Glimmer

I’d like you to meet my new girl, Glimmer.

She’s not exactly this one…

…but she’s not exactly this one, either…

Image from the new Netflix show. Image borrowed from a review on someplace called Polygon. Click for link.

It’s more accurate to say that she’s some sort of fusion of the two.

She’s a new Integrity doll I got myself as a belated Christmas present (more of a New Year’s Eve present, really) from Tiny Frock Shop.  Got that top for her in the same order, in fact.  (The jumpsuit underneath and the silver belt also came from Tiny Frock Shop, but in a much earlier order.  A different Integrity girl was wearing those until surrendering them to Glimmer.)

Obviously nothing about her exactly matches either version (even if you assume that the new version is going to lose a whole lot of weight when she finishes growing up), but I think she captures enough of the basic chromatic scheme for it to be kinda sorta appropriate to call her Glimmer. ;P

The scale difference is still off the charts, of course. 😉

But of course new Glimmer doesn’t want to hang out with She-Ra, she wants to hang out with Adora…

Of course, the sole official She-Ra doll released by Mattel since the ’80s ended isn’t yet ready for the prime-time here, either; she needs pants (gawd, does she need pants!) and I have to find an appropriately-sized elastic to put her hair in a ponytail.  But…close enough, yeah?

Two-thirds of the Best Friends Squad are ready for action! 😀  (Glimmer’s boots, btw, are actually She-Ra’s.  Don’t tell Mattel.)

As you can probably guess, I completely love the new She-Ra and the Princesses of Power show on Netflix.  Admittedly, even though I played with the original dolls back in the ’80s, I never watched the original Filmation TV show, but I doubt my reaction would be much different even if I had.  (Though I plan on watching a few episodes now (since it’s also on Netflix) just to see how radically different everything is in characterization.  And writing.  And animation quality…although I already know that, since Filmation always worked on the cheap.)

Since Mattel is being a conglomeration of jerks and not giving us official dolls of the new versions of the characters, I’m probably going to add more dolls to half-assedly round out the cast like this, but only sporadically.  Mostly just when I happen to see a doll that really seems to fit.  Bow will probably be the easiest, given his tame coloration; Integrity probably has dozens of dolls who’d fit that bill.  The real challenge will be finding a doll with enough character to have any hope of being worthy of the show’s true star, Catra.  Also the amazing-surge-from-behind-nearly-stealing-the-show-miracle-character Scorpia; she’ll be especially tough to provide for, between her body type and having, you know, scorpion claws.

Anyhow, if anyone is reading this in the next 70 hours and happens to be into enamel pins, there’s a Kickstarter in its final days doing She-Ra fanart pins, and they’re quite awesome, especially Catra and Scorpia.  (Instead of their usual outfits, they’re the special outfits from that one episode…I won’t say the reason for the outfits, so as not to spoil it for people who haven’t seen it yet, but if you’ve seen the show, I’m sure you can guess the outfits I mean. 😀 )

….

Well, that was short.  Sorry.  I’m still sort of…I don’t even know what I am.  I’ve been buying more stuff lately (omg, so much money bleed), despite having no particular room for it, so I may be going back down into a mental funk. 😦  But once I get over this blasted cold (or whatever it is), I’m going to start swimming again, so hopefully that’ll help me start putting my act together in the rest of my life, which’ll hopefully bleed over into my blogging.

Hopefully.

Anyway, if you’re new here and you missed it, here’s my earlier post about that 12″ She-Ra doll.

Advertisements

Ballerina Odile

Before I get to my post, let me apologize yet again for this blog having gone nearly dead.  It’s just…ugh, things have been bad here.  Not like bad bad, just like really super-aggravating no motivation bad.  If that makes any sense.

A you might have guessed if you’ve followed my blog for a long time, I have problems keeping my place clean, and eventually those problems sort of slammed me into a wall.  I’m tearing down that wall now, but…yeah, it’s kind of rough trying to find my feet again, ’cause I hit it pretty hard.

