Site Owner's Note: Hi to All Barbie Fans and Collectors--Since Ellen has joined my website, and posted some fabulous Blogs, I have decided to make a page just for her blogs. She is a wonderful writer with amazing credentials, and writes such cool and humorous pieces on Barbie, I moved her blogs from the regular "blogs" page to this one! Enjoy!
Ellen Taylor, a passionate collector of vintage dolls, previously wrote ?The Vintage Vantage?, about the earliest Barbie dolls for Miller?s Magazine. She currently maintains a blog called ?Of Bonds and Blondes?, comparing the similar dynamics at play that govern prices in both the secondary Barbie doll and bond markets, inspired by a 30-year career on Wall Street. Ellen continues to indulge her love for the earliest Barbies as both buyer and seller of vintage dolls on eBay and at tri-state doll shows in the New York City area. She has also given talks on?Barbie: The History and the Hysteria? at libraries in eastern Connecticut and appeared on local television in December to discuss how Barbie rocked the international doll world after her launch at the New York Toy Fair in 1959. Ellen estimates her Barbie collection at about 150 dolls, with her favorite issues being the #3 Ponytails (brown eyeliner), the Lemon Yellow Color Magics with high color, and the Long Hair High Color American Girls.
Whatever Happened to Gene?
In 1995, Ashton Drake, until then largely a manufacturer of collectible porcelain dolls which were typically replicas of real people, made a big splash in the fashion doll world with the launch of its dramatic 15.5-inch tall Gene doll, created by doll artist Mel Odom. Gene’s backstory was that she was a fledging movie star ingénue in the 1940s and her extensive wardrobe was made up of exceptionally well-designed ensembles to represent each stage of Gene’s life in New York and Hollywood, as well as reflecting costumes worn in some of her movies.
Gene was sold alternately as a dressed doll in a beautifully tailored gown or suit, with accessories that closely mirrored the attention to detail seen in the earliest, highest quality years of Barbie (1959 to 1967), or as “Simply Gene” dressed in a modest two-piece cotton swimsuit of shorts and a strapless top, with her logo “Gene” printed all over each item.
Gene sold for about $80.00 in her dressed-box incarnation with the later swimsuit model retailing for about $55.00 in the late 90s. She had a painted hard vinyl face with applied lashes, dramatic eye paint, and perfect red lips. Her hair styles were often reflective of those postwar ‘dos from the late 40s, so some often look a little dated now. Or sometimes they were pulled back from the face (“no bangs”) or with straight of sideswept bangs with curly chin- or shoulder-length tresses that you might see worn by young women today. Her hair colors ranged from a white platinum (2000) to raven black to copper red to paler strawberry blonde to chocolate brown to golden blonde. In other words, except for her larger size, Gene bore a lot of similarities to Barbie.
Also like vintage Barbie, the different Gene dolls and ensembles were given evocative names, like “Premiere”, “Red Venus”, “Monaco”, “Hello Hollywood”, “Love Saves the Day”, “Goodbye New York”, “Love’s Ghost”, “Cleopatra”, and “Sparkling Seduction”. And Gene sold well. In my opinion -- and I suspect many other fashion doll collectors would agree -- one of her biggest draws was the beautiful tailoring of her ensembles which you could buy separately from the doll, using the same business model put forth by Mattel in 1959 with Barbie. The main exception was that while Gene was usually sold wearing an exquisite ensemble, Barbie most often was marketed wearing either her black-and-white zebra or red helenca swimsuit and little girls bought her outfits separately. I suspect that many vintage Barbie collectors also were drawn to Gene in her heyday from 1995 to 2000; as noted, Ashton Drake used a similar business model to the one seen in Mattel’s factories. High quality dolls, lovely hair styling, exquisite attention to detail in her designer fashions and accessories – all at a reasonable market price. And yet, after roughly five years, Gene basically disappeared from store shelves. Perhaps that overstates Gene’s sales arc; by 2000 her popularity slumped considerably, at least. I think it is fair to say that the Gene “buzz” faded in her last decade until mass production ended in 2010. Why?
