# Master Replicas? What's up? Have they passed into the great beyond?



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Hi guys!

Been tied up for months by a new girlfriend and some serious, time consuming, and tedious/costly home improvements I had to do virtually by myself.

So I haven't had much time between that and work to do much more then eat sleep and drink.

What happened to Master Replicas?

I'm sorry if that's old news to most of you guys but I've been out of the loop for most of the past several months. I've hardly been able to stick my head in the door here muchless keep up. :freak:

Any info you'd care to share would be appreciated!

Thanks!


----------



## gojira61 (May 21, 2008)

Still around but with a complete restart, they are now Factory Replicas, the MR name has been dropped.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I saw that website.

Doesn't seem to be any mention of a Sci-Fi license
other then "The Prisoner." 

Anybody know of what's become of all their old stock, licenses, etc? 

This seems to be a truly sad event.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

I'm still thinking about the girlfriend ...


----------



## gojira61 (May 21, 2008)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I saw that website.
> 
> Doesn't seem to be any mention of a Sci-Fi license
> other then "The Prisoner."
> ...


The licenses are in the wind, a few have found new homes at *eFX* like Disney Classics and the Muppets.

I was a huge MR. fan, loved their stuff. Factory Replicas is just getting rolling, it takes time to hammer out licenses so I wouldn’t count them out yet on some classic Sci-Fi.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Hi guys!
> 
> Been tied up for months by a new girlfriend . . .


Sounds kinky! Did she release you or did you have to gnaw through the ropes?

Either way, good to have you back and posting again!:wave:



> What happened to Master Replicas?
> 
> I'm sorry if that's old news to most of you guys but I've been out of the loop for most of the past several months.


Don't feel bad--I've been paying attention and can't keep up with it all.

Usual stuff going on like with PL morphing into AMT/R2, Monarch and Moebius appearing like angels out of the heavens, Revell reissues, etc. I think we may be entering the _Platinum _Age of sci-fi model kits and collectibles.:thumbsup:


----------



## Joeysaddress (Jun 16, 2006)

So did MR ever release the last of the Studio Scale USS Enterprises?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

There's a lengthy thread over on the RPF devoted to MR's demise. According to founder Steve Dymszo...

"_...MR went out (of business) because they really never understood the subject or customer base, their founder and head of design lost his mind and went nuts, and too many people had their own agendas for how the company should be run, and the market was starting to dwindle and there were faaaar too many companies trying to sell too-similar (or re-packaged) items to an ever-decreasing fan-base. Customers were starting to get tired of the crap, and the money dried up."_

Sums it up pretty well, I think.

Anyway, they made some cool stuff while it lasted. The guys at efx are attempting to carry on in the MR tradition, but their "keep the numbers down" business approach seems a lot more level-headed given current economic realities. Lord knows the market for these sorts of high-end collectibles has shrunken in recent months, but with any luck efx will be able to hang in there.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Ya know they did GREAT work but not everyone could afford $1000.00 for the Enterprise. INCLUDING me! I wanted one so bad. I just couldn't justify it to my other half.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Carson Dyle said:


> There's a lengthy thread over on the RPF devoted to MR's demise. According to founder Steve Dymszo...
> 
> "_...MR went out (of business) because they really never understood the subject or customer base, their founder and head of design lost his mind and went nuts, and too many people had their own agendas for how the company should be run, and the market was starting to dwindle and there were faaaar too many companies trying to sell too-similar (or re-packaged) items to an ever-decreasing fan-base. Customers were starting to get tired of the crap, and the money dried up."_
> 
> ...


Well, I think the problem was, they just didn't understand how it all works today. If you put out a 'limited edition' item, probably 75% of the run gets eaten up by scalper/speculators who just want to 'flip' the item for large money, having no love for the item whatsoever.

While I firmly believe in the capitalist system, that just defeats the entire reason for HAVING limited items, which is 'we know we can't sell 100,000 of this, but we CAN sell 5,000 to those dedicated fans out there'.

Look at Mattel's Mattycollector, or that large Batmobile. How many He-Man figures are up on eBay at the moment?

The secret is, today, unlimited runs and low prices. Sell via web and select dealers (ignore the comic shops unless they come to you), and don't let the scalpers dictate your sales. Run off 2000, sell them, see what the reservation requests are looking like, run off another 2000...repeat until nobody wants it anymore or your license runs out.

MR and Product Enterprises both thought the future was more and more expensive and limited items because the margin was huge on such things, but good lord, how many 'studio scale' Eagles can you have room for?

Diamond almost has it right with their Star Trek stuff, but again they play to the scalper/speculators with 'limited this' and 'only available at that' nonsense. You've got the molds, you've got the license, the cost to make more is MUCH less than the original development cost, just KEEP MAKING THEM but....

*ahem* sorry, I get a little ranty about this subject 

Low cost, high volume, no limited editions, that's how you make money.

Oh, and REALISTIC sales goals. You HAVE to understand that you're going to sell way more 'standard' Eagles than Commissioner Simmon's executive Eagle with special orange paint trim. In that case what you do is sell the Eagle, then sell a set of 'speciality' modules with all the variations. Simple, because you end up selling more Eagles. 

Blah blah blah, sorry.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve H said:


> Low cost, high volume, no limited editions, that's how you make money.


:thumbsup:You're right except that I'd say "reasonable price" or "lower price." There has to be a decent margin to make it worth while for the business folks and most folks will pay and respect a price higher than that found in a "bargain bin" but that is within reason and reflects the quality of the product.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> :thumbsup:You're right except that I'd say "reasonable price" or "lower price." There has to be a decent margin to make it worth while for the business folks and most folks will pay and respect a price higher than that found in a "bargain bin" but that is within reason and reflects the quality of the product.


Yes, you're right, Lower cost is better, reasonable price more polite.

Of course what I may find 'reasonable' you might consider insanely low. 