And that metaphor is now completely overused, so I’ll just move on.  I’ve got a new mostly-dolls shelf, which you can see here…

I apologize for the crappy quality of the picture, but the light in there is awful.  There are two more shelves below these ones, but they’re filled with books. 🙂  There are some dolls on the shelf who merit special attention, but I don’t really have any pictures ready for them.  That purple glow on the bottom shelf next to the ∞ Miku is indeed a lit up bottle; it’s a “potion” bottle that cycles through a rainbow of colors.  Y’know, now that I think of it, I did take a recording of it going through its cycle soon after I got it.  I’ll add that to the gallery for this post if I can.  The only doll of note that I have a photo ready to show you for the contents of this shelf is a pretty crap photo…

This is my second ever Liberty of London doll!  She’s Queen Elizabeth, but she’s also a super-early doll (circa 1937), when they were still doing shaped faces with seams down the center of the face, instead of side seams that don’t show with faces that were primarily painted on.  Her costume, rather than being based on a portrait, appears to be based on some of the stuff worn by Flora Robson in the 1937 film Fire Over England, which is about the 1588 defeat of the Spanish Armada (I think).  IMDB has a photo of her addressing her troops wearing a hat just like this one, so I do think that movie is where her design came from.  And I have no idea if her hands are supposed to look like that, or if something fell off there before I got her.  Probably there were leather hands there, but I can’t be positive.  All the other Liberty of London Elizabeth I dolls I’ve seen picture of online have been based on portraits of the actual queen, so they look nothing like this.  (But we know for a fact that the sisters who made these dolls did base some of their designs on movie stills they saw in magazines; a relation of theirs has a comparison photo of a Robin Hood doll and a publicity shot of Errol Flynn as Robin Hood, and the resemblance is undeniable.)

These are the two stuffed animals that were cut off in that full shelf shot.

I don’t know when I’ll be able to get back to regular blogging; I have to pick up my life and put it back together first.  There’s all sorts of stuff I’d love to share with you, but…I’m just not mentally up to trying right now.  However, I do have one thing to show you now.

So, the folks at My Ballerina Dolls (who seem to have changed their name again?) have put out a 1/6 scale version of Clara-Marie and the Snow Queen, as well as a new version of Marie in the usual 1/3 scale as Odile the black swan from Swan Lake.  I didn’t bother with the new 1/3 scale doll (since it’s just a new outfit on the same doll), but I picked up the 1/6 scale Odile and Snow Queen.  (Haven’t opened the Snow Queen yet, but she looks good, just like her larger version.)

why…?!  Why is she still wearing those pink boots?!

Sorry, that had to be said.

Aaaaaaanyway, footgear aside, her outfit is very pretty, and she came wrapped in protective layers of plastic under that black dress to keep her from staining.  Which, of course, means she doesn’t move very well right now.  Oh, and if you’re thinking “that’s not really the 1/6 scale doll, that’s just the 1/3 scale doll in a different box,” have a look at this:

Odile is utterly dwarfed by Arthur.  (Apologies for the terrible photo, but as I said, the lighting in there is ghastly.  Oh, and someday I will show a proper picture of that dollhouse behind them.  I found it at the same antique mall as the shelf, and it is totally cool.  Though I still have to research how to clean it (there were mouse droppings inside it, yuck!) and then, you know, furnish it…)

In honor of Halloween, a brief skit…

“Welcome, mademoiselle. Care to have your fortune read?”
“Hold your question in your mind. Do not let it go.”
“And here is your answer, mademoiselle…”
“You want to know what the cards mean? Ah, but you’ll have to pay for that, mademoiselle!”

So, as you might have deduced from the photos, the 1/6 scale version has solved the problem the larger dolls have with the wrists not having a full range of motion…but it’s introduced a new problem where the heads don’t have a very full range.  She can turn her head, but not tilt it.  (I’ve noticed that Made-to-Move Barbies have the same problem.)

I haven’t done a full investigation, but the hair issue is a bit more complicated than on her 1/3 scale counterparts.  Her hair is rooted to a thick rubber cap that (in Odile’s case) is a medium brown in color, similar to the color of her hair.  It seemed like the rubber cap is removable, but I don’t want to start experimenting with it unless I have time to fix any problems my experiments might cause, and I don’t have that much time right now.  But I think they are indeed removable, which might or might not give access to her eyes as well (the Snow Queen still has brown eyes, weirdly (along with those blasted pink boots)) and should make it possible to re-wig her, though a bald cap to replace the rooted one would be required to fill out the shape of the head.

