[André]

Hi everyone,

I would like to explain a bit about the "research" I am doing with your help so you understand. And also understand these are not just things I am guessing. Eventhough we many times don´t have the correct answer we can make qualified quesses based on the facts we have.

And just like the SCCI made research we base these guesses on the facts we have at this time. And then later maybe we get more facts and then change our opinions. For example the SCCI writes in letter 17 that the smurfette Schleich made in 1977 is a fake. But Schleich has this smurfette pictured in their 1979 catalogue. And when they first describe the first moldvariations of the Bully release they also guess these are fakes because of the different looks. But these are photographed and pictured in the first Bullycatalogues in 1974 and 1975. I have no problem with that, since they just like we do here base their guesses on the facts they have at that specific moment. And then when getting more information they change these things. So many many things written in the SCCI letters are not correct. Just like many things I have written here 2 years ago is completly wrong!!

A good example is the dureo smurf. Now when Lia have found that Dureco- logotype we can now say with almost 100% truth that dureo is not correct!! It is a Dureco-promo!

So I would like to explain some things, so you understand.

[André]

When you do this research you have to check A LOT of smurfs, not just a few.

So for example the prisoner. Unmarked to the right. I you would like to compare that smurf with others. First you have to campare with all cavities existing at the time, because they many times are different. then it also is good if you have a couple of each from these cavitynumbers. So for example I have around 7 prisoners with the first schleichemblem, meaning made before 1974. Those together with other smurfs collectors here have that I ask about, makes the numbers of the ones checked very high. And then you have to do the same thing with every smurf made during the same years.

Same with paint. For example if you would take a smurf with removed emblem. That one was made from 1975 to 1983, both by Bully and by Schleich and made out of many different materials, hard, soft, well-made, badly made, spray-painted, hand painted, miscoloured, etc etc. So you have to compare lots of smurfs to be able to tell when it was made. I am taking hundreds, maybe thousends?? because you have to check all different molds used at those years from different smurfs and then put everything together. And that makes a lot of smurfs to check.

Lets take this example. In 1983 Schleich made around 160 normalsmurfs, and around 30 superssmurfs, a couple of playsets. then you have maybe 4 cavities of each smurfs. together with the fact that they made maybe as many smurfs in Hongkong for the US, also 4 cavities each, and there were smurfs painted in Tunesia, Hongkong, Portugal, sri Lanka and Germany at this time. And you would also have to have a couple of each marking-, paint-, cavity-, dot-variation to be certain and leave as many things out as possible. then you immedialty understand that is impossible. That is thousend smurfs just for one year.

But at the same time this tells you that you have to check many many many smurfs to just be able to guess when it was made!!

So it is not just taking a handstand handetched Bully-smurf and say that this one was made and painted by Bully in 1975. It could as well have been made and painted by Schleich in 1983.

Also with the fact that fakers repaint smurfs, that makes it even harder.

[André]

And this is also a very important thing to know.

Schleich confirms in its book that not only did Volkmar Klaus leave the company and started with smurfs, he also took some of the workers from Schleich with him.

So it is basicly the same persons doing the same things, just working for another company. That is also why the smurfs are very very similair and amny times almost impossible to tell who made them. So if would take a smurf bully made in 1977, like the painter and compare that with a smurf Schleich made the same year, they are almost the same??

Both Schleich and Bully made a lot of changes in material, paint, etc and that is also why the markings are so important to check. Because they are one of the keys to date the smurfs. Take for example the bodybuilder without CE. That marking was only used a very short time and that you can date very easily.

And since both companies changed the materials and paint the key-factor also is the time and chronology. Certain materials were used certain years and in certain countries. same with paint, differences in paint used in different countries and in different years.

So many times it is extremly hard to say when the smurfs were made, and you need to compare many different molds to be able to guess.

