What is "Poch"?

[olisuds]

Hi Lars, melt marks do not make a figure POCH they are just more common on POCH figures. They can be found on figures all over the world. They are just more common on POCH figures. The same goes for sloppy paint and bubbles.

Let me put it like this.

Just because a Tol Toys Jawa often has green spots, that doesnt make a Jawa with green spots a Tol Toys Jawa. A Tol Toys Jawa is defined by his unique cape. Without it its just a discoloured Jawa and pretty much worthless.

Similarly a POCH Bossk often has melt marks but that doesnt make him a POCH Bossk. A POCH Bossk has bright green limbs and without these he's just a badly made Bossk and again pretty worthless.

Poor quality control and discolouration doesnt make a variant. I hope that puts it into better perspective.

 

[Pomse2001]

Hi Oli, I understand, thanks

But he still points out the melt marks, so to me it looks like if a figure does not have that mark then it is not a poch. What if some of us have a figure with all the details correct but no melt mark, is it not a poch then ?

 

[olisuds]

Hi Oli, I understand, thanks

But he still points out the melt marks,

Yes he still points them out because they are commoin characteristics but not what makes them POCH variants or of any particular value. They are unintentional and a result of poor quality control. Think about it like this. Would you pay $1,000 for a figure just because it had a mark on its back?

so to me it looks like if a figure does not have that mark then it is not a poch

No, you shouldnt define a POCH figure by factory errors and poor QC. Just because it is common, doesnt mean it is found with every POCH figure

What if some of us have a figure with all the details correct but no melt mark, is it not a poch then ?

It can still be a POCH without melt marks.


Just forget melt marks and you will be fine and save yourself a lot of wasted money!

 

[Pomse2001]

Hi Oli, I understand, thanks

But he still points out the melt marks,

Yes he still points them out because they are commoin characteristics but not what makes them POCH variants or of any particular value. They are unintentional and a result of poor quality control. Think about it like this. Would you pay $1,000 for a figure just because it had a mark on its back?

so to me it looks like if a figure does not have that mark then it is not a poch

No, you shouldnt define a POCH figure by factory errors and poor QC. Just because it is common, doesnt mean it is found with every POCH figure

What if some of us have a figure with all the details correct but no melt mark, is it not a poch then ?

It can still be a POCH without melt marks.


Just forget melt marks and you will be fine and save yourself a lot of wasted money!

Thanks nice to know that but why does he then point out the melt marks on his guide ? when I look at his guide I understand it like if the melt marks is not on Han Solo Bespin then it is not a POCH etc. etc.

 

[Dr Dengar]

ALL POCH figures should be characterised by unique colour schemes / paints. The differences can be obvious (think Han Hoth or Lando) or subtle (Imperial Commander, Boba Fett) but they should be there.

Any factory imperfections (melt marks, bad welding, etc.) should be considered a nice bonus - not more than that - which further helps identifying a POCH figure.

Hope this helps.

BTW: apart from the great resources already mentioned, there is a thread on TIG which has one main goal: sharing and discussing POCH paint characteristics, also for the lesser known figures.

Cheers

 

[olisuds]

ALL POCH figures should be characterised by unique colour schemes / pains. The differences can be obvious (think Han Hoth or Lando) or subtle (Imperial Commander, Boba Fett) but they should be there.

Any factory imperfections (melt marks, bad welding, etc.) should be considered a nice bonus - not more than that - which further helps identifying a POCH figure.

Hope this helps.

BTW: apart from the great resources already mentioned, there is a thread on TIG which has one main goal: sharing and discussing POCH paint characteristics, also for the lesser known figures.

Cheers

Hi Marco, For reasons that I mentioned earlier I really would argue that melt marks should not be used to identify a POCH figure. If you can't see any unique identifying characteristics in paint application detail and colour - then you can't call it POCH as there is no solid evidence to proove with certainty.

Also I dont believe there is a confirmed POCH Boba Fett. if there is I'd be interested to know how they are identified!

