The best photographic evidence (so far) that Skids was a 1984 release
crazysteve
authority on matters of year of release for particular figures. I
think the fandom takes the catalogs as canon because there is just no
hard evidence otherwise. If Jetfire, Skids and Shockwave debuted in
the 1985 catalog, then that's good enough for everyone. Although many
people can provide firsthand eyewitness accounts of getting those for
Christmas of '84, that goes against what the catalog truth is and
their evidence is oftentimes ignored by the various toy listmakers on
the internet. The catalog canon has too strong a hold on the minds of
the fandom at large.
Uncovering evidence by way of old newspaper ads to prove Jetfire and
Shockwave were 1984 releases was easy enough, but Skids' 1984 release
has been extremely difficult for me to prove. The newspaper ad
technique depends on finding a retailer somewhere in the US who
included Skids in their toy ads sometime during 1984. Skids being
shortpacked makes the likeliness of this happening extremely remote
and even if that evidence is buried in some public library's microfilm
archive somewhere, not everybody has immediate access to it. The best
way of finding an ad like that (if it even exists at all) is to go
through every city in the US with microfilm archives of old newspapers
and spend hours looking for that one ad with Skids in it. And then
even if you document it to the best of your ability, the internet may
not believe you because that microfilm roll isn't exactly peer
reviewable.
But what I have found is proof by way of the People Weekly magazine
website that Skids was released in 1984. This is great because anyone
can visit the site freely and see it for themselves. What I want to do
here is outline the steps so anyone can see the evidence for
themselves, kind of like I did last time with the original G1 TF logo
mock up.
Go to the People Weekly's archive page for the December 03, 1984
issue:
<http://www.people.com/people/archive/issue/0,,7566841203,00.html>
There is an option to download the whole issue via PDF. Do that
because clicking on the link for the individual article on the archive
page only gives you the raw text without the article's accompanying
pictures. You're after a picture here.
Once the PDF is downloaded, the name of the article that has the
picture is "Deck the Halls with Squads of Robots: Hasbro Takes on
Tonka in the Toy Wars of 1984". I think this article is already
somewhat well known in TF fandom circles because many fans either have
a copy of this magazine or know someone who does. But the advantage of
the PDF format from People's site is that the pictures can be
magnified several times over without losing a lot of information like
the print version.
The black and white picture in question is on page 175. In it, a man
and two women are standing in front of a fantastic display in FAO
Schwartz' toy robot aisle. The man and first woman to his immediate
right are standing in front of a section with a bunch of GoDaiKins
(and a Diakron Multiforce 14). The woman to the right of them is
standing in front of a buttload of Transformers, most of which are
Soundwave. But if you look closely at the area just above her coat
belt, at 200% magnification it is clearly discernible that the box
she's partially obscuring has Skids boxart.
This is the best, most widely accessible evidence I've come up with
supporting all the old Christmastime memories of people getting Skids
in 1984. Judging from the date of the issue, Skids was on shelves at
least as early as the first week of December of '84. I don't think
this'll change the catalog-centric canon that countless TF toylists on
the internet ascribe to, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
Onslaught Six
wrote:
> This is the best, most widely accessible evidence I've come up with
> supporting all the old Christmastime memories of people getting Skids
> in 1984. Judging from the date of the issue, Skids was on shelves at
> least as early as the first week of December of '84. I don't think
> this'll change the catalog-centric canon that countless TF toylists on
> the internet ascribe to, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
I don't think it's that.
While your efforts are totally awesome and it's kickass to see stuff
like this, I don't think anyone is trying to claim that Skids
definitively and unequivocally came out in '85--it's just that he's on
the release schedule for '85.
To use a modern analogy, Wave 1 2008 of the 25th GI Joe line started
showing up in mid-December 2007 or something like that. In spite of
this, it's still considered a 2008 release, because that's when most
of them would've come out.
Optim_1
> Sometimes the old G1 Transformer catalogs are considered the final
> authority on matters of year of release for particular figures. I
> think the fandom takes the catalogs as canon because there is just no
> hard evidence otherwise. If Jetfire, Skids and Shockwave debuted in
> the 1985 catalog, then that's good enough for everyone. Although many
> people can provide firsthand eyewitness accounts of getting those for
> Christmas of '84, that goes against what the catalog truth is and
> their evidence is oftentimes ignored by the various toy listmakers on
> the internet. The catalog canon has too strong a hold on the minds of
> the fandom at large.
>
That was a great, well-researched article.
Anyway, I was not aware that there was controversy on whether Skids
came out in 1984 or 1985. The fact that Skids has 1984 box art at the
back should be suggestive that he came out in 1984.
He must have been in the 1984 Autobot Car Case Assortment which
included 12 Autobot cars. According to Hartman's Case Assortment site
(which sadly has since been removed from the Internet a while ago),
there was 2 Mirage cars. Maybe later runs of the 1984 Autobot Cars
Case Assortment included Skids instead of an extra Mirage in order to
make it an even dozen different Autobot cars.
crazysteve
> came out in 1984 or 1985. The fact that Skids has 1984 box art at the
> back should be suggestive that he came out in 1984.
You would think, but look for Skids on any of the major TF collector
sites like unicron.com or tfu.info and he's always grouped with the
'85 toys. Heck, pick any TF list on the internet and Skids, Jetfire
and Shockwave are always listed as '85 toys. I can never figure out
why. I have read of there being Skids boxes with the '85 battle scene
but I've never seen one.
> He must have been in the 1984 Autobot Car Case Assortment which
> included 12 Autobot cars. According to Hartman's Case Assortment site
> (which sadly has since been removed from the Internet a while ago),
It's not totally gone. You can still get to old versions through
archive.org-
<http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://tsarchive.net>
> there was 2 Mirage cars. Maybe later runs of the 1984 Autobot Cars
> Case Assortment included Skids instead of an extra Mirage in order to
> make it an even dozen different Autobot cars.
Even the Hartman's Case Assortments page didn't include late 1984 pre-
rub Skids assortments. They have Skids first listed in the 1985 page.
All we have is speculation at this point.
crazysteve
> definitively and unequivocally came out in '85--it's just that he's on
> the release schedule for '85.
Well if that's true and everyone just lists Skids as an '85 release
but they all knew he came out initially in 1984 then I feel really
stupid!
Onslaught Six
wrote:
> Well if that's true and everyone just lists Skids as an '85 release
> but they all knew he came out initially in 1984 then I feel really
> stupid!
Well, maybe they *are* claiming that. I don't think anyone cares about
Skids enough to worry about when he came out. :D
Tracks, now him I'm interested in. '84 cardback, and such.
Onslaught Six
> Anyway, I was not aware that there was controversy on whether Skids
> came out in 1984 or 1985. The fact that Skids has 1984 box art at the
> back should be suggestive that he came out in 1984.
Wait, shit. Ignore that thing I said about Tracks, then.