I don’t think you can simply say she was the latest victim of Barbie’s multi-decade reign atop the fashion doll kingdom. This was no Tressy or Little Miss Revlon or the later Mdvanii; Gene was slightly different. Larger, yes. But while she undoubtedly was created to appeal to the legions of fashion doll admirers, I don’t think Ashton Drake’s intention was to topple Barbie from her throne as were the blatant attempts by earlier competitors, all who failed. Gene was created to “live” alongside Barbie. Vintage Barbie collectors could also fill their remaining doll shelf space with Gene. Remember, this was 1995 and Barbie’s best days were 30 years behind her. Which is to say, Mattel made their highest commitment to Barbie’s workmanship -- to the quality of her ensembles and the heavier body weight and exotic facial design -- from the years of 1959 until 1967 with the introduction of the mod era with Twist n’ Turn Barbie. No longer did they use fine fabrics like satin, brocades, silk, or taffeta once the mod era arrived. Mod Barbie lovers must concede that even their first TNT doll was dressed in a cheaply made polyester two-piece swimsuit with raw edges, with no attention paid to the exquisite finishing details like lace facing of arm holes or hand sewn zippers that you see on many of the vintage sheaths. And Gene featured nearly the same commitment to workmanship and accessories as seen in vintage Barbie (note that the mod outfits do not come with tiny accessories like alarm clocks, felt doggies, water bottles, car keys, microphones, or tiny brass compacts tucked away in soft corduroy or velvet hand bags!) Mattel began to abandon its devotion to high quality and, frankly, the artistry seen in the earliest ponytails, bubble cuts, and American Girls, as early as 1967. Never again would its dolls have the design, the exquisite tailoring, and the commitment to quality seen in the vintage dolls. All of a sudden its fabric of choice was polyester for the cheaply made outfits they sold for the TNTs, the Hair Fairs, the Standard, Julia, Twiggy, Casey, and Francie. I realize this might put me at odds with the many collectors who love TNTs and Francie but I stand by this opinion. But I digress.
So here was Gene in 1995, hitting the market with considerable success by looking a lot like a larger version of the earliest Barbie, in terms of her facial sophistication and gorgeous ensembles. And I think Ashton Drake’s intention was to present doll lovers with a new generation of a high quality fashion doll with separate outfits you could buy, complete with charming and nicely manufactured accessories like tiny teddy bears, or hat boxes, or violins sold with her ensembles, much like the 900 series Barbie line. So what happened?
My reply can be covered with two words: Madra Lord. Madra, introduced in 2000, was created to be Gene’s competitor for movie roles once our girl landed in Hollywood. Ashton Drake described her as a “villainess” and her hard facial “snear” affirmed that characteristic. Evil and conniving, she was presumedly intended to expand the Gene story to allow for more dolls and clothes to be sold. But I never liked Madra and never bought one and soon lost interest in my Gene collection. I didn’t “get” the new entrant into Gene Marshall’s universe and certainly would have been happy if Ashton Drake had continued merely to create and sell more Genes along with her beautiful clothing. How could you warm up to such a nasty looking doll as Madra? Of course, this is all just my opinion but I would be curious as to the total sales figures for Madra compared with Gene. Nearly 17 years later, I still feel the introduction of Madra led to a gradual buyer disinterest in Gene, likely resulting in lower sales and an abandonment of her production by 2010. So I admit I was surprised while researching the internet for this article to discover that, in fact, Gene continued to be made until 2010 when production was largely shut down.
In the interim, Ashton Drake stepped out of the business of manufacturing and selling Gene in 2005, after making the doll (and the evil Madra!) for ten years. At that point, doll designer Jason Wu took over production of the Gene line for Integrity Toys for her last five years. Gene’s face changed after Wu came into the picture with a somewhat softer visage with less exotic eye makeup. Gene was later briefly resurrected in 2013 with Mel Odom standing by her side at the IDEX (International Doll Expo) in Orlando that spring, now ramped up as a resin ball-jointed doll, a half inch taller and retailing for $550, by JAMIEshow Dolls. USA Yowza! Only about 200 dolls were sold under her sub-moniker “Phoenix”, with a small limited edition release. They are now sold out. A second Gene Marshall “J’Adore” followed that summer, with the final Gene “White Orchid” then sold as a Gene Basic doll. Gene’s final-final swan song came in 2015, marking her 20th anniversary, in Chicago with the “All That Jazz” Gene doll.