 

[olisuds]

Marco, I really think any discussions around identifying PBP and POCHs needs to try and move away from melt marks, sloppy paint and bubbles in plastic. It causing a lot of confusion for people as you will see from this thread and also leading to people incorrectly identifying POCH either out of lack of knowledge or in the case of Sergio and Ricardo pure dishonesty!

 

[Dr Dengar]

Indeed,factoryy imperfections are a nice bonus, so they can not be used to identify a POCH figure by itself.

Boba: correct, needs confirmation. The figure I obtained from a Spanish childhood collection clearly has a diffrent though subtle paint scheme. I have seen two very similar figures from Spain on pics. MOCs would give definite proof, I hope one shows up one day from a black hole collection.

EDIT: Some typos, posting from phone is not my thing.

 

[Pomse2001]

Hi Marco, it helped a lot

But I can see you do the same on the tig thread. Han Solo Bespin there you point out and write typical POCH characteristics is meltmarks on the back.

But if that is only a bonus, should you not then write that it can also be found without meltmarks ? and why point them out if they are just a bonus. I think new POCH collectors can confused about that.

 

[olisuds]

Thanks nice to know that but why does he then point out the melt marks on his guide ? when I look at his guide I understand it like if the melt marks is not on Han Solo Bespin then it is not a POCH etc. etc.

Lars seriously mate, forget the melt marks! Melt marks are unintended - they have nothing to do with variations!

I think the guide is pretty clear and Wolff IDs a POCH Han Bespin as follows:

Shown in middle is the assumed variant of the Poch Han Bespin. It is compared to its COO counterpart from Kenner (left) and Lili ledy (right). The main characteristics of this figure are the pale hands and the slightly reddish hair. The picture from the carded one is not clear enough to confirm this figure, but it I think it looks very similar so far.

As you will see, it is not 100% confirmed.

At the end of the section on Han bespin he points out a melt mark - but says they are "typical" of Spanish figures. "Typical" does not mean "Always present", it means "common".

 

[olisuds]

Indeed,factoryy imperfections are a nice bonus, so they can not be used to identify a POCH figure by itself.

Boba.: correct, needs confirmation. The figure I obtained from a Spanish childhood collection clearly has a diffrent though subtle paint scheme. i have seen two very similar figures from Spain on pics. MOC proof needed here.

Hi Marco, are you able to describe the differences in paint scheme? and are they 100% unique? or can these differences in paint be found on regular Boba Fetts found in US/Europe?

 

[Dr Dengar]

Hi Marco, it helped a lot

But I can see you do the same on the tig thread. Han Solo Bespin there you point out and write typical POCH characteristics is meltmarks on the back.

But if that is only a bonus, should you not then write that it can also be found without meltmarks ? and why point them out if they are just a bonus. I think new POCH collectors can confused about that.

After there was some intra European conflict, I rewrote the introduction of the POCH thread and challenged everyone to review it. I can ask here as well, I guess.

So please tell me how to improve the text, to avoid any confusion..

http://www.imperialgunneryforum.com/t4427p225-the-poch-pbp-discussion-thread

The Spanish produced figures of the ESB Production Period - further indicated as POCH figures - are characterised by:
1) Hong Kong COOs
2) unique paint jobs (e.g. Lando black neck, Chewbacca black pouch, Han Hoth chocolate legs, pale hands)
3) production flaws (factory errors if you like), like:
- imperfect sonic welding (resulting in small cracks between the torso halves)
- melt marks
- small plastic extrusions
- appearance of small 'bubbles' on the plastic surface
- small droplets of paint residing on the painted surface
- sloppy paint jobs (handpainted?)



In this thread the specific POCH traits will be visualized for each figure discussed here. Keep in mind that each individual POCH figure may differ in the amount and exact location of these traits.

Just a few examples to give you an idea:

POCH Han Hoth: chocolate legs variant.

POCH Star Destroyer Commander.

When identifying/buying POCH figures, you can make use of the "POCH rule":
A. Differences in colour scheme (paint applications) should be there when labelling a figure as POCH.
B. All other aspects (melt marks, sloppy paint jobs, welding cracks, plastic extrusions,..) are considered a welcome bonus, further confirming the POCH identity, but only once condition A has been fulfilled.