Lars Eriksson
> He must have been in the 1984 Autobot Car Case Assortment which
> included 12 Autobot cars. According to Hartman's Case Assortment site
> (which sadly has since been removed from the Internet a while ago),
> there was 2 Mirage cars. Maybe later runs of the 1984 Autobot Cars
> Case Assortment included Skids instead of an extra Mirage in order to
> make it an even dozen different Autobot cars.
That's what I believe too. The problem is that I've never seen a Skids
package with the product/assortment number that would prove it. It's
always 5762/5765, where the 5765 indicates the Autobot Cars 1985 assort-
ment I. But a Skids packaged in the 1984 assortment would have the number
5762/5750. Find a package with that number, and we can permanently move
Skids to the 1984 group.
(Back in those days the toys' individual packaging were updated to reflect
assortment changes. The original Bumblebee, for example, went though *four*
different assortment numbers in three years.)
--
Lars Eriksson, grounds...@ntfa.net
Founder of the Nordic TransFans Association (NTFA)
NTFA home page: http://www.ntfa.net
crazysteve
> 5762/5750. Find a package with that number, and we can permanently move
> Skids to the 1984 group.
Okay I understand. You're waiting for evidence that fits your
definition of what evidence would look like and nothing short of this
specifically numbered box which may or may not have survived (or even
exist) will qualify. That's cool. I'm at least finding answers as to
why the status quo exists. Thanks.
I almost prefer O6's reasoning that nobody cares about Skids!
We now return you to your regular ATT where the topics people care
about are Retardo's true identity and what Deathy looks like.
Lars Eriksson
>> But a Skids packaged in the 1984 assortment would have the number
>> 5762/5750. Find a package with that number, and we can permanently move
>> Skids to the 1984 group.
>
> Okay I understand. You're waiting for evidence that fits your
> definition of what evidence would look like and nothing short of this
> specifically numbered box which may or may not have survived (or even
> exist) will qualify. That's cool. I'm at least finding answers as to
> why the status quo exists. Thanks.
What kind of reply is that?? For Skids to be released before the rest of
the 1985 Autobot Cars he has to come with some other assortment, right?
And if he was packaged with some other assortment, the assortment numbers
on his packaging must also reflect that. Such evidence, if it can be found,
would be just as valid as yours.
G.B. Blackrock
wrote:
What's up with this reply? Lars' made an entirely valid point!
crazysteve
It was my assessment of the situation. The picture alone is obviously
not good enough. I at least understand where people are coming from
now thanks to your input.
> For Skids to be released before the rest of the 1985 Autobot Cars he has to come
> with some other assortment, right? And if he was packaged with some other
> assortment, the assortment numbers on his packaging must also reflect that.
It's my contention that even those Skids' aren't enough to sway the
tide, and they do exist. The fandom already knows about them and
nothing has changed. There's a 5750 Skids right here:
And the owner has it on ebay in their store right now:
> Such evidence, if it can be found, would be just as valid as yours.
No, by refusing to take the photograph by itself as evidence
convincing enough to "permanently move Skids to the 1984 group",
you're telling me the two are weighted very differently. I honestly
feel the assortment numbers don't matter because despite the existence
of a 5750 Skids there are still multitudes of internet lists placing
him in their 1985 blocks. I think to refute the picture in a dated
magazine from 1984 is catalog-centric madness.
crazysteve
I thought he was being facetious about there not being a 5750 Skids so
I played along. I thought he was saying "Well, since this thing that
exists isn't good enough then how is your photo any better".
Zobovor
wrote:
> The black and white picture in question is on page 175. In it, a man
> and two women are standing in front of a fantastic display in FAO
> Schwartz' toy robot aisle. The man and first woman to his immediate
> right are standing in front of a section with a bunch of GoDaiKins
> (and a Diakron Multiforce 14). The woman to the right of them is
> standing in front of a buttload of Transformers, most of which are
> Soundwave. But if you look closely at the area just above her coat
> belt, at 200% magnification it is clearly discernible that the box
> she's partially obscuring has Skids boxart.
Dude, if there was such a thing as the Transformers Super Sleuth
Award, you'd totally be a shoe-in. Your ability to research and
discover stuff like this is phenomenal. (I'm afraid I really don't
know that much about the release dates from 1984 based on first-hand
experience. I'm usually really good with details like this, but I
didn't even know Transformers existed until that Christmas. There are
probably a lot of collectors who are relying on really vague 24-year-
old memories when it comes to stuff like this.)
Skids as a 1984 release actually makes a lot of sense, given that
there were two different versions of the Honda City Turbo in the
Diaclone line, so Hasbro may have been planning at one stage to sell
one in 1984 and the other the following year, kind of like they did
with Sideswipe/Red Alert. (I figure they were intending this with
Grapple/Inferno, too, considering Hauler's appearance in the cartoon
pilot episode.)
If Hasbro is guilty of lumping Skids together with the other 1985
toys, then Sunbow and Marvel did the same thing, too. Aside from not
appearing in the first toy catalog, he also didn't show up in the
cartoon until midway through the second season (and not in "Dinobot
Island," which introduced the bulk of 1985 characters, but some time
later, in "Quest for Survival" and he wasn't in the Marvel Comics
series until issue #14, introduced at the same time as Hoist, Tracks,
Smokescreen, etc.
I think Skids may have been intended as part of the 1985 assortment
but he was shipped early. This seems to happen a lot with
Transformers in general. Beast Wars Inferno was a 1997 toy, but he
technically showed up at retail at the end of 1996. The Transmetals
were part of the 1998 series, but Transmetal Megatron and Optimus
Primal were in stores in December 1997. It's a technicality, and some
would argue that the calendar date isn't important (pretty much all
the toys released during the first half of a given year have a
copyright stamp for the previous year), but I know there are folks
like you and me who are fascinated by stuff like this.
Weren't the rub symbols introduced in 1985? Has anybody been able to
pin down precisely when? I'm not aware of there being any pre-rub
versions of any of the 1985 toys, so this could be a dealbreaker. Is
there such a thing a a pre-rub Skids? (What about a pre-rub Shockwave
or a pre-rub Jetfire?)
Also, weren't the Dinobots supposedly released in 1984 as well?
Zob
Lars Eriksson
>> What kind of reply is that??
>
> It was my assessment of the situation. The picture alone is obviously
> not good enough.
I never said that. I meant to offer a second method to prove that Skids was
released in 1984, which, for the record, I have personally long considered
him to be (but neglected to mention; perhaps I should have).
> I at least understand where people are coming from
> now thanks to your input.
>
>> For Skids to be released before the rest of the 1985 Autobot Cars he has
>> to
>> come with some other assortment, right? And if he was packaged with some
>> other assortment, the assortment numbers on his packaging must also
>> reflect
>> that.
>
> It's my contention that even those Skids' aren't enough to sway the
> tide, and they do exist. The fandom already knows about them and
> nothing has changed.