And many times you also have to have smurfs you know for sure were bought in specific years as references. And those are very hard to find. Unless you are able to get childhood-collections beeing stored and never touched. But as we know many sellers also write this and it is not always true.

[André]

And that is also why it takes a lot of time.

For example the SCCI started in 1986 and stopped in 2000 with their similair research and still they found out new things all the time regarding variations, markings, promos etc..

That is 14 years.

the good thing with this is that we will probably also find out more things when continuing checking and comparing!!!

[Tintin]

Hi Andre

Well i am not going that far as you sometimes do, but it is a great help for me to see what kind of variations i still mis in my collection.

And to see the sollution like with the Dureco is very nice

Tintin

[Lia]

I think, we`re all grateful that you have so many smurfs André!

Who else could do all that comparing? certainly not me!

[Smurfysmurf]

Not me either....

Thank you for explaining how you do your research...it certainly is very hard work and very time consuming.

One thing I have realized (thru my endless questions ) is that you can always back up your facts..and your opinions are very logical and make sense. That's really why I respect you and your work so much...you not only put a fact out there and expect us to accept it...you explain it very carefully and patiently..and never ever make any of us others feel stupid for asking a question

And it's sometimes fun to go back to older threads and compare your notes to what they are today...to your credit I have to say that not too much has changed...they just have evolved as you dig deeper and deeper into the history of PVC smurfs

[André]

Hi Andre

Well i am not going that far as you sometimes do, but it is a great help for me to see what kind of variations i still mis in my collection.

And to see the sollution like with the Dureco is very nice

Tintin

Yes,

the dureco was a surprise and a strange way to find out what it meant. I mean it was just a coincidence.

The wiwa would also be fun to find out. As with the dureco mostly the smurfs looks and their promotion fits together.

I mean. Muscian smurf- dureco company, reading smurf- Fix foxi-sla-tsl-bt, bodybuilder-fitness sport, icelolly-schöller, etc. No always maybe but most of the times.

So what could WIWA has to do with thirsty??? soda, don´t think so. my father collected beer- and lemonade cans when I grew up and we had the walls full of them. And I would also guess that many other collectors would also have told us if such a soda existed??? Juice?? Oranges???

Fit could maybe tell us it has to do with a gym??

There is a company called wiwa existing in germany since before the 70s making spray-paint machines. Spraypainted smurfs??? Sounds strange, though?? BASF made the material and have promos???

It could be so many thinks and it is not easy to guess either. WIWA could also be short for something else.

What would you guess?

[ShinySmurf]

Here is what I think.

I think that Andre does some great research and the majority of his opinions are correct.

Everyone here has the same information available to them that he does, and can conduct research on their own, including myself. As a matter of fact I have done quite a bit of research myself and have drawn mostly the same conclusions he has. I understand some people do not have the time or energy to be able to do that. I am glad that he is here to tell others about what he does know, and what his opinions are through his research, but I do have the time, energy, and ability to do this and have done so as well.

I have to admit that I do disagree with him on a few different things. I am sure that some others here do too, but that has no bearing on anything really just a difference in opinion, and that happens everyday with many different people.

There is some things that he says are facts that in my opinion are not proven though.

One of the things that I disagree with him on is his facts on Bully smurfs.

I mean, the company themselves said that they made the smurfs in a specific order. If you look at the SCCI newsletter from Winter 1998 Issue 51 Page 10-14 Jane Klaus which at the time was the Executive Vice President of Bullyland Inc. gave a list of every smurf figurine ever produced by Bully in the order they were produced to the SCCI newsletter. The list in the SCCI newsletter matches the order that is in the Bullyworld museum catalog which was also produced by Bullyland Inc. themselves. That is 100% fact. You can see scans of the pages from the catalog in Tojo's thread about it. I mean this is directly from the company, but Andre says it is wrong, because it doesn't match his opinion.

I say there is no denying it myself. It is directly from the company, and I am sure it is a lot more accurate than the assumptions of a smurf collector.

