Comparing collectible vs 'classic' minifigs

[Mrlegoninja]

Weapons are a case of TLG using more flexible plastic for safety concerns and the result is fairy awful. It happens all the time with Bionicle. I guess it happened with system.

If a minifig head piece looks more opaque it is low quality and a downer.

You want a little kid to poke himself with the sharp pointy spear of the spartan?

[prateek]

If a minifig head piece looks more opaque it is low quality and a downer.

The head has a green tint to it, but it's still shiny.

[Aanchir]

Weapons are a case of TLG using more flexible plastic for safety concerns and the result is fairy awful. It happens all the time with Bionicle. I guess it happened with system.

If a minifig head piece looks more opaque it is low quality and a downer.

I see a lot of people on this site misusing the word "opaque". "More opaque" would mean less see-through, not more. For reference, transparent is what you'd call a glass window, translucent is what you'd call a poor-quality LEGO piece (or certain regular-quality LEGO pieces like the Vahki eyepieces or Vakama Hordika blazer claws from BIONICLE), and opaque is what you'd call a block of wood. It's an easy mistake to make since the general term for something's level of transparency is "opacity", but just remember that low opacity means see-through and high opacity means solid and you should be able to keep it straight.

And I haven't had any problem with minifigure heads at all. The only pieces with a really noticeable difference in opacity are the legs, where it's only even noticeable when brightly backlit.

And I have no problem with softer weapon pieces. The Atlantis tridents are indeed a case of poor quality because of how the plastic is easily scratched by minifig hands, but the Daggers of Time from the Prince of Persia theme are closer to the texture and resilience of original BIONICLE weapons or the rapiers from the Pirates theme (not the 2009 one, of which I don't have any sets, but the original) than to the softer consistency of post-2004 BIONICLE masks or Atlantis tridents.

And as far as the collectible figs go, as far as I've encountered, their plastic is sturdy even for weapons. The Spartan's spear is practically scratchproof during normal play or MOCing. Not sure about other parts which would have been made of different plastic even in standard sets-- for instance, the bow and arrow from the Forestman-- but all of the minifig accessories in my Series 2 figs have held up amazingly well.

[davee123]

I just heard yesterday that the plastic is not the same. The story goes that according to Chinese law, LEGO could NOT import the raw plastic material into China for molding. Instead, LEGO was forced to choose an in-country plastic as the source. It seems LEGO chose the plastic that most closely matched their ABS used elsewhere, but it was not a perfect match, and is of lower quality than LEGO would have really wanted.

DaveE

[Skafte]

I just heard...

The story goes...

Anything more solid to back that up with?

[davee123]

Anything more solid to back that up with?

I don't especially like naming particular sources (unless it's someone that does public relations for LEGO like Steve/Jan/Tormod). They're accustomed to delivering LEGO information to the public and to AFOLs, and they know quite clearly what they can say, what they can't say, and what they ought not to say.

But I've been friends with other LEGO employees for several years now at Billund, Enfield, and LEGO retail of course-- but they're not really involved in dealing with the public. IE, what I've heard from them hasn't been pre-screened by lawyers, and it's not their job to have such information treated in such a way. They mostly have a good handle on what to say and what not to say, but it's not really the focus of their job to handle releasing information.

As such, I'm not technically under any NDA's, verbal agreements, or otherwise to keep information that I've received in such a manner quiet. And since I'm pretty open about such information, and I'm also often vocal about it online, I frequently will share it. But there have also been instances where I have NOT shared such info because I have believed that it OUGHT to be under NDA or otherwise. But in this instance, I didn't feel that this fell into that category.

Besides, we all knew that either the plastic or the process was different anyway. So-- we already knew it. If you want to do some chemical analysis tests on it, I'd guess you'd probably find out some more specific differences. Additionally, if you performed stress tests and tolerance checks on it, I'd guess you'd find out the same information (IE, that there are differences). Certainly, we've seen it proven that the plastic is more translucent (that's easily verifiable). Anyway, this information isn't really new, it's just a confirmation from within the company that what we already strongly suspected is correct.

Nevertheless, I would feel uncomfortable naming names. And I don't have it in writing. And as it turns out, I wasn't told directly, I was told by a mutual friend that recently heard it firsthand. But I know the source, and the source is from LEGO, and is very reputable. And furthermore, it makes perfect sense, and it doesn't conflict with anything I've heard. I would interpret it to mean that:

1) Yes, the Chinese plastic is a type of ABS

2) No, the Chinese plastic is not the same ABS that is used elsewhere

3) Yes, the Chinese plastic is knowingly of lower quality than LEGO would like, but they had little choice*.