Probably because most fans don't understand the significance of the assort-
ment numbers and how to read them. Transformers fandom lost a very valuable
resource when the Hartman brothers took down their assortment lists, in my
opinion. Even though they're still accessible via that link you listed
earlier, it's not something you have a reason to look at very often any
longer. People may encounter the "5750" Skidses on occasion, but without a
source explaining what the number means it doesn't tell them anything.
> There's a 5750 Skids right here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/48emzf
Terrific! I have never had the luck to see one before. That image goes
straight to my hard drive!...
>> Such evidence, if it can be found, would be just as valid as yours.
>
> No, by refusing to take the photograph by itself as evidence
> convincing enough to "permanently move Skids to the 1984 group",
> you're telling me the two are weighted very differently.
Well... not to diminish your research in any way, but we do know from expe-
rience that the first waves of a new year often appear already in December
the year before, at least nowadays, so even though the image proves beyond
the shadow of a doubt that Skids was indeed *released* in 1984, I can
imagine people coming up with the argument that your image depicts one of
these Christmas releases. An argument that, if it was accurate, still
wouldn't be enough to move him out of the 1985 *line-up* (and as you know
most of the toy lists online are ordered by line-ups).
Now, looking at things reasonably we understand that the picture must have
been taken earlier than December, since it takes time to put together and
print a magazine (even longer in the eighties than it does today), but
imagine trying to convince the most stubborn people of that.
So from that point of view I *personally* feel that the 5762/5750 Skids is
even stronger evidence, but of course that's because I know how the assort-
ment numbers work. :-) I would probably have just as much trouble convincing
people that the assortment number makes Skids the 12th Autobot Car in 1984.
But let's see it in this way: Now we have *two* solid pieces of evidence
showing that Skids was part of the 1984 line-up. And anyone who continues
to insist that he belongs among the 1985 Autobot Cars is an ignorant fool.
:-)
> I honestly
> feel the assortment numbers don't matter because despite the existence
> of a 5750 Skids there are still multitudes of internet lists placing
> him in their 1985 blocks. I think to refute the picture in a dated
> magazine from 1984 is catalog-centric madness.
Well, I can actually understand why most of the Internet lists are so
catalogue-centric. If they weren't we would have lots of line-ups spread
up over multiple years. Take Machine Wars for example, where a couple of
the toys turned up already in late 1996 with the rest dropping in during
1997. If I understand things correctly the same is true for Beast Wars,
where a few of the toys showed up in late 1995, with the main body of the
first line-up coming out in 1996. I think it's awkward to order them by
year and have to put them in two different places when they so obviously
belong to the same line-up.
It shouldn't have to be like that though. There is one question I think
we should ask ourselves when/if we decide to order things by year: why
are we always so insistent on going by *calendar* years? Business like
Hasbro are using fiscal years, something that most likely affects their
marketing decisions and so on as well. So it's only reasonable, in my
opinion, that a toy list ordered by year should be using fiscal years
too. December through November would probably be the most logical choice,
considering the importance of Christmas, although you might want to go
with November through October to "play it safe" and catch the earliest
releases...
crazysteve
viewpoint, although I do find it frustrating that the magazine picture
on its own was not enough to win anybody over.
> Probably because most fans don't understand the significance of the assort-
> ment numbers and how to read them. Transformers fandom lost a very valuable
> resource when the Hartman brothers took down their assortment lists, in my
> opinion.
Thanks again because now I see that although I know where to find it
and you know where to find it, it's not "live" on the internet and in
a way the information "dies" through lack of accessibility. I guess I
always assume myself to be the lowest common denominator and I feel
like whatever I've figured out is already common knowledge to
everyone.
> >http://tinyurl.com/48emzf
>
> Terrific! I have never had the luck to see one before. That image goes
> straight to my hard drive!...
I'm glad the picture saves at a larger size than the webpage presents
it so there's not much eyestrain needed to make out the numbers once
you have it saved.
> An argument that, if it was accurate, still
> wouldn't be enough to move him out of the 1985 *line-up* (and as you know
> most of the toy lists online are ordered by line-ups).
Great, well thanks again for opening my eyes to the other side of the
argument but this "lineup" thinking infuriates me. I'll just have to
agree to disagree with every Transformer site in existence regarding
this, but at least now I understand why.
Optim_1
>
> > He must have been in the 1984 Autobot Car Case Assortment which
> > included 12 Autobot cars. According to Hartman's Case Assortment site
> > (which sadly has since been removed from the Internet a while ago),
>
> It's not totally gone. You can still get to old versions through
> archive.org-
>
> <http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://tsarchive.net>
>
thanks so much for the link. I thought it was removed from the
Internet.
> > there was 2 Mirage cars. Maybe later runs of the 1984 Autobot Cars
> > Case Assortment included Skids instead of an extra Mirage in order to
> > make it an even dozen different Autobot cars.
>
> Even the Hartman's Case Assortments page didn't include late 1984 pre-
> rub Skids assortments. They have Skids first listed in the 1985 page.
> All we have is speculation at this point.
I guess the Case Assortment page is wrong. I also listed a Bruticus
Giftset Case with its assortment number but not one Bruticus Giftset
has ever existed so far. Whoever holds the page must be contacted to
rectify the errors.
As you probably know now, thanks to Eriksson's explanation of the
assortment numbers, it is not speculation anymore. Early releases of
the 1984 Autobot Cars Assortment must have contained an extra Mirage
but later releases contained a Skids instead of an extra Mirage.
I agree with you that Skids should not be listed as 1985. In fact, I
don't think TF should be classified by years since it is obviously
imprecise. They would be better categorized by series or waves like
Domelan does. I consider Skids along with the Dinobots, Jetfire, and
Shockwave as the second series that were released maybe in Fall 1984
because they all had 1984 box art at the back.
The Insecticons and Constructicons would be the third series because
they had the 1985 box art but were featured in Season 1 so I think
they were released in Christmas of 1984. The rest of the 1985 lineup
would be the fourth series while the Scramble City teams and Ultra
Magnus would the fifth series since there were released later in the
year. These five series would comprise the 1984-85 years.
Optim_1
>
> So from that point of view I *personally* feel that the 5762/5750 Skids is
> even stronger evidence, but of course that's because I know how the assort-
> ment numbers work. :-) I would probably have just as much trouble convincing
> people that the assortment number makes Skids the 12th Autobot Car in 1984.
>
> But let's see it in this way: Now we have *two* solid pieces of evidence
> showing that Skids was part of the 1984 line-up. And anyone who continues
> to insist that he belongs among the 1985 Autobot Cars is an ignorant fool.
> :-)
>
Looking at the Case Assortment page, another piece of evidence is that
Skids has a personal assortment number, #5762E, which would put him as
the 12th Autobot Car after Sunstreaker at #5751E through Trailbreaker
at #5761E. The later Autobot Cars had different personal numbers
starting with Red Alert at #5951F through Tracks at #5956F.