In terms of clothing, I think they’ll take just about any 1/6 scale fashion doll clothing:  standard Barbie might hang a little loose, but the more slender Barbie sizes as well as Pullip should fit.  I think.  Like I said, I don’t have a lot of time right now, so I haven’t made any attempt to re-dress (or even undress) her.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, yes, those were actual Tarot cards she was using…

I saw this in a shop and immediately said “I need that for my dolls!”  (Though oddly, I’ve backed a surprisingly large number of tarot decks on Kickstarter in the past few months.  Only one of them has arrived so far, and I haven’t tried any readings with it, but…I’m not sure what sparked this renewed interest in Tarot…possibly those enamel oracle charms I got a while back…)


Anyway, just a few more brief things before I end this post (since, after all, I have no idea when I’ll get around to making the next one).  I wasn’t able to get a photo ready of my Halloween tree (yeah, it’s a black mini feather tree on my dining room table), but I did take a picture of this Halloween Pusheen blind box duplicate I gave to my brother to be a Halloween decoration at his place:

And I wanted to report on something I saw in the toy aisles at Target.  They’re already getting out their Christmas stuff, of course, so they’ve started putting out the child-sized dolls that pretty much only seem to be around at Christmas time.  (I guess they’re high ticket enough that they figure parents aren’t going to shell out for them at any other time?)  And I was annoyed by the comparison between these two Disney dolls…

You can’t really tell in the photo because Moana is closer to the camera, but they have exactly the same body mold.  One of the things I loved about all the normal-sized Moana dolls was that they had unique body molds, not the same ridiculously skinny ones that all the other dolls have.  But this one has the same mold as Rapunzel there.  😦  I mean, I guess I understand why they’d do that, considering how few of these they sell compared to the normal sized, $20 and under dolls, but…*sigh*  In addition to all the other problems, this way makes her head look freakin’ huge.

The Groovy ’70s

Before I start, let me apologize most profusely for my lengthy silence.  My shoulder thing has been (mostly) healed for some time now, but it’s proving strangely hard for me to get back into blogging.  (The heat giving me no patience with taking photos or desire to have my laptop in my lap don’t help, naturally, but I don’t think that’s all it is.)  I won’t promise that I’m going to spontaneously turn that around and become active again, but I am going to try not to be quite so inactive, which will hopefully work its way back into regular activity.

All right, so that over with, let me finally get to the actual post.

Back in February, when I introduced you to my Velvet, I mentioned that I wanted to get her a hand-made new dress to apologize for sending her off to stay at my workplace so soon after her first arrival in my home.  Only since then I’ve entered into a feud with Etsy, and couldn’t order her clothes there.  (It’s stupid:  I just used the “contact us” link to complain about how they redesigned the Favorites menu to make it about a thousand times more inconvenient…only then the “contact us” link was so frustrating that when I was finally allowed to write out my complaint, I basically said “I won’t be shopping on Etsy ever again until you make the Favorites page useful again!”  Only if they had any intention of returning to being user-friendly, they wouldn’t have gone user-aggressive in the first place, so now I can’t shop on Etsy.  At least, not for a good year or two; I don’t want to look weak-willed.)  The reason she needed a new dress, of course, is because her original dress looks like this:

Sure, it’s a cute dress, but that stain on the skirt is hideous.  But without Etsy as a place to find a replacement (and without any ability to sew (or time to learn)) I had to find another source.  I ended up checking Ruby Lane, even though I knew there was the chance of having to overpay for tagged Ideal clothes.

But I got way lucky.  One of the sellers on Ruby Lane, Rewinding the Past, had a real stash of clothes that were both vintage and homemade.  The seller’s description states that they were “made for a home run business in the 1970s that never took off.”  Given the size, they were almost certainly intended for Crissy and/or Velvet dolls at the time, so they have that period vibe I wanted, without it being faked decades later like the modern clothes I’d be able to buy on Etsy.  (Which is not to knock the sellers on Etsy, mind you.  It’s just cool to get vintage consumer-made clothes.)  As of this writing, btw, the seller still had several more packs of assorted clothes from that stash.