But I come from the time when everything WAS cheap, even allowing for inflation. Someone made a lovely, lovely prop replica of the first season Lost in Space Laser Pistol. Looking at it, I can finally SEE it, see that it was based on a Remco 'Monkey Division' grenade launcher toy gun (and I seem to recall that the pistols and rifles were actually made by Remco for the production in order to secure the toy license-yet oddly they never actually made them as toys)..now, I HAD that toy gun as a child, and because I am a mutant even at 7 or 8 years old I noted prices for things, and that was only like $4.98. A princely sum at a time MacDonalds was still like 15 cents for a burger, but still, cheap.

NOT several hundred Dollars. 

So I'd go maybe $50 for a LiS Laser pistol, doesn't even have to fire roll caps or anything. But several hundred, I just have to look at it and sigh and go on with my life.

See, the thing is, at $50, they COULD sell a few thousand, maybe 10,000. It's all being made in China, they've GOT the molds, they don't NEED Bill Mumy to sign 'authenticity' plates, doesn't even need light and sound. 

Argh.

Maybe I'm just a poor businessman with no head for reality.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

$5 in 1966 would be about $33 today according to: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

That's based on the official government underestimate of/lying about inflation.

If you look at the price of gold, the average prices of a car, a house, etc. I think it'd be more like $50.00 or more as you suggested.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

When Product Enterprises decided to move from the smaller diecast replcas to the giant expensive ones I was afraid for their future. When you charge that much for something it had better be perfect and you were working with a much smaller customer base to afford them. Their Thunderbird line had numerous prbles and simply was no tworth what they were charging fo rthem. I would lov to hav had a chance to get one of those ships (without the launch bya they bundled with it, and eventually I found the Thunderbird 3 in the same scale at a resonable price and got one. Ironically it looks like this GK was what they based thir versionon, just with some panel line changes...

The idea of a fully lighted Enterprise was great, but there is not way on Earth I could kustify buying one- I have bought several cars for less than that.

I am not sure what they will release from 'The Prisoner'- ID card, one of the phones, a full size Rover? (or you can take an old weather balloon and make your th esame way the production company did). I do with them luck and hope the decide to make smaller, less Uber-replcas that more people can afford.

.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

Same old same old. Big announcements no product. Custom Replicas, Master Replicas, Sovereign Replicas, yada, yada, yada. This has been going on for over 20 years. A big Jupiter 2. A big TOS Enterprise. etc, etc. If a certain persons name come up with *another* company to produce Sci-Fi ships, I think I'll throw up. :freak:


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> $5 in 1966 would be about $33 today according to: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
> 
> That's based on the official government underestimate of/lying about inflation.
> 
> If you look at the price of gold, the average prices of a car, a house, etc. I think it'd be more like $50.00 or more as you suggested.


Yea, but the average yearly salary in 1966 was about $6,900.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Richard Baker said:


> When Product Enterprises decided to move from the smaller diecast replcas to the giant expensive ones I was afraid for their future. When you charge that much for something it had better be perfect and you were working with a much smaller customer base to afford them. Their Thunderbird line had numerous prbles and simply was no tworth what they were charging fo rthem. I would lov to hav had a chance to get one of those ships (without the launch bya they bundled with it, and eventually I found the Thunderbird 3 in the same scale at a resonable price and got one. Ironically it looks like this GK was what they based thir versionon, just with some panel line changes...
> 
> The idea of a fully lighted Enterprise was great, but there is not way on Earth I could kustify buying one- I have bought several cars for less than that.
> 
> ...


See, this goes to what I was saying.

You make a cordless phone handset (with base and all, to be hidden in normal use) like the ones in Number 2's office, price it at about $100, and it would be a hit. You could also make it a Bluetooth handset for your cell. THAT would be nifty.

But if you make it a non-working 'replica' that maybe plays some pat phrases from the show and charge $250, well, bleah on that. Good lord, I could carve the handset out of wood, hollow out the core and have one of the wizards of electronics (you know who you are!  ) here build me something in it to do the same thing, and using some cheap Chinese copy of an iPod I could probably do the whole thing for under $100.

I get....testy...when I see that kind of boldfaced stupid shortsightedness...*sigh*


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Antimatter said:


> Yea, but the average yearly salary in 1966 was about $6,900.


And today it's about $48,201.00 so maybe a factor of 7 or 8 is about right.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Sounds kinky! Did she release you or did you have to gnaw through the ropes?
> 
> Either way, good to have you back and posting again!:wave:


Sorry! Guess I should have said "all my free time has been spent...". :tongue:

Just the plain 'ole Vanilla and whipped cream stuff going on with the girlfriend. 

Thanks for the welcome back, though!

Glad to finally have more time, though I still have more work to do on the house(that sort of stuff never seems to end, does it?).



PerfesserCoffee said:


> Don't feel bad--I've been paying attention and can't keep up with it all.
> 
> Usual stuff going on like with PL morphing into AMT/R2, Monarch and Moebius appearing like angels out of the heavens, Revell reissues, etc. I think we may be entering the _Platinum _Age of sci-fi model kits and collectibles.:thumbsup:


 
That could be possible. It's becoming easier and easier to have models created by 3D printing/construction machines.

Glad to see there are some true fans that also have the money to get licenses and have them molded in metal and produced.

While not everyone can then afford to have the models made into cast aluminum and produced and shipped from abroad,

once you can get one master produced from 3D masters it's not rediculously expensive to make RTV models and several dozen runs or more from those masters, or their first-generation resin copies.

While it's sad to see the number of mainstream old-line producers of styrene shrink in size and production(not to mention a dramatic shrink in number of subjects they produce),


I can see a day in the not too distant future where fans may be able to easily have even one of a kind models built up by 3D printing companies for them.

Once we get to the point where that's a simple thing technologically, perhaps companies like Paramount might see the light and allow even individual modelers to design models of their stuff and produce copies on a small scale, while retaining the right to reproduce them themselves if they turn out to be popular.

Win/win.

Licensing aside, I see it becoming easier and easier in the future for us to have our own models built up from 3D models created by us or other fans.

