Vintage boxes; the good the bad and the crumpled

[Bonsai_Tree_Ent]

I just received a Palitoy Slave 1 today in an ESB box and have to say this box is bombproof. Really robust, double thick cardboard, you could use it as a footstool and it wouldn't crumple.

So why, oh why are certain other boxes in the vintage line so weedy in comparison? For example the X-Wing box, this dainty number isn't much thicker than A4 printer paper. The 'mighty' ROTJ Jabba Box - same shape as ESB Slave 1, surely this'll be a strong one - nope, thin and fragile as a daisy. Why such disparity in the robustness and the type of cardboard packaging used?

I'm not really expecting anyone to know the answer but it seems a head scratcher that not all vintage boxes are created equal...

 

[SAVORY100]

Interesting post as I've often thought the same...
You would expect the packaging to evolve and become a better/more standard quality, but it seems to have been a roller coaster of production values, shapes and sizes, all heavily relying on the inserts to give the outer shell any stability and strength.

Aside from Slave1, the only other boxes I can think of that have decent structural integrity are Vader's Star Destroyer, the AT-AT and the Imperial Shuttle... maybe they had a size limit to then invest in the additional cardboard (theory falls over on the B-Wing and Y-Wing though), or maybe it is specific to one factory and where/how they sourced the card/printed materials.

One slight aside to this would be the 'line art' versions of the Jabba set and Ewok Village as they both have solid thick cardboard to make them up.

Sure there will be others I've not thought of when looking round my den in my minds eye...

 

[phreatobite]

I think in general the boxes were not up to much in terms of protecting what was inside especially with pricey and large vehicles such as the AT-AT. I suppose they were only really intended to house the toy until it was taken out to be played with.

The Tie Interceptor and X-Wing had pretty good inserts to help keep it all rigid though.

 

[tiefighterboy]

I have found the the Palitoy boxes in comparison to their Kenner counterparts are way more thicker and stronger. Many Palitoy and Tri-logo boxes have a thicker cardboard and they must have designed the packaging independently from the Kenner designs (Example ...the AT-AT box has interior fold in flapS and the cardboard is a better grade versus the thinner Kenner one with no inner flapS). Although not always the case as pointed out..the Palitoy X-wing box is just as thin as the Kenner one.


Great topic BTW.

 

[theforceuk]

Interesting points, all I know is the Rancor box is the most solid box I have.

 

[chipsteak]

My bi-logo Snowspeeder has a strong box too.

 

[spoons]

The Slave 1 is pretty special even for Palitoy. Dagobah is similar and maybe a different manufacturer made those boxes?

 

[db94]

The Slave 1 is pretty special even for Palitoy. Dagobah is similar and maybe a different manufacturer made those boxes?

Yep my Slave1 and Snowspeeder are the rock solid foundations of my bottom row of boxes, the cardboard is a lot thicker compared to the X and Y Wing boxes.

 

[spoons]

nice pic!

when they are altogether like that it seems really obvious that different companies/types of boxes were only used for Palitoy ESB vehicles

Unless it was a reissue of an earlier box the ESB boxes seem to all be of thicker card than what came before or after. The X-Wing kept the same card stock as the SW issue although the new playsets were still thin stock - turret and probot/imperial attack base (anything else ESB?)

Then ROTJ came along and everything went thin stock again - must have been cost related

 

[theforceuk]

Yeah nice pic man. Love the Palitoy X-Wing.