Anyway, because there were lots of outfits to choose from, I had to go through a long process of trying on each outfit not only on Velvet, but also on Angel and Crissy.  Oh, yes, but I haven’t even shown you my Crissy at all!  This is her:

And yes, that’s the outfit she was wearing when I got her, but no, there’s no way it’s original or even period:  it fastens with velcro.  It’s a nice dress, though, very fancy and well made, but not very ’70s.  Uh, unless you mean 1870s.  (Though on Crissy it’s not very 1870s either, on account of being so short.)  Before I get into the fashion show of the three of them modeling all those outfits, let me talk about Crissy and Velvet a bit more.

So, Velvet was officially supposed to be Crissy’s younger cousin.  (Not sure why cousin instead of sister, but…)  The Caucasian version of Velvet had pale blonde hair, and was quite generic.  I’ve heard reports that Velvet’s eyes are purple, and Crissy’s…actually, I haven’t seen anyone try to identify her eye color.  Box art seems to show brown.  Anyway, both of my dolls have jet black eyes:

 

I’m not sure if their eyes originally had pupils of some other color and they’ve aged to black, or what.  It’s slightly eerie if you look too closely, though, so let’s move on.

As I’m sure you’re aware, Ideal’s Crissy doll family is a line of hair-growing dolls.  Until I took these photos, though, I had never actually tested their hair-growing mechanism…

 

These are the before shots.  You turn the knob on their backs to wind the hair into the head, and then press the button on their tummies to release the catch, and pull the hair back out again.  They both worked perfectly. 🙂

That being said, I’m afraid to try Crissy’s again.  Something started rattling around inside her during the process of all those clothing changes, and I think something may have fallen out.  *shudder*  I’ll not be rewinding any of that pretty hair back inside her, lest it might not want to come back out again!

Other general comments about these dolls:  as you can see, they have minimal articulation, and (as you probably can’t see) they have the kind of hip joints that mean if you make them sit down they go all splay-legged, which I do not personally find attractive in a doll.  (They also take up much more room that way anyway, so it’s perhaps just as well.)  Their entire bodies are hollow, and the plastic making up their limbs feels pretty thin, enough that I worry I might crush them if I handle them too hard.  (I know I’m not actually strong enough to do that, but the feeling of their hollowness is quite overpowering.)

Oh, and before Velvet came home from the museum, I mistook her size radically, and thought maybe she could share clothes with the Hearts for Hearts Girls, and as I test I picked up Rahel when I found that Target had put the line on clearance.

That’s a terrible photograph.  She’s much prettier than that in person.

There, that one’s better. 🙂  However…

…there was a slight miscalculation of scale. 😛  No way, no how was Velvet gonna fit into those clothes!  But then I found the ones on Ruby Lane, so it all worked out. 😉  BTW, when I posted about Velvet before, I commented on how nice her hands are (and how Ideal dolls often have nice hands) but in looking at her side-by-side with Rahel here, I finally figured out what I like so much about Ideal doll hands:  the fingers are spread apart and slightly posed, unlike many modern dolls, whose fingers are pressed together to make the manufacturing process simpler/cheaper/whatever-their-reason-is.  There are modern dolls that do have separated fingers (Monster High leaps to mind, even though it’s pretty much dead now), but they’re much less common.

Okay, so now we can get to the fashion show!  I didn’t try any dresses or skirts on Angel, though, because I had always wanted her to be wearing pants.  (Even if my initial outfit for her didn’t have them.)

Oh, no, wait, first there’s the old outfit I’d gotten for Angel that didn’t fit!  Here’s Crissy modeling it:

 

I really love the outfit (and that hat!) but the shirt made me very worried about staining.  It’s lined with white on the inside, so I wasn’t worried about her torso, but I felt like it was going to stain her arms where they were touching it on the outside, you know?  I could have her wear it as a vest over a thin white blouse, though.  (The pants didn’t fit either of the other girls, so I don’t have any photos of them wearing this outfit.)

Anyway, until I got the Ruby Lane clothes, I had Crissy wearing this:

Kind of surprising that she can wear Velvet’s dress as a shirt, isn’t it?  For all their height difference, their torso sizes aren’t much different.