At that point we would have almost come full circle again to the point where our grandfathers were when they made their own models one at a time from blocks of balsum wood.

Except the block of wood will exist in cyberspace and the carving tools will be 3D programs instead of knives.

We can hope and dream at least. 

Thanks again for the greet and info. :wave:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> There's a lengthy thread over on the RPF devoted to MR's demise. According to founder Steve Dymszo...
> 
> "_...MR went out (of business) because they really never understood the subject or customer base, their founder and head of design lost his mind and went nuts, and too many people had their own agendas for how the company should be run, and the market was starting to dwindle and there were faaaar too many companies trying to sell too-similar (or re-packaged) items to an ever-decreasing fan-base. Customers were starting to get tired of the crap, and the money dried up."_
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info Carson. Especially the quote from Steve Dymszo.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^ I have to agree with the various posters that the "limited edition" approach never made sense to me.

As someone has already pointed out, once you have the masters, limiting the number of units produced does nothing but cause you to shoot yourself in the foot.

No matter how good your product is, you are never going to make more then X number of them although the initial cost of startup is high.

Plus, of course by making more of them you can eventually charge less, even if not at first.

While people might not agree on how many more or how much less, even a 20-30 percent difference in second or third production runs could increase profits

-and your customer base-

by a large degree.

At one point by working overtime and not going out, I had saved a little bit over $1500 bucks that I intended to spend on a studio scale Millenium Falcon.

Had the thing been priced at or below $1500 bucks they would have had my money long before I had to end up spending it on some unforseen expenses my insurance unexpectantly didn't cover. True, it would have ended up taking longer to pay off my debt, but I would have just had to take a couple more months, it would have gotten taken care of, I would have had a Millenium Falcon and MR would have had another sale.

There are other reasons that people are given pause to spend $2300 then the time needed to save it 
- like they honestly think it's not worth it, a valid reason - we all have to decide for ourselves how much we think something is worth-

but whatever the reason,

how many other people might have bought one had they been priced at $1500 instead of $2300?

or if the 3500th TOS Enterprise were sold for $700 instead of $1100?

Feel free to insert your own examples into the equation, but whatever the particulars, is seems to me that Limited Editions seem to be counter productive.

Something like "Over the next 18 months we'll only be making 2000. First come first serve. You'll have to wait that long or longer for the next production run and get on a waiting list after these are gone. Future runs are not guaranteed, however."

The possibility of a second run might help keep the number of scalpers down, plus future production runs would continue to increase the profit margin so heavily eaten up by the initial investment cost, even if they eventually decide to lower the price a bit.

Limited editions seem to not only enrich scalpers and resellers but also hurt companies like MR more then they can help.

I just don't see any benefit in cutting off your own profits.

Even if the product is a tremendous hit and you never have to take back a single model you are still never going to make more then X dollars.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> There's a lengthy thread over on the RPF devoted to MR's demise. According to founder Steve Dymszo...
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Steve H said:


> Well, I think the problem was, they just didn't understand how it all works today. If you put out a 'limited edition' item, probably 75% of the run gets eaten up by scalper/speculators who just want to 'flip' the item for large money, having no love for the item whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with you that the "limited edition" idea was a bad thing.

And while I have to agree with Steve Dymszo that the fan base might be shrinking, 

I have to kind of disagree with a conclusion that there weren't enough buyers out there.

Perhaps not enough buyers _at the price they were charging_, due to the fact that they had boxed themselves in by the numbers they could produce.

Had they been able to offer the product for about 60% of the cost of the Limited Editions, they probably could have sold several times as many.

I don't have a lick of evidence to back up that guess, I will admit it's a guess right out front.

But something tells me that there would have been at least 10,000 or more Star Trek fans willing to spend $600 bucks for the TOS E product.

Had they not been so afraid they weren't going to sell a few thousand that they tried the rush tactic of "Limited Edition" they could have continued to sell the product at reduced, but still very profitable, price after the first run.


I also can't agree with Mr. Dymszo that there were so many other companies producing like products.

I don't know of any really with regards to the Trek line at least.

In the Trek line the only thing I can think of that he might be referring to is that there are lots of resellers churning out Plastic and/or Resin Phaser II's and Tricorders and Communicators, 

but I don't know of any of them that are making real cast and machined metal versions of any of those.

Their quality on those were unsurpassed and again, I think they could be selling them hand over fist to this day had they not boxed themselves in to limiting the production.

That's simply an opinion. I could be totally wrong, and let me say I have a lot of respect for Steve and anyone who was involved in trying to do the right thing by the fans.

However, most of the quote Carson gave us seems to belie some more serious problems then just marketing. It seems that Steve and his co-workers were dealing with more then a few problems then strategy.

Management breaking down and people going off on their own agendas can destroy almost any company of any size.

I wish all of those were there because they wanted to make some fans some great stuff and make a bit of money for themselves at the same time the best.

I hope all of you will be able to do the same in the future, just don't forget that there may be some middle and lower-end customers out there who love your stuff that you may want to throw a bone or two to in the future. 

Who knows? At the right price you might find there are a few more of us out there then you thought and you might make an extra buck or two as well. :thumbsup:


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

Can anyone say "Icons"..............alex


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

well, here's my probably insane and biased take. If something is made by hand, one guy machining the aluminum, casting the resin...like a friend I knew, a little company called 'Weapons shop of Isher', hand made on his own machines in his basement. That's worth whatever he wants to charge, OK?

But when you get to the point where you're sending everything to a 'turnkey' company in China (i.e. you send them drawings, they make it), you really might as well make 10,000 as 500. The upfront costs of prototyping, tooling, molding, assembly are pretty much fixed as I understand it.

So, if I still understand how the economics of scale work, making MORE of the item means lower per-unit costs as the upfronts are spread out, and the potential of both lower cost and higher margin. 

The sticking point is licensing costs. We'll ignore the nightmare of approval for the moment. 