I admit I was surprised to hear that Gene continued to be made and released after 2000, albeit in fits and starts. I hardly heard any “chatter” in doll chat rooms about new Genes coming forth once Integrity Toys assumed oversight of the product line through the last half of the 00s. As noted, I have found no data detailing sales numbers of Gene from 2005 to 2015, but I would guess they were far smaller than those that our 40s movie star attracted in her first decade.
Maybe my interest in Gene merely waned at that point, as my focus shifted to Tonner’s Tyler Wentworth and Sydney Chase as well as to Madame Alexander’s Alexandra Fairchild Ford doll, both of a similar size to Gene. And always my love for the vintage Barbies cast a shadow over all my other flirtations with newer fashion dolls, ultimately bringing me back to Barbie again. And again. I recently found my old box of Gene dolls from the late 90s and it briefly revived my interest in the doll for much of the same reason I continue to love Barbie – her lovely, exotic face and hair styling as well as glamourous and beautifully-tailored clothing. As Genes have become less popular, her price has fallen so that you can now easily buy the first Gene “Premiere” for about $65 when at its highest demand in maybe 1999, I sold my original Premiere for close to $300. A basic Gene in swimsuit fetches about $20 now and “Red Venus” Gene (one of the first three Gene dolls) will set you back only about $25 right now on eBay. So I grabbed some more of the earliest Gene dolls this fall. They are lovely, well-crafted fashion dolls and you cannot argue with the fact that they are an exceptional value-for-money right now. For those reasons alone, Genes provide an attractive complement to fashion doll collections right now. For less than $500 – about the cost of just one very nice #3 ponytail Barbie – you can probably build a collection of ten 1990s Gene dolls. Of all the fashion dolls that have come to market since Barbie’s launch nearly 58 years ago, trying to get a slice of the Barbie sales “pie”, Gene is arguably the best value and the closest competitor in terms of beauty and quality. Long lost Gene? Not so much; maybe just stuck in the back of our closets, temporarily forgotten, as mine were.
The Allure of the Elusive Brownette Bubble
By Ellen Taylor
You will know her when you see her. The rich shade of medium brown hair, often called “sable”, is unlike any other brunette hue you will see in any vintage Barbie. Her tighter bouffant hairstyle, a trademark of the 1961 bubbles, often combed from the left side to right, the opposite of other bubbles (and I believe that “backwards” combing is only found on the brownettes). The bright red lips, sometimes a hint of smoky shadow over her eyebrows. Her hair color is not the dark chocolate or “muddy” brown like the standard-issue brunette bubbles; no way near. And it’s not the black/raven shade of the first-issue brunettes, as beautiful as they are (and undervalued – but that’s for another column.) A new collector may wonder what all the fuss is about – until they see one. Then they will gasp, “Oh my. This isn’t like brunette at all. I have never seen a bubble’s hair color that looks like this one. It’s so….. different and, well, sophisticated.”
(The Brownette in the photo has the reverse rooting direction and also all-original face paint!--Comment by Teresa)
Their faces are often greasy so that many times their red lips have “slid” off their faces. Sometimes brows are gone, too. I bought a “faceless” brownette at a show once and paid $200 for her. Sent her away to the restoration artist Krista Candler and she came back a show stopper with perfect new red lips and dark brown brows. Back to her original Wow! Try searching on eBay for a brownette and you’ll get listings for brunettes and queries from eBay as to the accuracy of your search, as they cross out the word “brownette” on the screen. “Do you mean brunette?” NO! Brownette. BROWN-ETTE! And when you do get some listings after you do the search, you will see all kinds of bubbles pop up on the screen, claiming to be brownette, when they are actually a brunette or sometimes even dark ash.