DaveE

* I obviously don't know the particulars of the choice involved if there was any. Supposedly, it has to do with Chinese law, which I interpret to mean that importing foreign plastic for manufacture was either illegal, incredibly costly, or presented other legal problems (government oversight or otherwise) that made it an invalid option. I haven't done any supporting research, and if you'd like to, I would encourage it. But I would expect that information about foreign suppliers to Chinese factories is publicly documented in some form-- although given their government's tendency for secrecy, it may be difficult to track down, I don't know.

[vexorian]

You want a little kid to poke himself with the sharp pointy spear of the spartan?

Yes, I do.

[Aanchir]

I don't especially like naming particular sources (unless it's someone that does public relations for LEGO like Steve/Jan/Tormod). They're accustomed to delivering LEGO information to the public and to AFOLs, and they know quite clearly what they can say, what they can't say, and what they ought not to say.

But I've been friends with other LEGO employees for several years now at Billund, Enfield, and LEGO retail of course-- but they're not really involved in dealing with the public. IE, what I've heard from them hasn't been pre-screened by lawyers, and it's not their job to have such information treated in such a way. They mostly have a good handle on what to say and what not to say, but it's not really the focus of their job to handle releasing information.

As such, I'm not technically under any NDA's, verbal agreements, or otherwise to keep information that I've received in such a manner quiet. And since I'm pretty open about such information, and I'm also often vocal about it online, I frequently will share it. But there have also been instances where I have NOT shared such info because I have believed that it OUGHT to be under NDA or otherwise. But in this instance, I didn't feel that this fell into that category.

Besides, we all knew that either the plastic or the process was different anyway. So-- we already knew it. If you want to do some chemical analysis tests on it, I'd guess you'd probably find out some more specific differences. Additionally, if you performed stress tests and tolerance checks on it, I'd guess you'd find out the same information (IE, that there are differences). Certainly, we've seen it proven that the plastic is more translucent (that's easily verifiable). Anyway, this information isn't really new, it's just a confirmation from within the company that what we already strongly suspected is correct.

Here's the thing: process can make an unbelievable difference in quality. There's no reason to assume the material is different just because there are differences in appearance. Depending on your source, perhaps there was different plastic used (odd that LEGO would lie about that, though), but that might have nothing to do with the different quality.

As Nabii said, additionally, translucence can be as easily or more easily the fault of the dye than the fault of the plastic. And dye is obtained from local sources as a matter of procedure. Not to mention that the source Nabii mentioned, a more easily verifiable source than yours, was confirmation that what I had already suspected was correct-- that the figs use the same plastic.

The fact that we have two different "confirmations" of differing arguments means neither one is more "confirmed" than the other. After all, if LEGO had been forced to depend on another plastic supplier by Chinese law, wouldn't they be ready to openly admit that? The story they gave-- that as a matter of policy they use different suppliers of dye, whose quality varies-- is no less damning than if they had agreed with your source. The fact that one source was more "official" than the other could be interpreted as it being more likely falsified-- but that's still just interpretation, and doesn't necessarily imply less veracity unless the official source (LEGO) was known and confirmed to have fudged the facts in the past.

I'll admit your source could easily be right-- but in all honesty, it's hard to believe after passing through about three different sources on the way here to Eurobricks. I'm not sticking with the official story because it's more likely, but rather just because I have a little more confidence in the source. I don't mean it as any offense to you, your friend, or the inside source where the story originated, but I'm more comfortable with believing the official story (and yes, my own bias probably feeds into that as well).

It's also worth noting that another time a LEGO source gave confirmation of a fact in recent memory was when at Brickfair a LEGO employee supposedly confirmed that there would be no more purple parts in LEGO whatsoever in the future. The original source was reliable, and the person who delivered the message to the online community was reputable. But there was still plenty of room for misinterpretation between those two sources. So either story may have merely been reported wrong.

On a side note regarding this, does anybody know what LEGO's "normal" source for ABS is? That's something that never came up regarding this issue, and something that would probably be interesting to know. Of course, it could very easily be confidential. I don't know how that sort of thing works.