BTW: In the figure entries, I always first discuss the paint differences and thereafter other POCH-like imperfections. Maybe POCH-like is a better description than POCH-specific, as this might be the cause of confusion, as they can also occur on Kenner figures off course.

The pictures are just examples showing POCH-like imperfections on the figure in the pic, therefore it says specific figure. These imperfections might be totally absent or abundant in another POCH figure.

 

[Dr Dengar]

Indeed,factoryy imperfections are a nice bonus, so they can not be used to identify a POCH figure by itself.

Boba.: correct, needs confirmation. The figure I obtained from a Spanish childhood collection clearly has a diffrent though subtle paint scheme. i have seen two very similar figures from Spain on pics. MOC proof needed here.

Hi Marco, are you able to describe the differences in paint scheme? and are they 100% unique? or can these differences in paint be found on regular Boba Fetts found in US/Europe?

Good point, Oli.

In hand the figure has a different - though subtle - paint scheme compared to any other HK Fetts in my collection. Especially the green paint on the chest is different.
But then again, I didn't have the opportunity to compare the Fett from Spain with limitless HK Fetts, just the few (6) in my collection.

http://www.imperialgunneryforum.com/t4427p285-the-poch-pbp-discussion-thread

I just make and share a bunch of observations and conclude with: Might we looking at two POCH Fetts here?

Open to discuss!

 

[olisuds]

Hi Marco,

Lars is right. I can see how it may confuse people.

As I said I think we need to move away from discussions on melt marks and other factory errors.

POCH Han Hoth identifying factor = chocolate dark brown legs. It doesn't seem to be mentioned this in the photo just factory errors.

POCH Star Destroyer commander - I don't see any mention of how to identify this only more factory errors.

 

[olisuds]

Indeed,factoryy imperfections are a nice bonus, so they can not be used to identify a POCH figure by itself.

Boba.: correct, needs confirmation. The figure I obtained from a Spanish childhood collection clearly has a diffrent though subtle paint scheme. i have seen two very similar figures from Spain on pics. MOC proof needed here.

Hi Marco, are you able to describe the differences in paint scheme? and are they 100% unique? or can these differences in paint be found on regular Boba Fetts found in US/Europe?

Good point, Oli.

In hand the figure has a different - though subtle - paint scheme compared to any other HK Fetts in my collection. Especially the green paint on the chest is different.
But then again, I didn't have the opportunity to compare the Fett from Spain with limitless HK Fetts, just the few (6) in my collection.

http://www.imperialgunneryforum.com/t4427p285-the-poch-pbp-discussion-thread

I just make and share a bunch of observations and conclude with: Might we looking at two POCH Fetts here?

Open to discuss!

Marco, I really don't see any unique differences in paint scheme other than its faded and has paint wear. They must be REALLY subtle. Sorry mate but I just think if you can't describe how to identify it then it's not really a good example to use in a discussion about what is a POCH. And as for Ricardo's POCH Fett on Rebelscum being sold for $1000. Do you see anything that makes it a POCH either?

 

[Dr Dengar]

Hi Marco,

Lars is right. I can see how it may confuse people.

As I said I think we need to move away from discussions on melt marks and other factory errors.

POCH Han Hoth identifying factor = chocolate dark brown legs. It doesn't seem to be mentioned this in the photo just factory errors.

POCH Star Destroyer commander - I don't see any mention of how to identify this only more factory errors.

Reading the entries (index on page 1 of the thread) might help to get the full picture.

http://www.imperialgunneryforum.com/t4427p30-the-poch-pbp-discussion-thread#Han Hoth

http://www.imperialgunneryforum.com/t4427p75-the-poch-pbp-discussion-thread#Star Destroyer Commander

 

[Dr Dengar]

Marco, I really don't see any unique differences in paint scheme other than its faded and has paint wear. They must be REALLY subtle. Sorry mate but I just think if you can't describe how to identify it then it's not really a good example to use in a discussion about what is a POCH. And as for Ricardo's POCH Fett on Rebelscum being sold for $1000. Do you see anything that makes it a POCH either?