Anyway, now we can get on with the fashion show.  Starting first with the dress Crissy came with…

 

And now the outfit Angel’s been wearing all this time…

  

Wow, the different lighting really changes the color of the cloth, doesn’t it?  The photo of Angel was taken at work, in more diffused lighting, some of which was natural, and the other two were taken in my bedroom, in 100% artificial lighting.  (I just don’t have a good place for natural light photography right now…)  I’m not sure what happened to her bracelet between then and now, though.  😦

 

Velvet didn’t try on this jumper because it patently didn’t fit.  I mean, it doesn’t really fit Angel, either, but it’s not quite as bad on her compared to Velvet.

  

I probably should have done a group shot of the three of them at the start of this to show the size difference between Angel and the other two…only just thought of that…

 

For the “leftover hippie” part of the 1970s.  You know, the part that led Mattel to make these guys:

(I’m amazed I found an excuse for that…)

  

I’m not sure if I’m supposed to be thinking Bruce Lee here, or Star Trek…which is kind of an odd statement, now that I look at it…

  

The odd thing with this one is that this blue leafy outfit was one of the ones I was most looking forward to from the seller’s photos, and it’s probably the one I’m least happy with on my dolls.  (Or the yellow one might be…)

  

…nope, got nothing to say here.

  

This outfit may be the unexpected winner of the bunch. ;P

 

This one was sent along as a bonus.  I’m not really a fan of the skirt, but I love the blouse! 😀

So, as you can see, Velvet was the clear winner of the fashion show:  she even made the granny dress look good! 😉  For the moment, they’re wearing these outfits:

  

In Crissy and Velvet’s case, this was literally because those were the last outfits I’d tried on them, and I didn’t feel much like changing their clothes again. 😛

I’m thinking of changing them to these, though:

  

Obviously, Crissy is banned from wearing darker outfits (like anything red) because I don’t want her getting stained.  I don’t think the darker colors of plastic are as likely to take a stain.  Though maybe I’m wrong about that?  (Does anyone know?)

,,,

Hmm, when I got to this point the other day and left it here, I’m positive I had something else I wanted to say on the end and that’s why I stopped instead of posting it, but now I don’t remember what it was. 😦

Poor Pitiful Pearl

See, I promised my next post would be on an actual doll, and here I am, actually delivering!  (For once.)

This is Poor Pitiful Pearl, a Horsman doll from 1963.  I’d seen photos of her, but hadn’t been terribly interested until I saw one in person at the Toys of the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s traveling exhibit at the history museum back in January of 2017.  Unfortunately, for some reason I didn’t get any photos of her at the time, possibly because she was still in her box, so I figured she wasn’t going to photograph very well.  You can see a (rather distant) photo of what her box looked like on DollReference.com’s Horsman 1960s-1970s page.  (Which also starts with a close-up of her face.)  Like many of the other unusual ’60s dolls of this sort I’ve been interested in getting — Little Miss No Name and Susie Sad Eyes (though she’s actually early ’70s), primarily — I’d found her price tag a bit off-putting.  But eventually I found this one on a Red Tag sale at Ruby Lane. 🙂

As you can see, she has one serious flaw:  her eyes have paled to a blue far more pale than they originally were, making it look a bit as though she’s gone blind.  (As if she didn’t have enough problems already!)  However, her hair is in good shape for a doll this old (there are a few snarls in the back, as you’ll see, and a bit of a musty smell, but nothing major), and look how crisp her face paint is!  She did lose her kerchief at some point, but I can replace that when I get a chance with just any old bit of red cloth. ;P

Ah, but I’ve skipped over the details about just who Pearl is.  She was designed by William Steig, a cartoonist (who often published in the New Yorker) and author, whose children’s book Sylvester and the Magic Pebble was one I had as a child, and whose much later children’s book, Shrek!, was the basis of the Dreamworks movie.  (Fortunately for him, he passed away long before Shrek 3.  Didn’t quite see release of the second one either, which is sad, but maybe he’d already seen it as a work in progress.)  As far as I can tell (which is not, I admit, very far), Steig created Pearl specifically for the original 1958 doll by Brookglad; both versions of her were released with a little booklet illustrated by him.  I found a series of photos (scans?) of the 1958 booklet in this blog post from 2009, along with some lovely photos of the Brookglad doll, which appears essentially identical to the Horsman doll (I read somewhere that Horsman bought out Brookglad, so that’s not surprising) except for having a less colorful face-up and longer hair.  There was also a 1976 doll released by Tristar, which (from the DollReference.com photo) seems to have a very much identical face, but a rather different body.