[CP5670]

It's also worth noting that another time a LEGO source gave confirmation of a fact in recent memory was when at Brickfair a LEGO employee supposedly confirmed that there would be no more purple parts in LEGO whatsoever in the future. The original source was reliable, and the person who delivered the message to the online community was reputable. But there was still plenty of room for misinterpretation between those two sources. So either story may have merely been reported wrong.

This was actually the same guy referred to earlier. I was at that presentation too, and he did in fact say as much. I recall that the gist of his argument was that purple is among the hardest colors to maintain consistency with, and that TLG has decided to not have the color at all instead of producing it in subpar quality. Of course, he turned out to be wrong about that, and also about yellow returning to its old level soon. So even if people are reporting these things accurately, the original, "official" statements may not be reliable.

[davee123]

Here's the thing: process can make an unbelievable difference in quality.

Indeed. From what I understand about ABS, it's a really fuzzy area, since the molecules don't form a rigid, symmetrical structure. It's more of a blob of waviness.

Not to mention that the source Nabii mentioned, a more easily verifiable source than yours, was confirmation that what I had already suspected was correct-- that the figs use the same plastic.

I really can't say-- I went back and re-read Nabii's post, and he does say that they purchase it from the same manufacturer, which is pretty indicative that it would be the same plastic. Although, granted, the manufacturer may be doing their production in multiple places as well.

Anyway, people aren't always thorough-- it makes me question Nabii's source because I can envision many different ways in which one would mistakenly conclude that the plastics were the same. I don't think either source was lying per se, but obviously one or the other was misinformed, in whole or in part. And I can easily imagine someone concluding that the plastics were the same if they were told one or more of (A) that "both are ABS", (B) that "both come from the same manufacturer", © that "both are subject to the same standards".

But what I can't see is how one would *invent* a story about running into a supplier issue with Chinese law, forcing a choice in lesser plastic. Now, I could believe that it's since changed (IE it's no longer relevant, the sources are now the same), that it's restricted to certain elements (IE some elements have the same source of plastic, others do not), or that it's only applicable to certain ASPECTs of the plastic (IE other ingredients are added in addition to dyes that are similarly variable). But any way I slice it, I can't see how the story wouldn't have happened. It just may have different relevance.

In the end, I guess it doesn't much matter. The resulting Chinese product is of lesser quality, as evidenced by the translucency and part tolerances, both of which I've experienced firsthand. Whether it's the fault of the plastic, the dye, other ingredients, the molding machines, the process itself, the workers, or the facility, I'm not really sure.

DaveE

[Aanchir]

This was actually the same guy referred to earlier. I was at that presentation too, and he did in fact say as much. I recall that the gist of his argument was that purple is among the hardest colors to maintain consistency with, and that TLG has decided to not have the color at all instead of producing it in subpar quality. Of course, he turned out to be wrong about that, and also about yellow returning to its old level soon. So even if people are reporting these things accurately, the original, "official" statements may not be reliable.

No, the problem wasn't that he was wrong. The problem was that he was misinterpreted to mean "no more purple ever". The intended message was that there would be no more purple-intensive sets like the Knight Bus or the original Danju set from Knights' Kingdom II. And besides licensed sets like the Construct-A-Zurg, that's been true-- purple is either used as a subtle accent color (on the Lunar Limo, for instance) or in a small number of "shell" pieces that give a set its overall look (like on the Smash 'n' Grab, which has only 18 purple pieces out of 179 total pieces).

I know this because I specifically asked the same person at the Q@A session at Brickfair the very next year, since sets had continued using a small number of purple parts and we were practically guaranteed to get a certain amount of purple with the upcoming Toy Story theme. He admitted that his explanation wasn't clear the previous year, and that there was a policy change within LEGO regarding purple pieces, but that the intent had never been to get rid of purple pieces altogether.

On a side note that probably has absolutely nothing to do with this issue, but which I found humorous in retrospect, the purple color known as dark purple on Bricklink (officially Medium Lilac) is classified on LEGO Digital Designer not as a purple piece but as a blue piece. Also, the official LEGO color called "bright purple" is actually what AFOLs call Dark Pink-- at least, any example of said color that has appeared since 2004, since previous dark pink parts had been a color called Medium Reddish-Violet. Since the person who does the Q&A sessions is familiar with AFOLs and since there was never the slightest hint of Dark Pink going away, I doubt that either of these things have to do with the source of that misinformation, but I just find LEGO's color names kind of cute.