Optim_1
>
> Weren't the rub symbols introduced in 1985? Has anybody been able to
> pin down precisely when? I'm not aware of there being any pre-rub
> versions of any of the 1985 toys, so this could be a dealbreaker. Is
> there such a thing a a pre-rub Skids? (What about a pre-rub Shockwave
> or a pre-rub Jetfire?)
>
> Also, weren't the Dinobots supposedly released in 1984 as well?
>
> Zob
I think the Dinobots were released in 1984 because all were initially
released with 1984 box art in the back. This must be the Dinobot
Assortment 1 found in Case Assortment Page. For some reason, Swoop was
not in that Assortment. He shows up in the later Assortment 2 with
the1985 box art.
I think the rubsigns were released in 1985 because if you look at the
Soundwaves in that picture of People magazine of December 1984 that
crazysteve showed, they have the Decepticon symbols on the chests
instead of the rubsigns. So, I think Skids, Shockwave, Jetfire and the
Dinobots might have pre-rub versions also.
crazysteve
> > rub Skids assortments. They have Skids first listed in the 1985 page.
> > All we have is speculation at this point.
>
> I guess the Case Assortment page is wrong.
I don't know. I can't make anything fit myself and the pieces of the
puzzle should all be there. I can still see a situation where they're
right, with Skids being the transitional packout replacing Mirage but
I always thought a change that big would require an accordant change
in case assortment number, something like a 5751. Either Skids was
always in the 5150 assortment or he wasn't and they changed the
contents of the case without modifying the assortment number. Like I
say, it's all speculation.
> I also listed a Bruticus Giftset Case with its assortment number but not one
> Bruticus Giftset has ever existed so far.
I remember asking either Jon or Karl at Botcon once and they said that
although one was never mass released, that slot/number was included
because that's what they deduced it would be. I believe that they know
more than they're letting on, though. A dealer sample US Bruticus
giftset is rumored to exist but lowly bottom dwelling fans like you
and I will never see it. Call me crazy but I believe Jon and Karl know
that thing exists and either owned one or know someone who does. But
again, without the proof it's all speculation. I'm not in good enough
with the collecting elite to know all their secrets.
> Whoever holds the page must be contacted to rectify the errors.
I don't think archive.org makes changes to the content they've
archived.
> I agree with you that Skids should not be listed as 1985. In fact, I
> don't think TF should be classified by years since it is obviously
> imprecise. They would be better categorized by series or waves like
> Domelan does. I consider Skids along with the Dinobots, Jetfire, and
> Shockwave as the second series that were released maybe in Fall 1984
> because they all had 1984 box art at the back.
The wave theory is fantastic and I can see how it fits together.
Pictures of G1 shipping cases from the first two years have proven
tough for me to come by but I don't think Hasbro had adopted the
practice of date stamping their shipping cases by 1984. I don't know
if we'll ever know for sure when anything was released, at least not
on a month by month basis. If anyone definitively does know or knew at
one point then that information's been lost to the general public.
Zobovor
wrote:
> Sometimes the old G1 Transformer catalogs are considered the final
> authority on matters of year of release for particular figures. I
> think the fandom takes the catalogs as canon because there is just no
> hard evidence otherwise.
Well, if we were to take the toy catalogs as the definitive source,
then blue Bluestreak is a reality, and Bumblejumper doesn't exist!
Zob
crazysteve
> Soundwaves in that picture of People magazine of December 1984 that
> crazysteve showed, they have the Decepticon symbols on the chests
> instead of the rubsigns. So, I think Skids, Shockwave, Jetfire and the
> Dinobots might have pre-rub versions also.
Yeah, I kind of lean towards '85 on the rubsigns but I don't have
proof. I've seen numerous boxed and sealed Shockwaves on eBay lacking
the rubsign on his left boob. I even own one like that but I got it
secondhand so who knows if the original owner just took the rubsign
off? Very little can be ascertained from the box of a sealed sample
because these guys shipped in their own case assortments. Short of
date stamps on shipping cases there's no way to figure it out
definitively. Jetfire's tougher than Shockwave because unlike
Shockwave, the rubsign wouldn't be visible through a sealed specimen's
window. It all boils down to what you consider valid proof and if I've
learned one thing from this thread it's that different people have
different criteria.
Also in that People article is a picture of Stephen Hassenfeld, CEO of
Hasbro, playing with a number of 1984 TFs. What I find interesting is
he's got a couple of Slags. Whether these were toys he brought with
him or toys the people at People got off the shelves for the
photoshoot isn't made clear. He's the CEO so he probably had access to
all sorts of figures and could have brought pretty much anything if he
was asked to bring toys with him. If these were toys bought beforehand
at some store by the photographers for purposes of the photoshoot,
then bam, there's proof of 1984 Slag. But that can't be proven just
off the picture alone without knowing where those figures came from.
And we'll never know.
One last thing that drives me crazy a bit about newspapers and
magazines from 1984-I've read a few newspaper articles where the
writers state differing numbers of Transformers figures available in
the line. Most often the number is 27 but I've seen 29 and the People
article states there were 30. Trying to make those numbers match up
with what we know now about TF assortments in '84 is enough to drive
someone crazy. Were they omitting Buzzsaw because he came with
Soundwave when they came up with 27? Does 29 mean Buzzsaw gets omitted
but thy include Jetfire and Shockwave? Does 30 mean they counted
Buzzsaw, Jetfire and Shockwave or does it mean they're counting red
Bumblebee, yellow Cliffjumper and Bumblejumper? I guess these article
writers just didn't think we'd be analyzing this stuff 24 years later.
Optim_1
>
> I don't know. I can't make anything fit myself and the pieces of the
> puzzle should all be there. I can still see a situation where they're
> right, with Skids being the transitional packout replacing Mirage but
> I always thought a change that big would require an accordant change
> in case assortment number, something like a 5751. Either Skids was
> always in the 5150 assortment or he wasn't and they changed the
> contents of the case without modifying the assortment number. Like I
> say, it's all speculation.
I still think Skids was not included in early 5750 assortments
releases. If he was always in the 5750 assortments then he would have
been part of the initial TF lineup which means he would have been
shown in the 1984 TF toy catalog and would have had the colour-
photographed instruction booklet.
> > I also listed a Bruticus Giftset Case with its assortment number but not one
> > Bruticus Giftset has ever existed so far.
>
> I remember asking either Jon or Karl at Botcon once and they said that
> although one was never mass released, that slot/number was included
> because that's what they deduced it would be. I believe that they know
> more than they're letting on, though. A dealer sample US Bruticus
> giftset is rumored to exist but lowly bottom dwelling fans like you
> and I will never see it. Call me crazy but I believe Jon and Karl know
> that thing exists and either owned one or know someone who does. But
> again, without the proof it's all speculation. I'm not in good enough
> with the collecting elite to know all their secrets.
>
that disappoints me about the Hartmans holding back information. We
want to know!!