Right, so now that I’ve dispensed with the history, on with the rest of the doll photos! 🙂

She has the pudgiest legs I have ever seen on a doll.  Ever. 🙂  I think they’re absolutely adorable.  The nylons help, of course.

As you can see, her hair’s a bit frizzled in the back, but not bad.  Nowhere near as bad as the average 1980s doll’s hair.

I love that her dress is fastened with a button.  I wish doll manufacturers still used buttons (or at least snaps) instead of crummy velcro.

I should have gotten a side-by-side photo of her with some other doll for scale.  She’s about 12″ tall (most of the ones I see online seem to be the 17″ version), so putting her side-by-side with a Barbie would be quite the jarring contrast!  Another child-like doll would probably be a better comparison.  Not quite sure what doll, though.  Most of the others are too tall or too short.  Maybe go a bit older/newer and use the red-headed Patsy replica.  In terms of body-type, Patsy and other dolls of that type would be the best match.  (Maybe when the doll exhibit comes down in July, I can bring in Pearl and a few other dolls to photograph side-by-side with that Scootles on loan for the exhibit.  A slight abuse of power(?), maybe, but what an incredible chance!)

It’s a weird and awesome feeling, though, adding dolls like Pearl to my collection, considering that they’re older than I am.  My collection of dolls older than I am is really growing lately.  (I’ve gotten two others that, like Pearl, I first saw in person at that traveling museum exhibit.  But I haven’t photographed either of the other two yet.)  I should make a gallery in my Google Photos drive to show them all.  (Of course, Pearl has her own album already, and all these photos link there.)  Oooh, now that I think about it, I still haven’t photographed the one that’s probably oldest…I need to remedy that situation…

Such a Sweet Little Smile!

*cough*  Somehow this ended up taking me until late Thursday night to write, even though on Monday I said it would probably be up on Tuesday… *cough*

Okay, so what we have here is a very special doll that I had the privilege to meet at work.  He (she?) is on loan to the museum for the duration of our doll exhibit, and I was so thrilled to get to see this doll that I couldn’t help taking a few pictures, and I wanted to share them with you.  Of course, since I wasn’t expecting this loan to suddenly come in, I didn’t have my camera with me, and had to use my phone.  (If I hadn’t been forced to replace my flip phone, I’d have had to use the museum’s camera, which would have resulted in better pictures.  Realistically, I should have thought to use the museum’s camera regardless of the availability of my phone’s camera.  Sorry about that.)

So, in summary, this is another of those rare posts that is centered on a doll I don’t own.  (Though one of my dolls also cameos in the post…)

This is Scootles, a composition doll manufactured by Cameo, and designed by Rose O’Neill, best known as the creator of the Kewpie doll.  The museum’s collection has a 22″ (ish) Scootles, which I already thought was cute, but this one is all kinds of adorable, above and beyond the big one in the museum’s collection.  (It doesn’t help the case of the museum’s Scootles that s/he has glass eyes, and one of them is horribly crazed while the other is still in good condition.)

That sweet little face! 😀  He’s got a few paint issues on his face, but the composition is in perfect condition, and barely even has any crazing.  Or she does.  I don’t know if Scootles has an official gender, but the doll has always looked like a little boy to me.  (The woman who actually owns this doll has also always thought of him as a boy.)  I’ve seen people refer to Scootles as a girl, though, so I have no idea what the majority consensus is, or if there even is a majority consensus.

I don’t know when Cameo stopped making Scootles dolls:  the only year I’ve ever seen mentioned regarding the date of Cameo Scootles dolls is 1925.  I don’t know if that means that Scootles failed to recapture the popularity of his Kewpie cousins and was only made for a year, or if there just isn’t any information as to when production stopped.