Also, you keep mentioning the issue of yellow returning to its old level. But have you considered that he might have been referring to newly-molded pieces? It would be totally unreasonable to expect LEGO to throw out all the yellow parts they had already molded, along with any leftover dye from whichever producer had given them a slightly-different batch.

From my experience most yellow parts are consistent today-- a couple of my collectible figs have slightly greenish hands, but not many of them, and other than those hands I have not encountered a single yellow piece that was not comparable to every other one I have with me. It's true, I'm not buying a bunch of construction sets or anything, so yellow isn't nearly the color I have the most of. But comparing the Brickmaster Quad pieces, a collection of minifig heads from various years, any yellow parts from my collectible figs, and yellow parts from my Space Police III sets, there's none that really have any inconsistent color besides the hands. Same applies for yellow pieces from sets I don't have on hand but did within the past few years-- for instance, several BIONICLE sets from 2009 used yellow, with no real variation.

[CP5670]

I know this because I specifically asked the same person at the Q@A session at Brickfair the very next year, since sets had continued using a small number of purple parts and we were practically guaranteed to get a certain amount of purple with the upcoming Toy Story theme. He admitted that his explanation wasn't clear the previous year, and that there was a policy change within LEGO regarding purple pieces, but that the intent had never been to get rid of purple pieces altogether.

I don't think Bjarke was present at Brickfair 2009. I seem to remember that the Q&A session that year was with Steve Witt and only lasted 10 minutes or so. Although it is possible that someone did misspeak or was misinterpreted.

Also, you keep mentioning the issue of yellow returning to its old level. But have you considered that he might have been referring to newly-molded pieces? It would be totally unreasonable to expect LEGO to throw out all the yellow parts they had already molded, along with any leftover dye from whichever producer had given them a slightly-different batch.

I asked him about this specifically. He said they expect to have most of the old parts cleaned out of their inventory in a year or so. However, we never did get the old style yellow since then, including on new pieces and sets that were introduced after 2009.

The yellow has improved since 2008, but it's still some ways off from the rich-looking yellow we had in the 80s and 90s. The difference is especially visible on plates and tiles. I don't expect them to improve it any further at this point though.

[Aanchir]

I don't think Bjarke was present at Brickfair 2009. I seem to remember that the Q&A session that year was with Steve Witt and only lasted 10 minutes or so. Although it is possible that someone did misspeak or was misinterpreted.

Well, phooey. There's a perfect example of me misinterpreting a comment-- I had thought from the way the answer was phrased that the person who did the Q&A for 2009 was the same guy who had done it the previous year. Guess I was wrong there.

I asked him about this specifically. He said they expect to have most of the old parts cleaned out of their inventory in a year or so. However, we never did get the old style yellow since then, including on new pieces and sets that were introduced after 2009.

The yellow has improved since 2008, but it's still some ways off from the rich-looking yellow we had in the 80s and 90s. The difference is especially visible on plates and tiles. I don't expect them to improve it any further at this point though.

Well, you've got me there. None of the yellow parts I have on hand are from the 80s or 90s. The minifig heads I mentioned are the oldest parts I've got, and even those are all post-2000 so that their prints match the prints of my more "current" sets stylistically. In fact, that could be part of why I've never noticed a real difference-- I don't like mixing parts from different "eras"-- for instance, I won't use minifigs with a white shine on their eyes alongside minifigs who lack that shine, and I won't use three-tooth and two-tooth hinges alongside click-hinges in the same MOC.

I'll have to do some comparisons with my older parts when I get back home, since I do have a fair collection of 90s parts and sets. I have 80s parts as well, but they're from yard sales and thus probably won't look remotely like they would have when they were new. In fact, I can't guarantee I'll find anything in my comparisons with 90s figs, since I guarantee you I haven't taken especially good care of all of them. The 90s and early 2000s were my childhood-- needless to say, I did some stupid things like using unfired modeling clay for custom "hair" (staining some of my pieces and damaging prints) and leaving figs in my pockets when they went into the wash. Several pieces from one of my 2000 Qui-Gon Jinn figs offend my AFOL sensibilities since I somehow managed to let them get into the wash... in the same pocket as a piece of chewing gum. So it would be no surprise if my own 90s figs were visibly lower quality than yours, or any other fig I compared them to.

