celebration 3. That's alot of dough for a non vintage toy.
'Blues
|
|
|
|
Post by GCR on Feb 29, 2008 18:57:52 GMT -5
I'm sorry Mike, but did you say that the Toys McCoy Indy originally cost $550 bucks?!?!  Holy Freakin' Crap!!!  That's a lot of dough for a toy...I guess this must be how Stefana feels when people talk about spending $500+ bucks on a hat! ;D  I guess I should be glad that I never got into collecting the Indy toys...knowing how I am with other stuff (*cough* hats *cough*) I probably would have ended up buying one. ;D -GCR |
|
|
|
Post by IndyBlues on Feb 29, 2008 19:07:04 GMT -5
Haha, no GCR, I don't think they were that much when they first came out, but the secondary market was making a killing on them. I think they were extremely limited though, like 500 units.
'Blues
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Fusion on Mar 1, 2008 0:21:57 GMT -5
There were originally 3,000 Toys McCoy Indy figures. There were only 1,000 Arabian horses, though. But, you're right Blues, it's not a bad figure.
And, GCR, they go for almost $1,000 now!
-Josh
|
|
indysgal43
Temple Guard
Indiana rocks my world!
Posts: 172
|
Post by indysgal43 on Sept 24, 2010 21:48:37 GMT -5
I love the one where he is holding the golden idol  |
|
|
|
Post by Pennsylvania Jones on Sept 24, 2010 22:27:32 GMT -5
THE SIDESHOW COLLECTIBLES FIGURE CANNOT BE BEAT! 'Nuff said. Steven |
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Sept 25, 2010 18:46:15 GMT -5
The Sideshow figures are indeed great.  |
|
|
|
Post by transatlantic on Nov 21, 2010 3:13:06 GMT -5
I believe the sideshow one offers good suitability and makes for a decent outward show. However, the textiles used to dress the McCoy figurine are true-blue unlike the falsies of the Sideshow one. That is, the decision to use real goods instead of artificial. The persona of Indy seems to be all backwards by incorporating fake into his natural world. Then again, I like the handiwork put into both figurines and find them equally presentable. When it comes down to what I would rather own it would be the McCoy figurine because it is just more natural : )
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Fusion on Nov 23, 2010 22:48:26 GMT -5
I much prefer the artificial clothes compared to the real leather materials. The Sideshow clothes, while not perfect, are better, scale-wise. When arguing that Indy should have genuine articles of gear, you might as well argue that neither are good due to the figures being cast in plastic, rather than real flesh. This may just be my opinion, but both have their flaws. But the Sideshow figure has a better likeness, better accessories and thinner, more accurate outfit. The Toys McCoy looks too toy-like to me. But I can give it credit in that the Toys McCoy Indy inspired my brother and I to make our own figures. Mainly because we could never afford that figure. ;D I'm not trying to start an argument or anything. I'm just stating my opinion. I'm glad you like the Toys McCoy better. That's what makes collecting figures fun . You should like things for your own reasons, not because someone says, "No, the other one is way better and you're wrong." -Josh |
|
|
|
Post by Pennsylvania Jones on Nov 23, 2010 23:20:51 GMT -5
You're right about that, Josh. That's what makes each of us unique and individual. For example, you prefer the Webley and I prefer the Stembridge. Steven |
|
jodd
Pack Mule Attendant
Posts: 8
|
Post by jodd on Dec 17, 2010 1:50:09 GMT -5
Wow! Indiana Jones from Toys Mccoy looks bloated. He needs to call Jenny Craig.
|
|
zmarty
Treasure Seeker
Posts: 320
|
Post by zmarty on Dec 20, 2010 17:52:53 GMT -5
id go with choice number 2 but im sure the first would be a little bit more $$$ in the long run wouldnt it?
the Toys McCoys looks more like Ford in the face minus te hat hair lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Fusion on Dec 21, 2010 1:28:58 GMT -5
The likeness is definitely there. The pictures above are of the prototype. Here's the production release with a professional repaint   The hat was replaced with a KOTCS Indy fedora. -Josh |
|
|
|
Post by California Jones on Dec 21, 2010 1:42:50 GMT -5
:DWOW awesome
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Fusion on Jan 4, 2011 21:01:05 GMT -5
Now there's this one, by Hot Toys. I'm not sure when it will be available though. Personally I think the likeness on the Sideshow is much better.  -Josh |
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Jan 4, 2011 21:44:25 GMT -5
That looks like a nice one too!
|
|
|
|
Post by Pennsylvania Jones on Jan 4, 2011 21:52:41 GMT -5
I like the look of the boots better on the Hot Toys version than the Sideshow version. Steven |
|
|
|
Post by Buck on Jan 4, 2011 22:54:58 GMT -5
That Hot toys one looks pretty great to me |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Fusion on Jan 5, 2011 1:34:32 GMT -5
There are ups and downs to the new Hot Toys figure. The main one, for me at least, has yet to be announced: the price. He comes with a ton of accessories. Not to mention the figure is being produced by Hot Toys... $200+ range.  -Josh |
|
|
|
Post by Pennsylvania Jones on Jan 5, 2011 10:26:57 GMT -5
Also, after doing an internet search, the likeness of the face and also the accuracy of the hat isn't as good as the sideshow one. I smell a hybrid coming on, Josh.  Steven |
|
manpurse
Temple Guard
it's not the years. it's the mileage
Posts: 129
|
Post by manpurse on May 16, 2011 17:38:09 GMT -5
2008. more details
|
|
indyclone25
Treasure Seeker
just give me the adventure
Posts: 280
|
Post by indyclone25 on May 16, 2011 18:18:42 GMT -5
i have the side show 2008 indiana jones , the other is the RAH? and i never liked the look of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Fusion on May 18, 2011 1:59:49 GMT -5
What does that mean? "2008. More details." -Josh |
|