Some licensors may charge different fees based on the market. A 'limited collectable' may have a lower fee than a 'mass produced product' for example. But it seems to me that's all negotiation. I don't think there's dozens of companies rushing to Fox and/or Irwin Allen's estate fighting for the LiS 1st Season Laser Pistol rights...so explaining carefully that SOME 'pie' is better than NO 'pie' is the solution to that.

(forgive me, yes, I'm a bit obsessed over that gun at the moment. I LOVED the look of that, like so much of the 1st season of LiS it had solid design work, seemed 'real' and...blah blah  )

So, how do you do it? Well, maybe you have a 'limited' version with an autograph and a fancy base or case, and a 'mass release' version at a much lower price. 

But nobody is going to listen to me. They'll keep on hyping their RARE!! COLLECTABLE! ONLY (x) AVAILABLE WORLDWIDE!! stuff and die screaming, painful deaths of vaporware products and unreturned deposits.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Steve H said:


> Some licensors may charge different fees based on the market. A 'limited collectable' may have a lower fee than a 'mass produced product' for example. But it seems to me that's all negotiation. I don't think there's dozens of companies rushing to Fox and/or Irwin Allen's estate fighting for the LiS 1st Season Laser Pistol rights...so explaining carefully that SOME 'pie' is better than NO 'pie' is the solution to that.


I'm not going to say it's impossible, but I can't imagine that Paramount or any other licensor would want to force a producer to limit production.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure MR was charged less for their Trek licensee then say Polar Lights originally paid during their first incarnation.

But I think that is more because Paramount knew from the start that only x number of units could be sold and they knew they could only get so much money from a small company.

But I don't think that means that Paramount insisted on a limited edition setup or might not have been negotiated into a more open-ended deal.

Just as the producer would be limiting their potential profit so would the licensor. The more units and profit a company like MR might make the more money they could pay over time to those holding the license.

True, the licensor can't have 5 different companies making the same Studio Scale model - then there would be little point in it for making the product.

But they can easily, as mentioned before, have somebody making a professional studio scale model and also have someone making a smaller toy or model set without setting the different companies directly in competition with one another.

I didn't really see all that much competition to Master Replicas models and props

(with perhaps the exception of light sabers, that they probably went way overboard with - really how many 2/3rd scale lightsabers are going to sell as opposed to a full scale one at or near the same price?)

especially in the Star Trek line.

To see the competition that Steve Dymszo seems to think he had would require him to compare toys to metal cast props; and studio scale replicas to Art Asylum TOS E's; to say there was any real competition.

I think Mr. Dymszo is selling himself a bit short to classify toys as real competition to the great stuff MR made. 

Perhaps some licensors have given lower licensing prices to limited edition producers because they know they can't charge a small company $10 million bucks for five years like they could a company like AMT/Ertl or even Polar Lights.

But, as you alluded to, everything can be negotiated. 

I don't see why they couldn't have made the production open ended and based on a minimum the company would have to pay plus bonus royalties if the product were successful and future runs were possible.

This is just an opinion of how it might help a future company do a bit better. Again just an opinion.

In the end though, considering the internal problems that seems to have been there it may not have mattered in MR's specific case.

Here's hoping that Steve Dymszo and anyone else who might have been in the business for the sake of both pleasing fans with awesome stuff and to make a profit suceed in the future in doing both,

whatever business model they choose.

Live Long and Prosper!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I think it's not so much a case of, say, Paramount WANTING to limit production of a thing, as just an accounting bit of nonsense, figures created by gray men in gray offices because everything must fit on a balance sheet.

If you only intend to make 500 of something, the fee is (x) because it's a collectible and not a mass produced item. They're not setting the limit, YOU are because you don't want to spend (x times 5) (just to pull a number out of thin air).

And I haven't mentioned another factor because I have a surprising optimism in my fannish outlook, but it's reality that must be addressed. Greed. Greed on the part of the manufacturer. If you can sell a 'limited edition' item for 100x the cost to manufacture, why NOT make that money, right? Except of course that's all phantom income until you actually produce and sell the thing.

Again, I cite Mattel and the current Masters of the Universe toys they offer online only. MSRP of those are $20 each. If they sold them in stores they's have to make that WAY lower, probably $13 MSRP, and of THAT they only get something like 50%, or 7.50 after the different discounts to wholeseller, jobbers and what WalMart would demand. So, if they're charging $20 a figure, that's a LOT of margin.

But then again, they're making a mistake, because they aren't figuring that while EVERY MotU figure has fans, not every figure will SELL AT THE SAME LEVELS. They'll sell a s**tload more He-Man and Skeletor then the guy with the elephant head or walking joke Zodak. Logic would say don't MAKE the oddball figures, just make the Big Names, but THAT would be a mistake because there is a base that DOES want them all, and again, EVERY figure has a core of fans. So, the trick is, KEEP EVERYTHING IN PRODUCTION...short runs, have an inventory on hand, there's always NEW people discovering that your product exists so be READY for that, because you LOSE customers when a true collector fan can't GET a complete set, they STOP COLLECTING.

Which takes us right back to earlier about the market drying up. It's not just the money is tight, it's PEOPLE ARE FRUSTRATED by variations, shortpacks, store exclusives, convention exclusives...


Arrgh! my rant button is stuck! HELP!


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> And today it's about $48,201.00 so maybe a factor of 7 or 8 is about right.


the thing is that the standard of living is far lower than in '66. theres no way that the $48.2K could support a stay at home partner, a house payment, and a few kids in the manner that $6.9K could then. 
id put todays money at 1/20 or less than the same value in 1966.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

razorwyre1 said:


> the thing is that the standard of living is far lower than in '66. theres no way that the $48.2K could support a stay at home partner, a house payment, and a few kids in the manner that $6.9K could then.
> id put todays money at 1/20 or less than the same value in 1966.


 
Another point perhaps missed is that you guys are talking about a translation of the average '66 income into todays dollars; 

and assuming that the average income today is still $48.2K.

Truth is, we no longer have the means to calculate household income as accurately as we did in '66 due to a change in the way unemployment is calculated.