Of course, it's also possible that LEGO just hasn't been able to match that level of color quality in yellow. Different dyes behave differently, and since LEGO started adding the dye rather than buying the plastic pre-colored at some point after 2000 (I forget the exact date; I'm not good with dates I can't look up in a jiffy). Perhaps yellow is just a harder color to match than, say, black, when the production process is so very different.

In any case, I'm perfectly satisfied with the color of some of my recent minifigs. Perhaps, again, that's because I prefer to stick with current minifig heads that have better-quality prints. I'd avoid using an older (pre-eye-shine) fig for most things regardless of color, so I might not be paying as much attention to color quality among those. But in any case, the minifig heads of my figs from Atlantis, Agents, and even the collectible fig packs are as vibrant as I've ever needed them, so I'm glad to see that there's a reason I'm not as concerned about the yellow color as you, and it's not just that I'm ignorant or tasteless as far as quality is concerned.

EDIT: Thankfully, none of my yellow-skinned figs (possibly no yellow-skinned figs that exist) are the color of the sole emoticon I found appropriate for the main body of my post. It was more than a bit shocking when I completed my post and saw that fellow staring at me amidst a towering wall of text.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Aanchir

[davee123]

I don't especially like naming particular sources (unless it's someone that does public relations for LEGO like Steve/Jan/Tormod).

So, ok, I wanted to go back to this-- I spoke to the person I heard it from again, wanting to clarify whether or not it was kosher to reveal the source. He told me that it wasn't solely relayed to him through the source I was attributing it to, but that it was primarily presented to AFOLs at a Danish LEGO event a few months ago by the Vice President of Quality Control at LEGO in Denmark. He supposedly made it clear that while it wasn't impossible to get the same plastic in China, it wasn't going to be worth the cost and hassle to get the supply line going without an in-country source.

Anyway, there's the source, for any still curious.

DaveE

[XimenaPaulina]

I don't know if this has been pointed out before, but I recently noticed the following when I was doing some minifig customization:

1) Detached collectible arm attached to a regular torso = very loose connection (you can't pose the arm anymore and it just 'drops')

2) Detached regular arm attached to a regular torso = normal connection (posable arm)

3) Detached regular arm attached to a collectible torso = slightly loose connection (but still posable arm)

So I guess there are some minor quality issues on the collectible minifig arm connection point.

[prateek]

I don't know if this has been pointed out before, but I recently noticed the following when I was doing some minifig customization:

1) Detached collectible arm attached to a regular torso = very loose connection (you can't pose the arm anymore and it just 'drops')

2) Detached regular arm attached to a regular torso = normal connection (posable arm)

3) Detached regular arm attached to a collectible torso = slightly loose connection (but still posable arm)

So I guess there are some minor quality issues on the collectible minifig arm connection point.

I guess it's a softer plastic that wears easier than standard ABS?

[XimenaPaulina]

I guess it's a softer plastic that wears easier than standard ABS?

I think it has something to do with 'stress'-resistance, with the collectible fig plastic being less stress-resistant than the standard ABS of regular minifigs.

[prateek]

I think it has something to do with 'stress'-resistance, with the collectible fig plastic being less stress-resistant than the standard ABS of regular minifigs.

You're the chemist here, so I guess you're right

[Aanchir]

I don't know if this has been pointed out before, but I recently noticed the following when I was doing some minifig customization:

1) Detached collectible arm attached to a regular torso = very loose connection (you can't pose the arm anymore and it just 'drops')

2) Detached regular arm attached to a regular torso = normal connection (posable arm)

3) Detached regular arm attached to a collectible torso = slightly loose connection (but still posable arm)

So I guess there are some minor quality issues on the collectible minifig arm connection point.

I don't think that really counts as a quality issue-- minifig arms aren't technically supposed to be interchanged-- it weakens the connection over time, so I doubt LEGO is concerned with whether the minifig arms are intercompatible with the two styles of torsos.

Out of curiosity, if you reattach a collectible minifig arm to its original torso, is the connection weaker than when it was fresh from the package? If so, then the issue is indeed that the parts are less stress-resistant than the standard parts, and thus more likely to receive lasting damage from just a little bit of arm-swapping.

If not, then my guess is that it's probably something to do with the amount of friction between the connected surfaces-- note that some of the most noticed inconsistencies between collectible minifig parts and standard minifig parts (other than color inconsistency and cosmetic differences like molding marks) deal with the parts having a different "texture" than the standard minifig parts. This could quite easily manifest itself in the form of a different amount of friction between the two different surfaces.