SteveD
<grounds...@ntfa.net> wrote:
>Well... not to diminish your research in any way, but we do know from expe-
>rience that the first waves of a new year often appear already in December
>the year before, at least nowadays, so even though the image proves beyond
>the shadow of a doubt that Skids was indeed *released* in 1984, I can
>imagine people coming up with the argument that your image depicts one of
>these Christmas releases. An argument that, if it was accurate, still
>wouldn't be enough to move him out of the 1985 *line-up* (and as you know
>most of the toy lists online are ordered by line-ups).
Basically, the currently-accepted toy groupings we're all familiar with
are _not_ actually based on when the toy was first released, and never
have been. They were based on what the particular assortment was 'tagged'
with, much like year-based car models.
There would be no point in moving Skids to a general '1984' group, any
more than there would be in renumbering a 2008-model Toyota simply because
it was first available in 2007. I guess if you were making a database of
the exact time each Transformer toy was originally released, it might be
justified - and in which case, why not write to Hasbro and simply ask if
they have the historical data?
-SteveD
crazysteve
> with, much like year-based car models.
So then my question is, where do these "tags" come from? They're not
in the catalogs. There's no year based designation saying "this is the
1985 line" or such anywhere in the pamphlets and documentation that
came with the toys that I can find. Instead I think these "tags" are
catalog centric fan wags that don't represent factually what really
happened.
> I guess if you were making a database of the exact time each Transformer toy
> was originally released, it might be justified - and in which case, why not write to
> Hasbro and simply ask if they have the historical data?
Because that's not really what I was trying to do, and even if such a
list were to be made I doubt it'd change the chronologically incorrect
tags that have been perpetuated by the internet fandom. I just want to
know if there's any other reason for the way some figures are grouped
outside of their original years of release besides their appearance in
the catalog canon, which I think is the worst way to do it and not
representative of actual history.
Zobovor
wrote:
> I just want to know if there's any other reason for the way some figures
> are grouped outside of their original years of release besides their
> appearance in the catalog canon, which I think is the worst way to do
> it and not representative of actual history.
I expect the true reason for this is because most people simply don't
remember whether or not Skids was available in 1984 or not, and since
most of the supporting evidence seems to point to him as a 1985
product (getting lumped together with Grapple and Smokescreen and
friends in the comics; not showing up in the cartoon until season
two), people tend to assume this is the case. I'm not saying this
makes it right, of course.
I do share your frustration because I've sen plenty of other examples
of misinformation being spread throughout the Internet due to sheer
ignorance. The one that really bugs me right now is the episode guide
for the original Ninja Turtles cartoon that's listed on the official
site (ninjaturtles.com). It plays fast-and-loose with the order of
the episodes based mostly on the production numbers retroactively
assigned to the episodes, and has nothing to do with the order in
which the episodes were actually made or seen on TV. I've e-mailed
the webmaster but it's like talking to a brick firewall. (How could
episodes from the seventh season of the cartoon have possibly aired
during the fifth year the show was on the air? It just isn't
logical.)
So, anyway. I know where you're coming from. You want the facts to
represent the truth, not just what people assume to be the case
because they read it somewhere.
Zob
牛魔王
> I consider Skids along with the Dinobots, Jetfire, and
> Shockwave as the second series that were released maybe in Fall 1984
> because they all had 1984 box art at the back.
I can vouch for that, for what it's worth:
SKIDS:
I remember seeing Skids show up on shelves, and me thinking "Who is
this guy?" and checking the 1984 catalog and not seeing him on there.
And notice the TV commercial for the 1985 Autobot Cars does not
mention Skids, because he was out already.
JETFIRE:
My brother got him in November 1984. No rub-symbol.
SHOCKWAVE and the DINOBOTS
I got Shockwave X-Mas of 1984 and my brother got Slag. Shockwave had
no rub-symbol, but Slag did. I remember not even knowing there were
toys of the Dinobots yet. I was also surprised to see a non-Minispy
having a rub symbol.
Onslaught Six
wrote:
> Great, well thanks again for opening my eyes to the other side of the
> argument but this "lineup" thinking infuriates me. I'll just have to
> agree to disagree with every Transformer site in existence regarding
> this, but at least now I understand why.
I don't think it's that.
While the mere evidence that at least one Skids was on toy shelves in
late 1984 is fascinating...it doesn't really 'do a lot.'
The fact is, if you're listing All The Toys That Came Out In G1,
you're gonna wanna do it in the biggest general groups. Whether Skids
came out in late '84 or not isn't the issue--the issue is that he
wasn't there 'from the beginning,' so he's not significant in this
case.
It's like, if I go to a list of TF Toys Released In 1984, I'm more
than likely going there to just look at the initial 18 Autobots and
seven Decepticons or however many it is. (I now feel stupid for not
knowing this offhand and being too lazy to check.) Listing Skids among
the '84 guys gives off the impression that he was part of the initial
release, which is wrong.
So yes, while we do have evidence that Skids showed up in '84...it's
not 'useful.'
Zobovor
> The fact is, if you're listing All The Toys That Came Out In G1,
> you're gonna wanna do it in the biggest general groups. Whether Skids
> came out in late '84 or not isn't the issue--the issue is that he
> wasn't there 'from the beginning,' so he's not significant in this
> case.
I have to strongly disagree here. This discovery could shed some
light on why Skids was such an unsung hero. The fact that Skids was a
late 1984 release means that the character wasn't quite ready for
inclusion in the pilot episode or the first issue of the Marvel comic
book. This in itself is interesting since other characters not in the
1984 catalog still managed to make early media appearances, like
Shockwave and Hauler/Grapple and Reflector.
I think it's at least possible that the reason Skids never featured
heavily in the cartoon was because by the time the second season
rolled around, the writers were being instructed to focus on the new
1985 toys, which is why characters like Powerglide and Seaspray and
Tracks were getting showcase episodes instead of Hound or Sunstreaker
or Trailbreaker. Hasbro may have inadvertantly dismissed Skids as a
1984 toy and therefore didn't warrant the media attention of the
other, newer toys. (It's interesting to me that Skids has a cartoon
model that is definitely in the style of the second season. All the
second-season Autobots are drawn in less humanoid proportions, looking
more like the toys. Had the animation model for Skids been designed
for the first season of the show, he would have looked a lot
different.) This may be the real reason Skids barely existed in the
cartoon at all.
This has gotten me thinking about the Jumpstarters. What year did
those toys come out?
Zob
Optim_1
> On Sep 18, 7:20 pm, Optim_1 <opti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I consider Skids along with the Dinobots, Jetfire, and
> > Shockwave as the second series that were released maybe in Fall 1984
> > because they all had 1984 box art at the back.
>
I was wrong about the Dinobots being released in Fall of 1984 despite
initially having 1984 box art. I just consulted the 1985 Hasbro
Catalog book which I have. In that catalog, Jetfire, Shockwave, and
Skids were not mentioned as new to 1985 but the Dinobots and the rest
were.
> I can vouch for that, for what it's worth:
>
> SKIDS:
> I remember seeing Skids show up on shelves, and me thinking "Who is
> this guy?" and checking the 1984 catalog and not seeing him on there.