We really don't know what the average household income is today,
and especially can't accurately compare it to 1966's.

Really today it is almost impossible to calculate both the real average household income and today's true unemployment percentage.

Back in February of 1983 I believe it was(I was a political science major at the time and following all this closely) the Reagan Administration's policy whiz's decided that people who fell off the unemployment rolls, ceased using their federally/state supported job finding service, and also had not yet found a job were basically a bunch of lazy layabouts who just stopped trying.

As such they argued that they should not have be counted as truly unemployed as they simply were deemed as not really trying.

I won't get into any argument about whether that's bogus nonesense or a sound social perspective - that's not really my point.

I will say that even if you agreed/agree with this viewpoint, there are massive holes in their execution of the new way they would calculate unemployment.

The biggest being that whether or not you thought the unemployed were still trying or had given up,

at least the unemployed were accurately counted as unemployed - their reasons for remaining so and moral character judgements apon them aside.

Another big problem was that they didn't take into account that just because unemployed people whose benefits ran out stopped trying to find work via their federally/state financed unemployment offices is in no way an accurate way to tell if someone is actively seeking work.

Many many states relied almost exclusively on the federal governments contribution to their Unemployment program and spent as little as they possibly could.

As a result in many states people's Unemployment offices are so massively understaffed and under-resourced that it's ridiculous to try and use them to find a job.

Many use private job finding services and/or pound the pavement, read job periodicals and the newspaper from the moment they are unemployed.

It does little good to them to do more then collect their benefit checks at their local Unemployment office.

During the 80's here in Louisiana during our oil "bust" I worked as a student intern for a few months at an Louisiana Unemployment office.

After a couple of weeks I noticed the same faces didn't use the job finding service for very long.

And while the lines were always long due to the small staff the turnover in new faces being the only ones in line to use the state's job finding service was incredible.

People just didn't bother using that service after they found out how poor it was.

When I asked a long time staffer why that was she said words to the effect 

_"Why should they get in long lines for hours? 
Our super jobs listing database basically is nothing more then a combination of the state and federal job listings and a copy of job listings from local newspapers, with maybe a few people who call up and list themselves, but that's rare. We don't even have commercially available listings.

Everything we're going to send them on they can get without standing in line if they want to just walk over to fed/state listings and buy a newspaper.

Would you spend hours in line when in the same amount of time you could have been on two or more interviews for the same jobs we're going to give them one referal for?"_ 

In short, assuming people who no longer get checks, no longer are using the Federal/State job finding services, and haven't yet gotten a job

are no longer trying is totally inaccurate because people actively using commercial listings, the newspaper, private and better job finding services, and nowadays the internet 

don't even show up on the jobless radar even though they might still be trying to find work.

And again, even more important, prior to 1983, 

at least the unemployed were accurately counted as unemployed - their reasons for remaining so and moral character judgements apon them aside the statistic was an accurate one and not based on moral character judgements that may or may be at all accurate.


Anyway, the Administration then directed the Bureau of Labor statistics to stop counting these people.

The change was noticed by virtually no one in the public.

Why?

For one thing, as the numbers were calculated month to month only a small percentage of people fell in this category in any one month.

Back in the '80's it also had the sneaky effect of making it look like the unemployment rate was gradually better then it really was, because they just stopped counting more and more jobless people as unemployed as each month passed.

But then as more and more people went through the cycle in most states after a year or so we went from having a fairly accurate picture of what percentage of people are actually unemployed,

to what we have now - *a system that no longer counts people whose benefit checks have run out and don't use their Federal/State unemployment services for their job hunt as unemployed.*

Even if they are looking day in and day out for work, these jobless people are no longer counted as unemployed because they have been deemed, in effect, to not really be trying.

*And of course, if we don't truly know, compared to '66, how many people are truly unemployed, *

*It throws off many other statistics and makes it impossible to truly know what the accurate "average household income" is compared to '66.*

This change made back in '83 makes such calculations impossible as we aren't averaging in any of those "lazy layabouts" who aren't making anything.

If your count of the unemployed is calculated totally differently, you can't really get an accurate average income.

You can average the income of those who have jobs, 

but doing only that doesn't give you an accurate average household income, and we truly have no way of knowing what today's household income is compared to 1966's average income.



Again, 

you are talking about a translation of the average '66 income into todays dollars($48.2K); 

and assuming it's the same now.

We really don't know what today's average income is compared to then because we know longer calculate unemployment the same way,
nor even have the apparatus in place to do so if we wanted to figure it out using the older more "inclusive"(read accurate) system.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Wow, we've got some interesting discussion going on here! A bit off what the topic is but it has some value!

Chuck, I think you're right in many ways. I am one of those people. I've been unemployed since '06. I do not exist as far as the Government is concerned, as I am a single, straight, non druggie/alky white male. I won't throw Pres. Reagan under the bus for the way the system is because it's the people IN the system, the Progressives who have been working into every level...well, enough of that.

All that matters is numbers. If you are qualified, you're another tic on the tally, and that shows they CARE and are HELPING, even tho NOTHING CHANGES. I have people all around me with cell phones and cars and plasma TVs collecting welfare, but I'm told that as long as I can make rent payments I don't qualify for housing assistance, but of course if I CAN'T pay the rent then I LOSE my apartment and I don't qualify for housing assistance...

But I keep trying.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Steve H said:


> Wow, we've got some interesting discussion going on here! A bit off what the topic is but it has some value!
> 
> Chuck, I think you're right in many ways. I am one of those people. I've been unemployed since '06. I do not exist as far as the Government is concerned, as I am a single, straight, non druggie/alky white male. I won't throw Pres. Reagan under the bus for the way the system is because it's the people IN the system, the Progressives who have been working into every level...well, enough of that.
> 
> ...


Sorry to hear about that Steve. 

I don't blame Reagen personally for the sneaky change in the way they no longer count many Americans who have fallen through the cracks as unemployed. It was a political decision his administration made that he okay'd though, so he does deserve a bit of the blame.