You also have to be careful because sometimes a listing picture of a 1961 titian bubble can look like a brownette, if the photograph is dark. You get excited, because you think the listing, which might be titled simply “First Issue Bubble Cut”, just might actually be a brownette unbeknownst to the inexperienced seller. You get hopeful because it does happen. Which is to say, it’s conceivable to find a rare doll, even a brownette, lurking in the eBay sales queue, misidentified. But then you use the zoom feature and look more closely and realize, crestfallen….”Oh, she’s…not…a…brownette (in disguise) but just a titian”, also a first issue, also with red lips. The brownette and titian faces can be similar since they were both manufactured using the thinner face molds with the sultry eyes seen in the 1961 dolls.
But the brownette bubble was only sold in 1961 so there are not as many of them as of the other hair colors. That fact is the simple economic reason why their prices are higher. But an even greater factor adding to her popularity and high value is that fabulous sable hair color. Mattel also manufactured blonde, raven (black), and titian (redhead) bubbles that first year, and continued to offer those hair colors until it stopped making bubbles in 1967 so there are plenty of those shades in the secondary market on eBay or at doll shows.
How much will you need to plop down on the counter in order to add one to your collection? For the pristine brownette who has all her original face paint (no retouches), with her wrist tag attached and in her original box, marked simply “No. 850. Bubble” (no hair color identified), it could come to about $1500; for an excellent doll with retouched lips but original brows (no wrist tag) you might have to pay $800 with box. If she has had a full retouch, both eyes and brows, it’s fairly common to see them listed around $500. Brownette bubbles were sold using either the heavier #4 Barbie only body, in line with the Mattel famous “waste not, want not” tradition of using up all body parts before moving on to a new mold, or the new hollow #5 body that were created for the greasier-faced ponytails that replaced the #4 ponytail that year. It’s a very lucky collector, indeed, who can find a pristine brownette bubble with intact original face paint in her “Gay Parisienne” Barbie bubble cut box with all her accessories – and her stellar price tag reflects that scarcity.
The other bubble that was only sold in the first issue year of 1961 is the highly coveted “White Ginger” with very pale blonde hair, almost champagne hued. To my knowledge they are the only bubbles sold that year that didn’t have red lip paint, but instead were manufactured with bubblegum pink lips which sometimes have rubs but usually retain their pink hue, and WGs are also very much desired by collectors. However it’s fairly easy to find a White Ginger on eBay, especially those with hair that has oxidized to a more brassy yellow hue. When you find a brownette, the medium brown hair color is as rich and unique as the day she left the Mattel factory.
Bubbles continued to be manufactured by Mattel until it unveiled its new face mold for the Twist n’ Turn “mod” Barbie in 1967, with the line containing yellow and platinum blondes, brunettes (raven and dark brown), and titian hair colors. At any given time, you are lucky if you can find three brownettes listed on eBay; often there are none. And they are not a doll with hair color that has oxidized from another shade like the Ruby Color Magics that were originally raven (“midnight”) haired, or the eggplant or platinum TNTs, who originally had dark “Chocolate Bon Bon” hair that gradually changed to a purplish brunette (known as eggplant or black cherry) or the Sun Kissed Blonde TNT that paled to platinum blonde over the intervening 50 years.
But the brownette bubbles’ unique shade of brown hair didn’t fade or darken over the next 55 years, unlike the White Ginger or the platinum blonde, or grow duller like some of the other brunettes. Her beautiful hair is kind of like molten milk chocolate, also sometimes described as “chestnut”. But we really didn’t need to go further than our first adjective “sable”, because a mink coat seems to be exactly the right attire for this fabulous doll. So you see, this sultry bubble is no everyday brunette; this girl’s got verve and a style all her own!
The Attack of the Clones!