> And notice the TV commercial for the 1985 Autobot Cars does not
> mention Skids, because he was out already.
>
> JETFIRE:
> My brother got him in November 1984. No rub-symbol.
>
> SHOCKWAVE and the DINOBOTS
> I got Shockwave X-Mas of 1984 and my brother got Slag. Shockwave had
> no rub-symbol, but Slag did. I remember not even knowing there were
> toys of the Dinobots yet. I was also surprised to see a non-Minispy
> having a rub symbol.
Then I guess the Dinobots must have been part of the third series,
released around Christmas of 1984 along with the Insecticons and
Constructicons. I also think the Deluxe Insecticons were also part of
the third series because they were featured in the 1985 box art.
I could be wrong though. Do you remember if the Insecticons and
Constructicons were available in Christmas of 1984? Do you also know
whether your brother's Slag has the 1984 scene at the back of the box
or the 1985 one?
The rubsigns may have been introduced around Christmas of 1984. This
means that only Jetfire, Shockwave and Skids have pre-rubs versions.
This is just speculation, of course.
Travoltron
> I could be wrong though. Do you remember if the Insecticons and
> Constructicons were available in Christmas of 1984?
I had not seen them at that time.
Do you also know
> whether your brother's Slag has the 1984 scene at the back of the box
> or the 1985 one?
Hmmm, I think it was the 1984 one, but I don't know for sure. I gave
all my old boxes to a Canadian TF fan that used to hang around here
named Helgi. Maybe someone here knows how to get ahold of him.
Travoltron
BTW, Travoltron is Gyumaoh when he's not at work.
retardomontalban
> We now return you to your regular ATT where the topics people care
> about are Retardo's true identity and what Deathy looks like.
Damn! Its about time you got with the program!
retardomontalban
> Travoltron wrote:
>
> BTW, Travoltron is Gyumaoh when he's not at work.
But what does Deathy look like when he's not at work? THESE are the
things that must be researched.
retardomontalban
Ok thats all. Just havin some fun. Nothin to see here, move along,
move along.
No One in Particular
"crazysteve" <Evil.King.M...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2111c04c-3d5a-46fd...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> Thanks again because now I see that although I know where to find it
> and you know where to find it, it's not "live" on the internet and in
> a way the information "dies" through lack of accessibility. I guess I
> always assume myself to be the lowest common denominator and I feel
> like whatever I've figured out is already common knowledge to
> everyone.
>
No, not everyone. You can console yourself that there is at least *one*
lower denominator than you, namely me. I still don't even know what 'emo'
means.
Brian. 'EMO' is the accronym for Eastern Missouri in my day job.
Internet-savy people use it for something else, I think. =)
Thunder Magnificent!
> BTW, Travoltron is Gyumaoh when he's not at work.
No! It's not true! That's... impossible! :)
t.k.
Travoltron
displays my full e-mail out there for every spam harvester and pervert
in the world out there to take.
But it's my only option when I'm not at home.
crazysteve
> late 1984 is fascinating...it doesn't really 'do a lot.'
Ouch! I think I've come up with more than 'mere evidence' of at least
one Skids on a shelf, and showing that there exists a Skids with an
assortment number placing him squarely amongst other 1984 cars does a
hell of a lot. It supports all sorts of possibilities including the
existence of revision cases to the initial 5750 assortment that could
have been phased into the line anywhere from May through December of
1984.
> The fact is, if you're listing All The Toys That Came Out In G1,
> you're gonna wanna do it in the biggest general groups.
No, personally I'm going to want to be accurate about the order of
release, or else grouping figures with year designations irrelevant to
their actual proven year of release is inaccurate, misleading and just
plain dumb in the face of so much evidence. But that's just me.
> Whether Skids came out in late '84 or not isn't the issue--the issue is that he
> wasn't there 'from the beginning,' so he's not significant in this
> case.
Well thanks for helping me see where the other side's coming from. I
like this 'from the beginning' idea. It has truthiness. But then I
find myself asking questions like, well, the minicars were the very
first Transformer assortments ever shipped, so is everything after
them insignificant as well? Or do only the first figures from a size
class/price point count? After what month is a figure considered a
release from the next year's line? Where do you draw the line? These
are the flaws I find in that 'from the beginning' way of categorizing
things. It's too subjective.
I think the real issue is that some catalog-centric ideas about the
TransFormers' retail release timeline are just so ingrained in
people's minds that no amount of evidence will change their thinking.
And while all this bizarre reasoning is good for a laugh and I thank
you for your theories, I still think the bottom line is people
consider the 1984 catalog as release date canon.
> It's like, if I go to a list of TF Toys Released In 1984, I'm more
> than likely going there to just look at the initial 18 Autobots and
> seven Decepticons or however many it is. (I now feel stupid for not
> knowing this offhand and being too lazy to check.)
If you count just the packages then by catalog thinking there were
seven initial Decepticon releases. But Shockwave would make at least
eight in 1984 that I could prove and counting by individual figures
it'd be even higher. And there's also the issue of whether you'd count
Bumblejumper, red Bumblebee and yellow Cliffjumper among the initial
release Autobots. This illustrates perfectly why it's easier to just
go with the 1984 catalog because it's the most widely available source
of reference when trying to answer these types of questions even
though it's incomplete. But instead of using it as a guide and
supplementing that with other information, I think too many people
take it as the definitive release list.
> Listing Skids among the '84 guys gives off the impression that he was part of the
> initial release, which is wrong.
How is it wrong when there is solid evidence though that he was in the
initial deluxe cars assortment? I don't know what you mean by 'initial
release' or what evidence there is that he wasn't. Right now I'd kill
for YouTube video of some guy at Gold Circle cracking open a deluxe
Autobot cars case around June of 1984. Because how do we know that the
Skids cases weren't the first ones out, followed by the 2 Mirage ratio
cases instead of the other way around? I think at this point there
isn't enough solid evidence to say definitively what revision history
the 5750 case assortment went through.
I have one K-mart ad from September of 1984 referring to "Autobot II"
deluxes, which would correspond with the naming conventions Hasbro's
established when it comes to consecutive assortments. If I could prove
Skids was part of an Autobot II assortment released at the mid-point
of the '84 product line would that give him initial release
credibility? I guess it's a matter of how far back you want to go in
1984 before Skids gets 'initial release' cred. I'm sure no evidence
unearthed will sway the status quo but it's fun to try to find out
just how far someone would have to go short of time travel. I do
believe definitive proof is out there and it's just a matter of time
before it's brought to light.
> So yes, while we do have evidence that Skids showed up in '84...it's
> not 'useful.'
LOL
牛魔王
> Skids cases weren't the first ones out, followed by the 2 Mirage ratio
> cases instead of the other way around?
I do remember Skids showing up later than the 84 catalog cars, but
before the 85 catalog ones.