Honestly though, the more I read about the man's administration the less I'm convinced he was all that concerned - or even involved - with many of the decisions his appointees made.

To be fair though, it's also true that the presidents since Reagen could have reversed and reinstated the more accurate method used before the change, and after several years we would have afterwards gotten back to a more accurate accounting of who is and isn't jobless and what the real unemployment numbers are.

But then what politician, of any party, today has the guts to intentionally reinstate a system that makes him look worse then his predecessor?

Unlikely to happen.

I wish you luck in your job search and hope you'll eventually...

Live Long and Prosper!!! :thumbsup:


Another thing you said was correct too, We've strayed more then a bit off-topic.

I'm hoping someone might post some new news or info about some of the companies that seem to be arising from MR's ashes.

Barring that I'll bow out of our little digression and again wish you good luck.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Thanks for keeping things civil guys, but kindly watch the political comments.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Carson Dyle said:


> Thanks for keeping things civil guys, but kindly watch the political comments.


And I apologize for my end of that. (gee, I've been doing that alot lately, WTH?  )

Was a time politics could be discussed in a civil, reasoned manner, with folks agreeing to disagree, but we live in a time where ANY comment can become a damn lightning rod, and the real 'out there' people start up...

And that's *both* sides, mind. 

So, there's a 'gap' in high end SF collectibles currently. MR will return under some other name and make the same mistakes. Pity those folks won't pop in here and LISTEN to us...

(like. politicians maybe? :devil: don't hit don't hit not the face!)


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Some people insist on following a failed marketing plan assuming there are _other factors_ preventing success.

.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Richard Baker said:


> Some people insist on following a failed marketing plan assuming there are _other factors_ preventing success.
> 
> .


Isn't doing the same exact thing over and over and expecting different results the functional definition of insanity? 

Oh, I could give you about 10,000 words on this topic about Bandai in Japan, and their attempts to enter the American market since the '70s...


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

falcondesigns said:


> Can anyone say "Icons"..............alex


That was another bust I couldn't think of. Same @#$% different day.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Unobtainium. I have a friend who got burned by that thing. He did get the "do you want money back?" note but he decided to support the project and have faith, and....

well.

Actually, as an aside, I really hope R2 is paying attention to the physics and engineering of that 1/350 original Enterprise that's in that holding pattern. Nacelles that size, there's gonna be HELLA HUGE stress put on the spine of the secondary hull. OK, sorry, enough sidebar.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

I guess I'm not surprised about Master Replicas...

The first time I'd ever heard of them was back when they were building the SW light sabre replicas that lit up and had sound effects. I was in Borders Books one day and I heard this sound of a light sabre firing up and thought I was hearing things, when I got to the counter later, I saw one on display behind the counter. When I asked about the price, it was around 125 dollars for one - inside I balked at the price, but I did want one. I got a bonus the following Christmas and that's what I bought.

After that, I followed the MR website to see what other neat things they would come up with. They did come up with some great stuff, but the prices were so prohibitive, I just had to settle for "window shopping" after that. I still have the light sabre, which I love powering up now and again and it's proudly displayed on a shelf, but it's really the only thing that MR made that I considered in my price range.

If I felt that way, I did wonder how many other folks out there agreed with my reasoning. It's not that someone wouldn't want what they make, but could they afford it? Not every SciFi fan has loads of surplus cash or credit laying around - especially in today's economy.

It is nice to hear that someone else is taking up where they left off, but maybe they'll do a better job of product development and marketing where they'll make a profit in sales by making what they sell just a bit more attainable for fan that doesn't make 80 thou a year.

Bryan


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

i felt they were doomed from the moment i saw their light sabres at borders. the discounts major chains ask for are huge, and puts stresses on many businesses that try to supply them, especially if those businesses are producing high end, low margin collectibles.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chuck and Steve H:

Y'all are exactly right about the manipulation of the job/unemployment/average salary stats! From 1980 to 2008, the inflation stats have been progressively "cooked" (and I can't remember the exact details of each change) on top of the earlier manipulations.

Starting a few years back, offsets have been deducted from the actual inflation figures by reasoning that, for just one example, since computers have come way down in price and gone way up in power, that that should be used to lower the inflation figures. WRONG!

Consumer inflation has traditionally been calculated based the basic items necessary to provide food, clothing, and shelter to individuals and their families and not luxury nor optional items. The decrease in cost of new technology has been with us for a loooong time due to patent laws and other basic economic structures. Suddenly including it to lower the inflation stats is bogus math. 

On the other hand, realistically looking at the situation, standards of living _have_ gone up in ways that are apples and oranges with the 1960s. The relative costs, adjusting for the actual level of inflation, of many items has gone down--but then, so has the cost of manual labor which has been dropping in the past decade or so. Compared to the 1960s, the costs of some labor intensive services like car repair has actually decreased (due to some political/societal manipulations I won't go into here).

I think model prices have come down some compared to what they ought to be under what the real inflation figures would reveal--in other words, their prices have decreased in price adjusted for actual inflation.

In any case, I think model kits, except for some categories, have always been risky to produce and, AFAIK, high quality, specialized sci-fi collectible companies like MR have not even been around until the last decade or so. Such companies may be a result of the last couple of financial bubbles that gave folks more disposable income than a legal, real-money economy (with fewer bubbles and busts) would have produced. 

We shall see if the fact that these companies have discovered a niche market ensures their existence during tough economic times with high unemployment.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

You know, part of the problem is, much of what MR made were guns. I have no idea how the quality was, but in this (no politics, honest) PC world....could you IMAGINE what would have happened if Borders had a shelf full of Han Solo and Stormtrooper blasters? The panic? My god, those look like REAL guns! Someone could get KILLED!

Growing up in the '60s as I did, I had a huge armory of toy weapons. Topper, Remco, Ideal, Mattel-they were my arms dealers, my 'connection' and every time a company came out with a new product line I was a slathering maniac. The more realistic the better! My god, nothing was better than hauling out my Mattel Thompson SMG, loading a roll of Mattel's 'Greenie' caps (because any other kind might malfunction in the precision zinc and plastic firing mechanics! They wouldn't lie!) rack back the bolt and let loose at aliens, monsters, 'japs' and 'krauts' and other annoying enemies of the back yard. 