May 3, 2016
By 1960, everybody seemed to be getting into the fashion doll world. Barbie’s hugely successful launch nine months earlier only served to rev up the enthusiasm at other toy companies to jump on the bandwagon. Before Barbie, there were pre-teenage dolls like Ideal’s popular Little Miss Revlon and the 10.5 inch Toni by American Character, both in 1958, as well as Uneeda’s Suzette Tiny Teen doll (1957 to 62), who was clearly a LMR knock off.
While Madame Alexander’s very collectible Cissy doll from 1955 has been crowned by some as being the first “adult” fashion doll, most of these dolls merely pretended to be fashion dolls; their figures were more similar to those of a 12- or 13-year old (except for Cissy who could maybe “pass” for 20!). It was not until Barbie hit the store shelves in 1959 did any doll possess a truly adult figure, ie: a small waist and developed breasts! It’s what got Barbie into trouble over all these years; you don’t hear anyone lambasting the much larger Cissy over her “grown up” figure. And no wonder everyone wanted to create a doll just like Barbie; in her first nine months, Mattel’s blockbuster femme fatale sold 350,000 dolls, at a list price of $3.00 each! In current dollars, adjusted for inflation, that was more like $24.00 per doll for a total of $8.4 million -- serious money, indeed. And that was just in 1959.
Before Barbie, and her more flat-chested predecessors like Toni and LMR and the 8-inch Betsy McCall, there were mostly baby and toddler/little girl dolls, like Betsy Wetsy and Tiny Tears and also Ginny and Muffie available for little girls to choose from on store shelves. So, of course it was inevitable that toy companies would hole themselves up in research and development meetings, frantically hammering out designs for their own fashion dolls by the early 60s. Why not? The appetite for buxom dolls with long flowing hair or bubble cut, bouffant hair styles appeared to be insatiable among young girls so you can appreciate why other doll makers would want to carve out a piece of the fashion doll pie for themselves. Their goal – having their own fashion doll – was already acknowledged; the challenge for Mattel’s competitors was deciding how to create and market their own version of Barbie since they appeared to decide that there was no way to improve upon Mattel’s business model: an 11.5-inch vinyl doll with a shapely figure and hair that could be styled, along with having her own wardrobe of finely-tailored ensembles constructed by her very own design team. Although Madame Alexander, Ideal, Nancy Ann and Vogue were the dominant 1950s doll makers and even though their dolls were very popular in the 1950s to mid-60s, none of these companies was ever able to create a blockbuster like Barbie going forward.
Against that backdrop arrived the Attack of the Clones. Around 1962, three years into Barbie’s undisputed reign over the doll world, a large number of toy companies began to hit the toy shelves with rather shameless imitations of Barbie herself. Not able to come up with a commodity as lovingly designed, nor willing to commit the enormous resources such as Mattel had when it commanded its Japanese engineers to begin construction on Barbie in 1958 and 1959, the Barbie wannabes that came to market were made of cheaper materials in both the weight of body vinyl and clothes. While #1 and #2 Barbie were, frankly, close imitations of the earlier German Bild Lilli doll, they were constructed of heavier vinyl and rooted hair that stood the test of time. But the clone dolls that began to flood the market in the 60s use cheaper vinyl; they truly look and were mass produced with seam lines on legs and arms and residual vinyl sticking out from ankles and thighs in some cases. And they were shameless rip offs of Barbie; some of the clone’s makers marketed outfits that bore the same names as many of the iconic outfits created for Barbie! At least Barbie had her own wardrobe of high quality fabrics from 1959 to 1966: satins, brocade, silks, chiffon, cotton, and knits with tiny buttons and lace hem tape. When you examine one of the iconic 900 series outfits now, you cannot imagine any toy company, Mattel included, making that level of commitment to quality today that you see in those outfits.