I do not mean to be rude in what I am saying, but this is the only way I know to write it, but I think it is very strange to think that you know more about a product than the company that produced it.

I also feel like I should not have deleted some of my other posts I made, but I felt like this smiley at the time. I wish I had not done that now.

[André]

Hi Shinysmurf,

As you says everybody are allowed to have their own opinion and that I think is really good I think. That is what makes us going forward. Or backward?? At least that makes us think and that is really good.

And Shinysmurf, I have also deleted posts!! And maybe I should delete some more?? So that is just normal.

I also know I can sound a bit arrogant sometimes, but that is just because I try to explain my point of view. My wifes tells me this sometimes and I try to have a lower profile??? But as you know it sometimes is hard when you are really entusiastic about something.

I will explain why I am so sure about the years for the Bullysmurfs later. And I will read the SCCI-letter again. It seems it is dated the same time as the Bully museum catalogue???

But, I am sorry, Shinysmurf. I still am 100% convinced the Bully smurfs were released the exact same order as they were given articlenumber by Bully, just as Schleich do today! I will get back regarding this and then you can tell me if I am wrong!

The problem with, if I am wrong is just that, then also the moldyears put on these smurfs are wrong!! Also all old Bullycatalogues and posters??

[ShinySmurf]

I will explain why I am so sure about the years for the Bullysmurfs later. And I will read the SCCI-letter again. It seems it is dated the same time as the Bully museum catalogue???

I think it is around the same time that the Bully museum catalog came out, but I don't see what that has to do with anything. The information came from the Vice President of Bully.

[ShinySmurf]

The problem with, if I am wrong is just that, then also the moldyears put on these smurfs are wrong!! Also all old Bullycatalogues and posters??

Moldyears? I didn't know bully put years on their smurfs.

[ShinySmurf]

But, I am sorry, Shinysmurf. I still am 100% convinced the Bully smurfs were released the exact same order as they were given articlenumber by Bully, just as Schleich do today! I will get back regarding this and then you can tell me if I am wrong!

No need to be sorry Andre, I have a lot of respect for your opinion and see where you are coming from.

I think that the numbering system used by bully is just that a numbering system and isn't really related to the order they were released.

I also think that if you are correct and can't trust what the company that made these smurfs says then who knows.

[André]

I may sound arrogant again , but even if the information came from the president of the USA, it still is wrong!!

And for me it is interesting because if a company prints a museum catalogue and someone asks if the information given in it is correct, they would most certainly say it is correct. I think that goes for all companies.

Eventhough they many times make adjustments or agree things are wrong afterwards.

In Matt Murreys new book, he wrote wrong information. I told him that information is not correct since it is not possible. Bully was founded in 1973 and did not exist before that. He agree about that this was wrong, and would make a paper afterwards with things that was wrong in the book so he knew that. Still I think that is printed in his book. BUT that don´t mean it is correct??

[André]

The problem with, if I am wrong is just that, then also the moldyears put on these smurfs are wrong!! Also all old Bullycatalogues and posters??

Moldyears? I didn't know bully put years on their smurfs.

You are absolutly correct about this Shinysmurf,

Bully did not do this.

BUT Schleich added the years the mold were made when they made all thier marked mariations of these!! Schleich started with moldyears in around 1979/80.

[ShinySmurf]

I may sound arrogant again , but even if the information came from the president of the USA, it still is wrong!!

And for me it is interesting because if a company prints a museum catalogue and someone asks if the information given in it is correct, they would most certainly say it is correct. I think that goes for all companies.

Eventhough they many times make adjustments or agree things are wrong afterwards.

In Matt Murreys new book, he wrote wrong information. I told him that information is not correct since it is not possible. Bully was founded in 1973 and did not exist before that. He agree about that this was wrong, and would make a paper afterwards with things that was wrong in the book so he knew that. Still I think that is printed in his book. BUT that don´t mean it is correct??