*ahem* sorry, got lost in time there. Anyway, toy guns on store shelves used to be common, and NOBODY FREAKED if they saw a kit toting a plastic M-14. Lord, nowadays if I went down the street with some of the toy guns of my youth (say, the Topper 'Magumba' big game bolt action rifle, with scope) if I wasn't shot, I'd get the city's Tac Squad on my butt. So a Stormtrooper blaster? no way! yet that's where the money would be. toy guns. sorry, 'collectible movie replica props'. 

Not being able to mass market those things was probably a big hurt. Again, they had the tooling, costs not much to run off 10k for Walmart. *sigh*

(did I make a point? I'm kinda tired today  )


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve H said:


> You know, part of the problem is, much of what MR made were guns. I have no idea how the quality was, but in this (no politics, honest) PC world....could you IMAGINE what would have happened if Borders had a shelf full of Han Solo and Stormtrooper blasters? The panic? My god, those look like REAL guns! Someone could get KILLED!
> 
> Growing up in the '60s as I did, I had a huge armory of toy weapons. Topper, Remco, Ideal, Mattel-they were my arms dealers, my 'connection' and every time a company came out with a new product line I was a slathering maniac. The more realistic the better! My god, nothing was better than hauling out my Mattel Thompson SMG, loading a roll of Mattel's 'Greenie' caps (because any other kind might malfunction in the precision zinc and plastic firing mechanics! They wouldn't lie!) rack back the bolt and let loose at aliens, monsters, 'japs' and 'krauts' and other annoying enemies of the back yard . . .
> 
> (did I make a point? I'm kinda tired today)


Yes! You made your point:

_*GUNS GOOD!*_:wave:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve H said:


> ...toy guns on store shelves used to be common, and NOBODY FREAKED if they saw a kit toting a plastic M-14.


That was before the little tykes started blowing each other away in alarming numbers.

Nothing like a few Kent Sates, École Polytechniques or Columbines to take the fun out of gun.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Going by your pic, Rob, you're just the right age, in my ballpark.

What was your favorite toy gun? go ahead, it's OK. 

(I had many favorites actually, because being a GI Joe guy I understood you had the proper tools for the specific mission...  )


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Honestly, the only guns that ever held any real fascination for me were, and are, ray-guns.

Even as a kid playing with GI Joes I always armed my guy with the Flare Gun because to me it looked more like a ray-gun (or close enough, at least).

I _do_ have a vague recollection of having a couple of cool James Bond-type guns (or was it Man From Uncle), but even those were of the exotic, quasi-ray-gun variety.

The reasons for this are partially aesthetic; even as a kid in Oklahoma westerns and cop shows bored me, whereas sci-fi thrilled me. Probably didn't help that my WW II vet dad despised weapons of any sort, and had the stories to justify his views. And then there's the fact that my uncle got blown away during a robbery. And the fact that my best friend's dad was paralyzed after taking a slug from a 38 in another robbery. Factor in JFK, RFK, and MLK, and I was pretty much over "real" guns by the age of nine. The fact that most of the males in my extended family were avid hunters did little to increase my interest in shooting deer, ducks, or anything else with a firearm.

On the other hand, when it came to disintegrating Klingons, Invaders, and assorted Irwin Allen monsters I was a one man (or kid) task force.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> Honestly, the only guns that ever held any real fascination for me were, and are, ray-guns.


I was like that, too, for the most part (after a cowboy phase from ages 4-8).

When I was 11, however, I saw UFO and that got me into automatic weapons and, ultimately, back into 19th century weaponry as well. 

After hearing of many, many cases of regular, common folks (who aren't rich enough to live in gated communities or hire bodyguards) successfully defending themselves with guns (mostly without ever having to fire their weapons) over the years against armed criminals and then, myself having successfully apprehended an armed (I found out later) intruder who broke down my front door, I LOOOOOVE guns of all types. They are real, practical "power to the people" as expressed in the most fundamental natural law of mankind in that man has an individual and collective right to defend himself and his loved ones from those that would harm them.

Still, my phaser/laser collection is much bigger than the other collections. :freak:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Carson Dyle said:


> Honestly, the only guns that ever held any real fascination for me were, and are, ray-guns.
> 
> Even as a kid playing with GI Joes I always armed my guy with the Flare Gun because to me it looked more like a ray-gun (or close enough, at least).
> 
> ...


FWIW, I want to apologize for any unhappy memories I raised with my question. Hopefully you understand that was not my intent in any way.

I armed my GI Joes with Captain Action weapons. The 'sci fi' outfits for Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers supplied some rayguns, Captain America had some strange guns (yeah, I recall that issue where Cap put this big red, white and blue laser rifle up and shot thru the tiny hole in his shield..yeah...) and there was an 'armory' accessory set that was just a bunch of guns. Excellent way to re-use tooling, Ideal!

But in a way it's interesting because it bends around to something from before. Ray Guns, and my particular fetish for realism carried to these as well. I needed them to look like what was on the show, not a generic cap gun (or whatever) with a logo sticker. 

I was very very frustrated that here were 2 high profile Sci-fi shows on TV (LiS and ST) and NO realistic toys of the weapons! NOTHING!

I don't know why Remco didn't make the Lost in Space lasers as they intended. It clearly would have been a pretty minor tooling change. 

Here, check it out!

http://fabgearusa.com/laser_pistol_limited_edition_replica.html

Good lord, they hardly changed that Monkey Division 'grenade pistol' AT ALL! The big square back part is replaced with something rather 'Forbidden Planet'-ish, there's stuff stuck on the front for an emitter, a light that probably acted as a 'key light' to cue the animators when to insert the beam effect, and the fragile and useless looking sight. That oval up front? That's where the Remco logo went. The circle towards the middle is where they put the 'branding' sticker. Monkey Division, Hamilton's Invaders, and I think there was actually a Land of the Giants one (!). So WHAT HAPPENED?