So who were the Clones? Typically they were 11.5 inch “fashion dolls” with faces that either were an attempt to resemble Bild Lilli, with arched brows and heavy black eyeliner encircling her black-and-white irises, or Barbie. The Lilli clones were dolls like Uneeda’s Wendy (1962) with a hole in the back of her head (!), one of the most plentiful of the clones today, (another clone named Wendy, harder to find, was manufactured by Elite Creations); also Miss Babette and Annette, both from Eegee Toys (1963) with PMA (Plastic Molded Arts) offering Debby; Australia’s Suzy, Bonnie and Miss Marlene by Marx Toys; MaryLou and Babs from Fab-lu. Europe’s contribution to the clones was Plasta Petra and Japan checked in with Genevieve while Hong Kong’s Davtex sold Suzette. The list goes on and on. It probably does not need to be pointed out that none of these dolls are still sold today; Barbie wiped them all out, including her closest American competitor, Tressy, from American Character Toys in 1964, who attempted to up the ante on Barbie by giving little girls a doll with hair that “grew” out of hole in Tressy’s head so it could be combed in a variety of styles. At least American Character tried to offer a different-looking doll than Barbie with her individual face and hair styles and the company sold an array of outfits with tiny accessories (a passport, champagne glasses, toy dog, tiny school books) much like those offered with vintage Barbie ensembles. Still, even Tressy is made of much lighter weight plastic and simpler face paint and her secondary market price reflects that: a mint 1964 Tressy in box can be purchased today for well under $200 while the #1 Barbie in her TM box changes hands for anywhere from $4000 to $6500 depending on her condition and accessories (for instance, a #1 Barbie stand itself, relatively rare, sells for over $1000 on eBay these days).
The Barbie clones have blue-and-white eye color, like vintage Barbies did from 1960 onward. Many of the clones come with hair styled with a swirl ponytail or bubble cut “bouffant” hair style, also like Barbie. However, unlike Tressy, there was not a tagged line of outfits made for the cheap clone dolls, as far as I can tell. I have found some outfits out there, reportedly “clone” outfits, but without tags and clearly handmade or “Mommy made” when inspected. It can also be hard to locate a clone doll on eBay; nearly any doll that resembles Barbie or Lilli in any way, and who is 11.5 inches in length, is called a clone. There is not one dedicated site on eBay for the clones so it can be hard to find offerings when doing a search. I typically have used “Barbie clones” under the huge dolls category, or also “Bild Lilli” clones; sometimes they are found in the “Other Barbie dolls” subcategory or under “Vintage pre-1967” in the Barbie sites.
What is remarkable about all of these dolls is that none of Mattel’s competitors was able to come up with a higher quality fashion doll than Barbie; they, at best, hoped to duplicate her but seemed to put less of a priority on improving her, probably because they were unwilling to spend a lot of money on their imitations. Which, in and of itself, is curious, since the Barbie line has been such a profit center for Mattel over the years that making a similar high quality doll with lovingly designed outfits would have seemed to be a winning business model for Vogue or Madame Mademoiselle or American Character, who came the closest in grabbing market share from Barbie with its Tressy doll. Still, she was not Barbie and production was halted by 1965 or so. No one ever made a doll who offered serious competition to Barbie, yet it seems the little girls out there would have been willing to consider a doll of similar quality to Barbie. But no one really tried.
You can imagine how much competing toymakers wish they had been as bold as Ruth Handler had been in the late 50s when she had the vision to predict the exploding market share that a high-quality teenage fashion doll could harness. It is true that early Ginny toddler dolls remain extremely popular to this day, with mint dolls changing hands at doll shows in the $400 to $600 range. But none of these dolls would have the staying power or genuine allure that keeps prices for mint and/or rare vintage Barbies in the stratosphere. Barbie may be 57 years old, but she has never grown old -- or outdated --in the hearts of little girls and adult collectors.
One eBayer who listed her childhood Uneeda Wendy for sale on eBay, that I ended up buying recently, wrote in her listing that she always thought the doll was a Barbie when she was growing up; she even called the clone doll “Barbie”. It was only when she was an adult and showed the doll to a dealer that she was told it was not Barbie, but rather one of her many imitators. Still, she was loved as Barbie by the little girl who didn’t seem upset she had been fooled for most of her childhood. The clones were loved by their 1960s owners, but they never could knock Barbie off her throne; it would seem that the toy companies that made them did not even seriously try. The Attack of the Clones? Barbie barely noticed.