If the information came from the president of the USA I would most likely not believe it either.

We are not talking about information coming from outside sources though that is why I am so compelled to believe that the information is correct is because it came from the company itself.

[ShinySmurf]

The problem with, if I am wrong is just that, then also the moldyears put on these smurfs are wrong!! Also all old Bullycatalogues and posters??

Moldyears? I didn't know bully put years on their smurfs.

You are absolutly correct about this Shinysmurf,

Bully did not do this.

BUT Schleich added the years the mold were made when they made all thier marked mariations of these!! Schleich started with moldyears in around 1979/80.

I agree that schleich did have mold years on their smurfs even the ones that Bully made prior to schleich starting to make smurfs again, but I do not understand how it relates to the years that Bully smurfs were released.

[André]

For example the pupil 20103.

The Bully museum catalogue says it was made in 1975.

This is if you ask me completly wrong because of these facts.

It is not shown on any of the Bully poster from 1974-1978. Meaning not sold by Bully before 1979. And also the marking on the hongkong-variation of this smurf is given the mold year 1979!! That is also the first time we see this smurf in the stores.

Schleich added the moldyears on these smurfs and they added the year Bully made the molds, like 1973 on jungle.

So if the information in the museum catalogue is correct about the pupil. That would mean this: all posters from Bully from 1975-1978 are wrong. Also the year Schleich added to this smurf is wrong. And also that their would be markingvariation of that smurfs from 1975-1978, which nobody seems to have??? That together with all the information together on the posters, articlenumbers, markings, materials, paint, pictures tells me it is definatly wrong.

Why the museum catalogue made these mistakes??? I have no idea. probably put the wrong person in the wrong place when making it.

[ShinySmurf]

For example the pupil 20103.

The Bully museum catalogue says it was made in 1975.

This is if you ask me completly wrong because of these facts.

It is not shown on any of the Bully poster from 1974-1978. Meaning not sold by Bully before 1979. And also the marking on the hongkong-variation of this smurf is given the mold year 1979!! That is also the first time we see this smurf in the stores.

Schleich added the moldyears on these smurfs and they added the year Bully made the molds, like 1973 on jungle.

So if the information in the museum catalogue is correct about the pupil. That would mean this: all posters from Bully from 1975-1978 are wrong. Also the year Schleich added to this smurf is wrong. And also that their would be markingvariation of that smurfs from 1975-1978, which nobody seems to have??? That together with all the information together on the posters, articlenumbers, markings, materials, paint, pictures tells me it is definatly wrong.

Why the museum catalogue made these mistakes??? I have no idea. probably put the wrong person in the wrong place when making it.

Ok I am sure you know more than the company that made them, Jane Klaus, and everyone else at Bullyland.

[André]

For example the pupil 20103.

The Bully museum catalogue says it was made in 1975.

This is if you ask me completly wrong because of these facts.

It is not shown on any of the Bully poster from 1974-1978. Meaning not sold by Bully before 1979. And also the marking on the hongkong-variation of this smurf is given the mold year 1979!! That is also the first time we see this smurf in the stores.

Schleich added the moldyears on these smurfs and they added the year Bully made the molds, like 1973 on jungle.

So if the information in the museum catalogue is correct about the pupil. That would mean this: all posters from Bully from 1975-1978 are wrong. Also the year Schleich added to this smurf is wrong. And also that their would be markingvariation of that smurfs from 1975-1978, which nobody seems to have??? That together with all the information together on the posters, articlenumbers, markings, materials, paint, pictures tells me it is definatly wrong.

Why the museum catalogue made these mistakes??? I have no idea. probably put the wrong person in the wrong place when making it.

Ok I am sure you know more than the company that made them, Jane Klaus, and everyone else at Bullyland.

Have you thought about that the company who made them also made the posters???? But maybe Jane Klaus, who wrote this, knew more about these smurfs than the ones working at Bully in 1976 and were making the posters??