But when Mattel picked up the license in the third season and whipped out the Roto-Jet gun, baby, that thing got a LOT of use! I still have the scratched, busted up remains. Had a killer neat box too.

Star Trek, even worse. Even worse. The ONLY ST gun I ever saw (when the show was on) was the famous 'disc tracer' pistol, the gun that shot those hard plastic discs, available in 'command' gold and 'science' blue (and no, NEVER marketed like that but the intent was obvious to my 9 year old mind). Supposedly Remco had some kind of 'flashlight' raygun kinda-sorta Phaser shaped but I never saw it in stores and the picture I recall looked....horrible. Sad and horrible. 

Wasn't until Star Wars in the '70s that realistic rayguns started coming out in full force, the original Stormtrooper blaster was beautiful, and there was an Italian company (brainfart, I think it started with an 'E') making some stunning cap guns and 'rubber bullet' guns..

blah blah blah, I do go on.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Way I look at guns, they're a necessary evil. In a perfect world we wouldn't need them, but since the world is not perfect I accept them. The fondness some people have for guns eludes me; I could no more love a gun than I could love a hand grenade, land mine or atom bomb. The sooner humankind can exist without these barbaric inventions the better, but, you know, I'm not holding my breath.

BTW Steve, I feel your pain re: the frustrating inaccuracy of the kiddy zap-guns of our youth. Would it really have been so hard to make a Lost in Space laser that looked like the weapon from the series --especially since the weapon in the series was itself a modified toy?


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

The Star Trek Tracer pistol had decent accuracy and terrific range when loaded with Toronto subway tokens.

... at $1.50 a shot, though.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

SteveR said:


> The Star Trek Tracer pistol had decent accuracy and terrific range when loaded with Toronto subway tokens.
> 
> ... at $1.50 a shot, though.


*heh*

Well, I found that trimming the sprue stub from the discs did wonders for accuracy, and the original discs, the harder plastic, had good range. It was only when they went to the softer polyvinyl discs (and the tooling for the toy had worn down, assembly wasn't as good and I think they de-powered the spring) that it became a joke.

yes I glued velcro to mine to try and make it 'stick' like on the show.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Carson Dyle said:


> (snip)
> BTW Steve, I feel your pain re: the frustrating inaccuracy of the kiddy zap-guns of our youth. Would it really have been so hard to make a Lost in Space laser that looked like the weapon from the series --especially since the weapon in the series was itself a modified toy?


Well, my point exactly.

I loved the look of the 1st season laser pistol. I clearly recall an episode where Dr. Smith was up to no good and had field stripped all the pistols under the guise of 'helping' and Maureen needed one REAL BAD to save the family, so she shooed him off and just matter-of-fact started to reassemble them, and that made them seem so REAL.

And that Monkey Division grenade pistol was a pretty good sized toy, it was big for a kid, just right for an adult. 

Why, Remco, WHY?

(otoh, they made other horrible toys, the 'Star Trek' helmet, the Star Trek space train..brrr)


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> Would it really have been so hard to make a Lost in Space laser that looked like the weapon from the series --especially since the weapon in the series was itself a modified toy?


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QP-Sq0tCmv4/R0ZiUfIMKpI/AAAAAAAABO8/NFqiOQvJXSA/s1600-h/rocketgun.JPG

I had no idea about that! Amazing!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve H said:


> I loved the look of the 1st season laser pistol. I clearly recall an episode where Dr. Smith was up to no good and had field stripped all the pistols under the guise of 'helping' and Maureen needed one REAL BAD to save the family, so she shooed him off and just matter-of-fact started to reassemble them, and that made them seem so REAL.


I remember that episode! You're right--excellent job making the pistols look real by the prop folks in that one.

http://fabgearusa.com/laser_pistol_limited_edition_replica.html

Man! For $600.00, I think I'll make my own if I want one that badly. How much does one of the battered original Monkey Division toys go for?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QP-Sq0tCmv4/R0ZiUfIMKpI/AAAAAAAABO8/NFqiOQvJXSA/s1600-h/rocketgun.JPG
> 
> I had no idea about that! Amazing!


Holy crap, excellent google-fu! I had NO memory that there was a Star Trek version of the thing!

Love that box. That's just pure '60s going on there.

In addition to firing that big bomb, it was also a cap pistol. The roll was placed in the handgrip (the plate on the right side would rotate on a pin near the bottom of the frame), and the fired cap strip would exit out the top, I think you can tell where, that notch.

As to what these things run, I couldn't tell you, I don't do alot of shopping and eBay has very, very stupid rules that pretty much block the sale of vintage toy guns. But I think if you see someone selling vintage Star Trek, Land of the Giants and Remco you might wish to drop them a note and ask.

Brands it was sold under to my memory:

Monkey Division (the original)
Hamilton's Invaders (chrome and black, rather sweet looking)
Star Trek (again thank you!)
Land of the Giants (I think chrome again)

Good Luck!


----------



## gojira61 (May 21, 2008)

Steve H said:


> Brands it was sold under to my memory:
> 
> Monkey Division (the original)
> Hamilton's Invaders (chrome and black, rather sweet looking)
> ...


You have to hand it to Remco, they knew how to get their money out of a tool.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

gojira61 said:


> You have to hand it to Remco, they knew how to get their money out of a tool.


oh hell yes, and they weren't the only ones. The Mattel 'Tommy Gun' I discuss earlier had, man, I can't keep track of how many versions. I know there was a 'Dick Tracy' one, an Army one, I think mine was a 'Marines' release or 'Jungle Fighter' or something because it had the spekled green on green camo paint (the whole Vietnam thing before it became unpopular) and oddly enough an 'Agent Zero M' spy version (all black). Yeah. Wrap your head around THAT reality. 

The Mattel western guns underwent a bazillion versions IIRC.


----------