Personally, I always categorized TFs like this:
1984-1985 (Optimus~Constructicons)
1985-1986 (Blaster~Combaticons)
1986-1987 (Ultra Magnus~Technobots)
...instead of just by one year.
Onslaught Six
wrote:
> Well thanks for helping me see where the other side's coming from. I
> like this 'from the beginning' idea. It has truthiness. But then I
> find myself asking questions like, well, the minicars were the very
> first Transformer assortments ever shipped, so is everything after
> them insignificant as well? Or do only the first figures from a size
> class/price point count? After what month is a figure considered a
> release from the next year's line? Where do you draw the line? These
> are the flaws I find in that 'from the beginning' way of categorizing
> things. It's too subjective.
Alright, here.
I consider everyone who was on Earth in MTMTE part 1 and actually
available in stores (Read: Everyone except Reflector and including the
red Rumble/Frenzy guy since he was in a two-pack) to be the Initial
Assortment. In other words, yeah, the '84 catalogue.
My argument isn't so much about When They Came Out, even, but like I
said--I can't think of a situation where knowing specifically when
Skids came out would be 'useful.'
There was a point where a friend and I were trying to track the
evolution of the Onslaught mould through the ages. Apparently the
mould originally had ratcheting shoulders that have eroded away on
every example we've found so far. The other weird thing is the rubsign
indent--all the other Combaticons, upon their rerelease in Car Robots
and RID, lacked rubsign indents, but Dolrailer/Mega-Octane still had
his. Curiously, the knockoff Valdigus set had a Dolrailer 'without' an
indent.
And then one day I wondered why the hell we were doing this and what
information this could 'possibly' give. The answer ended up being a
whole lot of Nothing.
So yeah, 'practically speaking,' the point is that if I'm looking at
The Autobots Listed In 1984, it's probably so I can grab information
on a specific one or two. For example, the TF Wiki's got a list of the
G1 toys by year release date. If I'm checking this list for '84
characters, I more than likely want a link to Wheeljack or Hound or
Prime--characters who were indisputably released in 1984. Skids didn't
show up in the fiction until 1985 alongside other Autobots who are
indisputably '85 characters, like Smokescreen and Grapple and Red
Alert.
That said, I know the catalogues are weird, as there's pretty
distinctly two sets of "releases" in every year after '84--there's the
initial set, which in '85 includes guys like Jetfire and Shockwave and
the Dinobots--characters who were introduced in Season 1. Then you've
got the New Guys who show up with Season 2--Blaster, Perceptor,
Tracks, and them. Then there's guys from the second half of Season 2
who show up in early 86 (or possibly even late 85, who knows) like the
Combaticons and Aerialbots. And then there's the movie guys,
and...well, after that, I kind of stop giving a shit about most of the
G1 toys in general.
I just don't see a practical thing about this, y'know?
Zobovor
> I just don't see a practical thing about this, y'know?
Well, when you get right down to it, there's nothing practical at ALL
about trying to figure out when, precisely, a bunch of robot toys were
released in stores almost 25 years ago. However, within the context
of learning about the hobby and the origins of the toys, wouldn't you
prefer for your knowledge to be accurate, rather than just assuming
you're probably right?
This goes back to what I said earlier about ninjaturtles.com and its
erroneous release info. They've got the TechnoDrome toy listed as
being released in 1988, the first year of the TMNT toy line. I know
for a FACT that the TechnoDrome toy wasn't in stores back then. I
waited and waited for two years for them to finally release one.
Pictures on the TechnoDrome box show Slash's weapons in the storage
hold, and Slash didn't come out until 1990. E-mailing the webmaster
didn't do any good, though, because (I think) she's assuming since the
TechnoDrome was in the first cartoon episode, it must have been among
the first batch of toys. So frustrating.
Does this matter in the grand scheme of the universe? No. Will
anyone care in 100 years? Probably not. But in the meantime, it's
factually incorrect information that's being touted as true and
official. That bothers me.
> My argument isn't so much about When They Came Out, even, but like I
> said--I can't think of a situation where knowing specifically when
> Skids came out would be 'useful.'
To confirm that the people who have vague memories of getting Skids
for Christmas in 1984 aren't going crazy? To demonstrate that not
every toy released in 1984 made it into the cartoon the same year?
Maybe it's not useful at all. It's comparatively minor trivia,
really, but whether it's useful or not isn't the point.
> There was a point where a friend and I were trying to track the
> evolution of the Onslaught mould through the ages. Apparently the
> mould originally had ratcheting shoulders that have eroded away on
> every example we've found so far. The other weird thing is the rubsign
> indent--all the other Combaticons, upon their rerelease in Car Robots
> and RID, lacked rubsign indents, but Dolrailer/Mega-Octane still had
> his. Curiously, the knockoff Valdigus set had a Dolrailer 'without' an
> indent. And then one day I wondered why the hell we were doing this
> and what information this could 'possibly' give. The answer ended up
> being a whole lot of Nothing.
I think studying mold changes is interesting because it helps me to
learn a little bit about the history of a toy, and indirectly tells me
a little bit about the toy manufacturing process. What you may not
have known is that the rubsign indents were removed for a lot of toys
when they were released in the Classics series in Europe around 1990,
so the molds were missing the indents when they were utilized for Car
Robots and Robots in Disguise. I didn't know that Onslaught still had
his indent, though. That's interesting to me. It almost makes me
wonder if somebody had deliberately left it there because they thought
it was supposed to be a window on the side of his cab, or something.
> So yeah, 'practically speaking,' the point is that if I'm looking at
> The Autobots Listed In 1984, it's probably so I can grab information
> on a specific one or two. For example, the TF Wiki's got a list of the
> G1 toys by year release date. If I'm checking this list for '84
> characters, I more than likely want a link to Wheeljack or Hound or
> Prime--characters who were indisputably released in 1984. Skids didn't
> show up in the fiction until 1985 alongside other Autobots who are
> indisputably '85 characters, like Smokescreen and Grapple and Red
> Alert.
Skids really shouldn't be such a sticking point, here. He's a 1984
toy who became a 1985 character. This doesn't make him any different
from Buzzsaw or Frenzy, neither of whom showed up in the cartoon until
the second TV season. It's the opposite of Reflector, a 1984
character who was a 1986 toy. It does happen from time to time.
I think what makes Transformers, as a toy line, different from a lot
of other toy lines is that almost all the toys from 1984-85 were ready-
made. Hasbro didn't really have to do that much to them aside from
name them and swap out the color schemes in a few cases and make a
handful of modifications for safety reasons. They could have released
ALL of the 1984-85 toys at once, if they'd felt like it. The fact
that they deliberately held back some of the existing toys is
interesting because it demonstrates that they were deliberately
spacing out the Diaclone designs to a certain extent.
They released Sideswipe in 1984, but they saved Red Alert for 1985.
They came out with Bluestreak and Prowl right away, but they held back
Smokescreen for another year. Apparently at one point they were
considering releasing Grapple in 1984, hence the appearance of Hauler
in the cartoon, which (to me) would have made more sense than
releasing Grapple and Inferno, two nearly-identical toys, at the same
time (which is what they did end up doing).