We were short on display space for Scootles, so we had to take my blonde Snow White type out of the vitrine and put Scootles in her place.  (She’d been there for comparison to the African-American one, but I think the presence of a white doll in an exhibit on African-American dolls tended to confuse the visitors anyway…)  We couldn’t put Scootles on a stand, though, because we didn’t have any capable of holding his super-chubby waist.

Speaking of my two Snow White types, I’ve decided to name the blonde one Cindy, because she makes me think of Cinderella, but I’m still not sure what to name this one.  I suppose I could call her Minerva (or some diminutive thereof) because I think she was made by a company called Minerva, but somehow that feels a little weird.  (Any suggestions?)

A 3/4 angle, because.  The doll behind them is a Madame Hendren baby doll, btw, composition head and cloth body.  Pretty cute, but there’s a bad crack in the composition of her face.  (Isn’t there always?)

And one last angle, badly diminished by reflections on the vitrine.  😦

Anyway, given that African-American versions of dolls were always made in smaller quantities back then (which hasn’t actually changed, but hopefully these days the percentages are closer together) and that Scootles dolls are rather rare to begin with, I wanted to share these photos, since so many people will never have the opportunity even to see an African-American Scootles.  (And pretty much all of us will never have the chance to actually own one.  But at least I’ve seen one!  😀  Even held him in my hands.  That was really cool, if a little nerve-wracking.)


I’m hoping to get back into the habit of posting at least once in between each Blind Box Monday…but I can’t guarantee it’s going to happen with any regularity.  My life (especially in terms of my house) is pretty messy right now.  Makes it hard to take pictures.  But now that I think about it, I think I have some photos sitting around that I haven’t posted yet..

Liberty of London and Kimport

Before I get to the actual post, I have to apologize, twice.  First, I apologize for my prolonged silence.  It’s been crazy here (I’m doing both April CampNaNo and April A-to-Z on my other blog) and I’ve been having worse trouble sleeping than ever.  Plus I have real trouble getting photos taken.  None of that excuses my silence; I just wanted to explain.  And second, I apologize for how late this post is, because I promised it would come immediately after my Wonder Woman Nendoroid post, and yet here it is almost a month later, and I’m only just now posting it.

Thing is, if I’d gone on my intended schedule at that time, I’d have ended up posting this on the 17th, and I didn’t want to post this guy’s photo on St. Patrick’s Day…

Yup. 🙂  This is a Liberty of London doll.  The dolls were made by a pair of sisters, using fabric from the department store of the same name, and often selling the dolls through them as well.  (At least, I think that was what the story behind these dolls was…)  The dolls were made from the 1930s to the 1960s, if I recall correctly.  (They did coronation sets both for Queen Elizabeth and her father.  The QEII set is pretty common (and massive), but her father’s set is more rare.) Continue reading

1990s onward

We’re starting with one I was actually tempted to put in the 1980s…

Anyone else out there who’s my age probably doesn’t need me to tell them I’ve named this doll “Darla.”

For those who do need me to tell them that, let me explain:  this doll’s costume is almost identical to one worn by the henchwoman (and fashion model) Darla in 1981’s The Great Muppet Caper.  I really, really wanted to find a photograph of the actress in the dress, or at least a convenient YouTube clip showing the scene in question, but none of the clips seemed to be the right scene (even though it’s really funny, with Diana Rigg mocking three high fashion dresses (which her character had designed)) and I couldn’t find any photos of it, either.  (Irritatingly, there were lots of photos and clips from later in the scene, after the three henchmodels left and Miss Piggy came in.  Which, I suppose, is not surprising, now that I think about it.)

Anyway, Darla here is a CED doll, designed by Laura Meisner and Doug James, and was probably released sometime between 2003 and 2006.  Officially, her name is Colin Elia Dehan, and she’s supposed to be an African-American of Nigerian heritage, but she’s totally Darla, which makes her African-English.  (Um, probably.  Carla, Marla and Darla didn’t have much in the way of dialog, so maybe they’re not English?  (I mean, nationality didn’t seem to mean much in that movie; Charles Grodin didn’t put on an English accent, despite playing Diana Rigg’s brother.)) Continue reading