Granted, as with the use of illegal connections, clone brands, and custom parts, LEGO doesn't have a mafia-style enforcer going door-to-door beating in the knees of minifig customizers with a baseball bat. But if you reported this issue to TLG, I doubt they'd consider it a matter that needed to be fixed unless it led to other problems even if the arms and torso were left together.

[davee123]

I don't think that really counts as a quality issue-- minifig arms aren't technically supposed to be interchanged-- it weakens the connection over time, so I doubt LEGO is concerned with whether the minifig arms are intercompatible with the two styles of torsos.

I totally disagree that it doesn't count as a quality issue, although I WOULD agree that LEGO might not see it as such. LEGO in the past has gone through great lengths to provide that little smidgen of extra quality, like making sure you can reattach arms and legs without problems. This is evidence that LEGO isn't going the distance that it used to. Perhaps you can argue that it's not "sub-par" quality, but it's certainly "sub-LEGO" quality given their history.

DaveE

[vexorian]

I know we are not supposed to interchange minifig arms, yet we all do. It is particularly disappointing to me if collectable figs arms were noninterchangeable with noncollectable because it would mean that the blacktron torso in series 3 will always have a cyborg arm.

[Aanchir]

I totally disagree that it doesn't count as a quality issue, although I WOULD agree that LEGO might not see it as such. LEGO in the past has gone through great lengths to provide that little smidgen of extra quality, like making sure you can reattach arms and legs without problems. This is evidence that LEGO isn't going the distance that it used to. Perhaps you can argue that it's not "sub-par" quality, but it's certainly "sub-LEGO" quality given their history.

DaveE

Who's to say LEGO deliberately made it so that reattaching arms and legs was harmless? Seems more likely that whatever makes the old arms and legs so resilient was probably just for the purpose of making sure the arms were firm after they were first attached (since yes, attaching them in the first place would also apply a certain amount of pressure). The fact that they also could withhold the stress of more arm-swapping than the collectible figs was probably an unintended consequence (LEGO certainly wouldn't put that much trouble towards a measure that would encourage something they frown upon).

From my experience, collectible figs that have never had their arms changed around actually have stronger, firmer joints than figs from regular sets. So one could just as easily argue that the differences in the arm joints are a sign of superior quality with the collectible figs. It's all a matter of where you put your priorities, and the collectible figs make it clear that for LEGO, the fresh-from-the-package arm strength of the collectible figs and their resilience to frequent posing are higher priorities than their resilience to switching of arms and other unintended applications of the figs.

Really, you can't act as if LEGO cares less than they used to about something they may never have cared about in the first place. It would be like saying a car manufacturer stopped "going the distance" by installing better suspension, just because the ride's not as bumpy as you used to like it. The company has different priorities than you do, and if anything they're putting more effort towards quality in the ways that they consider important.

[davee123]

Really, you can't act as if LEGO cares less than they used to about something they may never have cared about in the first place.

Honestly, I don't really care whether or not LEGO cared about it. *I* care, and that's what makes it a quality issue. Note above, I explicitly stated that LEGO may or may not care about it. And it's irrelevant to me what they do and don't consider to be a quality issue. If enough customers care about it, then they'll care.

From my experience, collectible figs that have never had their arms changed around actually have stronger, firmer joints than figs from regular sets. So one could just as easily argue that the differences in the arm joints are a sign of superior quality with the collectible figs.

I haven't really noticed a difference (not that I've tried too much). If true, then yes, that particular aspect could be superior, and I'd be fine with calling it such. But the other problems with tolerances, color consistency, translucency, "clicking hands", and now the re-attaching arm problem all make the overall quality in my book far lower.

Unfortunately, I think this actually means my BrickLink purchasing will forever be changed (I just had my first experience interchanging arms this past weekend). Before I ever buy another minifig on BrickLink, I'm going to have to ask the seller whether or not it's a made-in-China figure, and I simply won't buy the Chinese figs. I probably won't buy the Chinese style battle packs either. As it stands, I already have all the collectible figures set aside from my normal collection, and it'll sadly have to stay that way.

DaveE

[Cobb]

I too notice a slightly lesser quality in these collectible figures. The plastic looks and feels somewaht cheaper then the regular minifigs. But not so much that it bothers me. What does bother me is the print quality esp. the torso of the crash test dummie and the police man are out of focus.