You'd think that if they sold Skids in 1984, they could have sold his
Diaclone counterpart (the silver version with an alternate face
sculpt) the following year. Knowing what I know now, I would have
expected them to do the same thing with the alternate version of
Wheeljack (though the fact that the deco on the "Marlboor" Wheeljack
was so obviously an advertisement for cigarrettes may have been a
deciding factor there).
To me, knowing that Skids was a 1984 release changes the way I look at
him a little bit. Like I said earlier, maybe the reason he got
ignored in the cartoon was because Hasbro had assumed he'd already
gotten some screen time, so they directed the writers to focus on the
new 1985 toys for the second season. And the fact that he was planned
for 1984, not 1985, does suggest that they may have been at least
considering releasing the alternate version (the one that Takara
eventually turned into Crosscut).
Zob
Optim_1
>
> Skids really shouldn't be such a sticking point, here. He's a 1984
> toy who became a 1985 character. This doesn't make him any different
> from Buzzsaw or Frenzy, neither of whom showed up in the cartoon until
> the second TV season. It's the opposite of Reflector, a 1984
> character who was a 1986 toy. It does happen from time to time.
>
Frenzy did show up in Season 1. He was in Countdown to Extinction even
with a speaking part. Skywarp tried to step on him before Rumble
jumped on his face and hammered away. Frenzy and Buzzsaw also appeared
right from the beginning in Marvel Comics Transformers #1 and in other
literature. So, it is easy to see why others consider them as part of
the initial line-up.
> To me, knowing that Skids was a 1984 release changes the way I look at
> him a little bit. Like I said earlier, maybe the reason he got
> ignored in the cartoon was because Hasbro had assumed he'd already
> gotten some screen time, so they directed the writers to focus on the
> new 1985 toys for the second season. And the fact that he was planned
> for 1984, not 1985, does suggest that they may have been at least
> considering releasing the alternate version (the one that Takara
> eventually turned into Crosscut).
>
> Zob
I think Hasbro had always intended to release 12 new Diaclone cars in
1984 and then 6 new cars in 1985 so that they can fit in the
assortments boxes in even numbers. Either Skids or Grapple were
intended to be in the original lineup so that another version of them
could be released in 1985. However, Hasbro were rushing Transformers
to the market (you could tell because they used the Diaclone versions
and sticker sheets for the instruction booklets) and did not have time
to get 12 Diaclone cars out in the initial lineup. So, they put in an
extra Mirage in the first runs of the assortment. Then they decided to
include Skids in the latter runs, what Domelan woudl call a running
change.
Crazysteve thinks that Skids could have been out in June of 1984, just
one month after the TF debut, but I think he was released later in the
Fall of 1984along with Jetfire and Shockwave because if he was
released as early as June, he it is very likely he would would have
shown up in early literature and the cartoon; he also does not have a
colour-photographed instruction booklet that was a feature of the
initial lineup. It is likely he was released later in 1984.
For 1985, Hasbro wanted to release 6 Diaclone cars so that they can
all fit evenly in the 2 1985 Autobot Assortment boxes that comprised
18 cars total. The newer Dialcone were packed 2 along with the older
cars who were packed in 1. So, for the newer cars, they had to choose
between Inferno or Crosscut to cut, because they already had another
mold available. Crosscut was cut.
Zobovor
> Frenzy did show up in Season 1. He was in Countdown to Extinction even
> with a speaking part. Skywarp tried to step on him before Rumble
> jumped on his face and hammered away.
Excuse me, I seem to have misplaced my brain.
Zob
Gustavo Wombat
> On Sep 27, 1:48 pm, Onslaught Six <Onslaught...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I just don't see a practical thing about this, y'know?
>
> Well, when you get right down to it, there's nothing practical at ALL
> about trying to figure out when, precisely, a bunch of robot toys were
> released in stores almost 25 years ago.
But, if you had a photo of JFK and Elvis fighting over one in a Gold
Circle at Christmas time, you might want to be able to figure out
which Christmas that might have been...
> Pictures on the TechnoDrome box show Slash's weapons in the storage
> hold, and Slash didn't come out until 1990. E-mailing the webmaster
> didn't do any good, though, because (I think) she's assuming since the
> TechnoDrome was in the first cartoon episode, it must have been among
> the first batch of toys. So frustrating.
But that's like assuming the Stormtrooper Kills Luke's Aunt and Uncle
playset was released in 1977, rather than 2008. (The creepiest playset
ever -- recreate a war crime!)
Um, no, I had nothing really to add to this, I just wanted to point
out that this playset exists, and is creepy.
> Does this matter in the grand scheme of the universe? No. Will
> anyone care in 100 years? Probably not. But in the meantime, it's
> factually incorrect information that's being touted as true and
> official. That bothers me.
>
> > My argument isn't so much about When They Came Out, even, but like I
> > said--I can't think of a situation where knowing specifically when
> > Skids came out would be 'useful.'
>
> To confirm that the people who have vague memories of getting Skids
> for Christmas in 1984 aren't going crazy? To demonstrate that not
> every toy released in 1984 made it into the cartoon the same year?
> Maybe it's not useful at all. It's comparatively minor trivia,
> really, but whether it's useful or not isn't the point.
In the absence of all context, is not factual truth better and more
useful than near-truth? Or in this case, a more accurate estimate
better than a less accurate estimate?
> They released Sideswipe in 1984, but they saved Red Alert for 1985.
> They came out with Bluestreak and Prowl right away, but they held back
> Smokescreen for another year. Apparently at one point they were
> considering releasing Grapple in 1984, hence the appearance of Hauler
> in the cartoon, which (to me) would have made more sense than
> releasing Grapple and Inferno, two nearly-identical toys, at the same
> time (which is what they did end up doing).
I wonder if it was cheaper to manufacture near identical toys at the
same time, even in different colors? Or if the mold needed to be fixed
from the Diaclone runs (assuming that there were Diaclone
versions....)?
> You'd think that if they sold Skids in 1984, they could have sold his
> Diaclone counterpart (the silver version with an alternate face
> sculpt) the following year. Knowing what I know now, I would have
> expected them to do the same thing with the alternate version of
> Wheeljack (though the fact that the deco on the "Marlboor" Wheeljack
> was so obviously an advertisement for cigarrettes may have been a
> deciding factor there).
>
> To me, knowing that Skids was a 1984 release changes the way I look at
> him a little bit. Like I said earlier, maybe the reason he got
> ignored in the cartoon was because Hasbro had assumed he'd already
> gotten some screen time, so they directed the writers to focus on the
> new 1985 toys for the second season. And the fact that he was planned
> for 1984, not 1985, does suggest that they may have been at least
> considering releasing the alternate version (the one that Takara
> eventually turned into Crosscut).
Poor Skids. Neglected.
Gustavo!