Let me try to explain.

The Boba Fett has:

- (Subtle) paint differences, which are difficult to grasp with camera. Sorry no bright yellow boots or burgundy cape here, but still differences. Unique diferences?, I don't know.
- a Spanish childhood collection origin. The collection contained many confirmed POCH figures, Han Hoth chocolate, Rebel Soldier, Luke Bespin translucent face,....
- POCH-like imperfections
- Twin brothers showing up in other Spanish collections.

Adding this all together I don't see any reason NOT to discuss this in a POCH/PBP thread, as long as the discussion is open and unbiased.

Don't get me wrong. I don't claim this to be a POCH figure, and wouldn't think one second to put it for sale as a POCH Fett.

I just want to research the possibility this might be a POCH figure, evidence based, that's all.

Boba Fett is actually just an example - maybe not the strongest one indeed - there are many more figures discussed in the thread, which are screaming for evidence: Han Solo, C-3PO, Dengar, Yoda, Bossk,...

There is still much to discover in POCH country, that's why it is so exciting area of variant collecting, if that is your thing off course.

Back to Oli.

 

[olisuds]

Lol, here we go

(Subtle) paint differences, which are difficult to grasp with camera. Sorry no bright yellow boots or burgundy cape here, but still differences - Sorry Marco I dont see anything other than faded paint and play wear

Unique diferences?, I don't know - Well its kind of important. If they're not unique then it means nothing.

A Spanish childhood collection origin. The collection contained many confirmed POCH figures, Han Hoth chocolate, Rebel Soldier, Luke Bespin translucent face - Irrelevant - this is not evidence. We know that many figures sold in Spain were imported from Asia and are the same as US Kenner. Coming from a childhood collection does not make them POCH in the same way that figures from childhood collections in the UK cannot be called Palitoy variants.

POCH-like imperfections - Once again these do not define a variant so can we move away from discussing factory errors and poor QC.

Sorry Marco but I dont see anything in this and I think we'd be clutching at straws in calling this even a variant let alone a POCH figure.

I agree on the Death Star Commander description on the TIG page you referred too - its a shame that the diagram you posted did not refer to these traits just more factory error talk - its not helping the cause!

 

[Pomse2001]

Hi Oli and Marco, not that I want to be right. But if you say forget marks and factory errors. Then we do not need info about them or pictures with arrows showing all the errors. We need information and pictures about the colors and details that make it a POCH and also a PBP.

So far because of all the info about melt marks on tig, this awesome forum and evil bay :lol: then I think many of us have just looked after melt marks and factory errors.

I would say Marco you did a great job with the Lili Ledy thread and I know you will do the same with POCH and PBP

 

[olisuds]

Hi Oli and Marco, not that I want to be right. But if you say forget marks and factory errors. Then we do not need info about them or pictures with arrows showing all the errors. We need information and pictures about the colors and details that make it a POCH and also a PBP.

So far because of all the info about melt marks on tig, this awesome forum and evil bay :lol: then I think many of us have just looked after melt marks and factory errors.

I would say Marco you did a great job with the Lili Ledy thread and I know you will do the same with POCH and PBP

Lars I agree completely with what you say here!

It is causing confusion among collectors. I really think once weve pointed out as an introduction that these figures commonly have factory errors and others signs of poor QC that we should move on and not mention it when describing the identifying characteristics.

For example:

POCH Bossk
Exclusive characteristics: Bright green limbs
Non Exclusive Characteristics Made in Hong Kong COO

POCH Chewbacca
Exclusive characteristics: Black Pouch
Non Exclusive Characteristics Made in Hong Kong COO

POCH Lando Bespin
Exclusive characteristics: True black neck with blue border
Non Exclusive Characteristics Made in Hong Kong COO

POCH Han Hoth
Exclusive characteristics: Chocolate dark brown legs
Non Exclusive Characteristics Made in Hong Kong COO