
Odd ball MUSCLE bootlegs. Almost like the real thi
#1
Posted 18 September 2005 - 02:32 PM
Anyone seen these?
#2
Posted 18 September 2005 - 05:17 PM
Edited by Beligerant1, 18 September 2005 - 05:18 PM.
#3
Posted 18 September 2005 - 05:54 PM


I was banned! Read ALL about it! http://www.littlerub...showtopic=23333
#1 on the LRG Dishonest Members list!
#4
Guest_General Veers_*
Posted 19 September 2005 - 05:22 AM
Yeah, aren't they the Super Rares?No pics right now, but I got a bunch of bootlegs, they look almost identical to the real deal, except that the plastic is a little stiffer, more glossy and the color is a hair richer. A little more peach to be precise.
Anyone seen these?

#6
Posted 19 September 2005 - 07:35 AM
Just odd. I have never seen bootlegs so close to the real deal. Especially fully trademarked. They are a little stiffer than the re-issue kinkeshi plastic even.
#8
Guest_General Veers_*
Posted 19 September 2005 - 10:29 AM
I mean, c'mon. If Johnny thinks they're almost identical to the real deal, then isn't it reasonable to think that anyone else could be fooled, especially if they wanted to believe it was a Super Rare.
#9
Posted 19 September 2005 - 10:42 AM
Arforbes is the super-rare man. From what I've read of his accounts, his super-rares are made of the exact same material as his other 5,000 MUSCLEs.isn’t it reasonable to think that anyone else could be fooled – especially if they wanted to believe it was a Super Rare.
However, the same thought crossed my mind. Especially because the latest super-rare to pop up was supposedly in storage for 20 years, and yet it is in two pieces. Unlike the mint kinnikuman that come with the head attached to the body.
Wherever these SHA MUSCLEs are coming from, they have either been taken apart once purchased/obtained, or they were created (bootlegged) in two pieces from a kinnikuman.
#10
Posted 19 September 2005 - 11:27 AM
But Veers does raise an interesting question. What if someone way back when made bootlegs from the same material as Mattel was using?
I doubt it's the work of a recent bootlegger, since the super rares have been so spread out.
As far as the SHA being seperated, how many kids do you know would have kept the thing together on the tree? It looks legit to me.
#11
Posted 19 September 2005 - 01:17 PM
I 100% personally guarantee as a Jedi M.U.S.C.L.E. collector, on my Super Rare God status, and on my entire M.U.S.C.L.E. collection that the Super Rares are TOTALLY legit!Seriously, couldn’t these be the source of Super Rares? I’m just talking, so let’s not get our panties in a bunch.
I mean, c’mon. If Johnny thinks they’re “almost identical to the real deal”, then isn’t it reasonable to think that anyone else could be fooled – especially if they wanted to believe it was a Super Rare.

I was banned! Read ALL about it! http://www.littlerub...showtopic=23333
#1 on the LRG Dishonest Members list!
#12
Posted 20 September 2005 - 12:11 AM
1. They're noticeably smaller - about a head smaller than the normal figures, so to speak.
2. They are colored differently - a very light tan that normal MUSCLEs don't reach. Not pinkish at all, actually closer to a flesh tone.
3. The quality of the rubber varies significantly. one of mine is rubbery almost like an old Kinkeshi, while another feels like flexible plastic. (They came from the same vending machine)
4. There are also "Hong Kong" trademarks plastered on the figures. Sometimes the y.s. n/t is covered, sometimes not.
5. The quality control is also (obviously) down - a fair amount of flashing, and most of the figures can't stand on their own.
They were in vending machines around 1991-1995, by the wya. "Things from another world." The machines also included bootlegs of small Godzilla, ultraman, Saint Seiyuu, and other random figures. Even those robots with boxes for bodies.
#13
Posted 27 September 2005 - 08:24 PM
These are slightly smaller, and a little more orange.
Attached Files
#14
Posted 27 September 2005 - 09:42 PM

I was banned! Read ALL about it! http://www.littlerub...showtopic=23333
#1 on the LRG Dishonest Members list!
#15
Guest_General Veers_*
Posted 28 September 2005 - 05:36 AM
#16
Posted 28 September 2005 - 07:37 AM
Chad, you need a new monitor.They must be more noticeably different in person, because they look almost 100% identical to me.

#17
Posted 28 September 2005 - 09:35 AM
http://p4.forumforfr...om/thecave.html