LUKE - My Hole Is Too Tight!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

No this is not a result of shrinkage after leaving the mould. As the picture show, the problem seems to be with the two halves of the mould, as Ian stated, it's likely that they where out of spec.

[insert_new_line]

So, lets take a look at what we can deduce from the information so far and things we already knew.

- First of all the mould its self featured 2 cavities, so every time plastic was injected, two sets of arms and legs where produced. We know this from the two different COO stamps with in the cavity.

- One of these cavities appears to have had a a small imperfection on the actual saber hand as was identified by Steve (Cantina_Patron) earlier on in this thread. This imperfection can be found on the unaltered Hong Kong figures prior to the COO removal. Figures from the unaltered mould can also be found without this imperfection which would therefore suggest that this imperfection existed from the time the mould was first made, but only in one of the two cavities.

- The cavity with the hand imperfection clearly had a 'through' hole prior to COO alteration, as my example of the No COO version with the hand imperfection shows, the 'through' hole also existed after the COO mould alteration. Both my other and Steve's example of the No COO figure with the hand imperfection show that the cavity with the hand imperfection also featured the blocked hole.

Now there are three ways in which this could have happened in my opinion.

1 - The problem happened when the mould was altered to the No COO version and at some point, the problem was identified and fixed which explains why both the through hole and blocked hole clearly exist in the same cavity.
2 - The problem happened after the mould was altered to the No COO version and the first No COO version figures where fine and the saber fitted, but at some point something happened to the mould, like what Ian described having worked with moulds. The decision was made to address the problem without fixing the mould. This would also explain why both the through hole and blocked hole clearly exist in the same cavity.
3 - The problem happened after the mould was altered to the No COO version and the first No COO version figures where fine and the saber fitted, but at some point something happened to the mould, like what Ian described having worked with moulds. The decision was made to address the problem by fixing the mould. This would also explain why both the through hole and blocked hole clearly exist in the same cavity.

These three example cover all the potential reasons to how this could have happened. To me the most logical of the three is the second, I'm not sure what it would take to correct the mould and what the financial cost would be to do that, but it just seems that the choice was made not to correct the mould but to actual address the problem in a cost effective fashion.
This can be seen by the Saber. Although it would be impossible to identify which came first between the correct saber loose in the bubble or the Bespin saber loose in the bubble or the actual saber in the arm in bubble, Logic would dictate that the Bespin Saber would have come after the standard saber loose in the bubble for the simple reason that it addressed the problem.
The problem been that the consumer who bought the figure with the blocked hole and the correct saber loose in the bubble basically had a hero who couldn't even hold his weapon, the Bespin saber addressed this issue which is the logical after thought and solution to the problem. Whether the unblocked saber came first or after or both will probably remain a mystery.

I am curious to know two things:

1 - Does anyone have a blocked hole on a figure that doesn't have the imperfection on the hand? Would be curious to know that if the spec on the mould was incorrect or what ever the issue was whether or not it effected both cavities?
2 - It would seem that trying to identify the closed hole is damn near impossible on MOC examples because it can not be seen from the front, only from the back which is difficult to see within the bubble. How ever it would nice to know from all the carded examples which either feature the loose original saber or the Bespin saber whether the figure features the hand imperfection or not.

It should also be mentioned that from someone who has worked in a factory environment, time is always the big issue, so if this problem was addressed it's unlikely that the people would have been told "see if the saber fits, if not pack it loose" so it's possible that at some points, many may have been packed with a loose saber despite having a perfect hole (That sounds so dirty haha)

Anyway, just some food for thought

Interesting theory.

Just to add another example. My Brown hair, no coo Luke has a full hole and no hand imperfections, just like Cantina/Steve's Luke.

Thank you for your input Andrew, it is very welcome.   Would you be able to add a photo?

My camera is able to see better than my naked eye. After taking a photo it's clear my Luke doesn't have a full hole but is instead is partially blocked to one side.

I was recently told that the Brown hair Luke came with a rounded transition tip sabre. Could this weapon change be to accommodate the hole oddities which are clearly fairly common on the Euro figure?
I don't have a yellow sabre for him, but have just tried a flat transition tip and a rounded tip Vader sabre on the Luke arm. The flat tip will not pass through but the bullet shape of the rounded tip did pass through. The flat tip is clearly getting caught on the lip while the aerodynamic shape of the other guides it into place.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Here are pics of my carded Trilogo Lukes, hope that helps
- 70-B card brown haired Luke with bespin saber
- 70-C card brown haired Luke with regular saber

70B
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

70C
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]