September 20, 2015
As collectors we can be obsessive. No surprise there. I sometimes glance around my doll room with dolls crowding every shelf in my cabinet and on the tops of cabinets and, with both astonishment and a certain degree of embarrassment, I think, “Oh my, I do have a lot of dolls. I should probably sell some of these. I mean, how many do I need?” As if we collectors ever have enough!
Even so, we rarely appraise just just how much we spend to indulge our endless appetites for vintage dolls and clothes – or, at least, I don’t. I justify my large outlays of cash by thinking, even though my dolls may not be investments guaranteed to increase in value, they are assets. Just try bidding on a particularly luscious #3 ponytail on eBay and see how quickly your leading bid can be eclipsed in the final seconds of an auction, causing your, say, $150 “high bidder” margin to turn into a $200 deficit. It happens; we’ve all shaken our heads when our “sure thing” suddenly slips away in the last moments and the doll goes to someone else. So yes: vintage Barbie is hot. And does that means that all the money we spend is okay? Well…. maybe. What is true is that these gorgeous and iconic dolls bring us so much joy and, in many cases, at least hold their value. There are worse ways to spend our days.
And, as many dolls as we might own -- depending on whether we cherish mint or played with dolls, NRFB outfits, Ponytail Barbie or TNTs -- there are always a few items/issues out there that represent what some cognoscenti call “the holy grail” of vintage collections. A doll or ensemble that is nearly impossible to find and which would be at the top of our “dream list” of vintage dolls. In other words, what would constitute your “top ten” list of the most coveted items out of all vintage Barbie collectibles out there (circa 1959 to 1969)?
Okay, I confess that I was unable to restrain my list to only ten dolls/ensembles. So my list will name my top twelve Barbies (plus one Tressy), accompanied by what I believe are the three rarest vintage outfits. It follows:
1) #1/#2 Barbie (blonde or brunette) hand painted, with cheek blush. Wow! I am salivating at the mere thought of owning one of these earliest 1959 ponytails with the darker, sharper and more angled eye paint and peachy cheek blush. Market estimate: $10,000 and upwards. And I am only guessing; I have never seen one at either a doll show or on eBay. (No box)
2) #1/2 Barbie (blonde or brunette) with stenciled face paint (and cheek blush). To be sure, these sophisticated beauties are, in no way, to be considered “poor relations” to the handpainted 1s or 2s; they are stunning and spectacular in their own right. Approximate market price: $4000 to $6500. (no box)
3) #1 Barbie stand with metal prongs, no chips. You rarely see these for sale on eBay; more often you’ll be offered a repro stand, if any stand at all, when you plunk down the big bucks to buy your #1. Market estimate: $1000 to $1500. (no box)
4) White Ginger Bubble Cut with pale, non-oxidized blonde hair and unfaded pink lips (no green!). One of these lovelies, with her original whitish blonde hair, is probably as close to platinum as you get with any of the vintage Barbies. Market Price: $500 to $750 (with box).
5) Midnight Color Magic, fully jet black with little or no oxidation to ruby red found anywhere in its hair, and those va-va-voom perfect raspberry lips and vibrant cheek blush. Just love these girls. My Midnight CM is one of my favorite dolls. She is breathtaking. Market Value (out of box): $1000 to $1500.
6) Midnight Japanese Side Part with raspberry lip paint and pink vinyl “skin”. I love the thinner faces and high color cheeks of this gorgeous issue. With or without hair string (of course, with original string adds value). Market value (estimate): $1600 to $2400. (no box)
7) Platinum Color Magic. With long, untrimmed very pale blonde hair, nearly champagne (but not “white” blonde). High color. With fully rooted hair, no thinning at crown. Be still my heart! These dolls are show stoppers. Market value (estimate): $800 to $1200. (no box)
8) Brownette Bubble Cut. Tight sable brown bubble. Very hard to find issue. Exquisite face of the earliest 1961 bubbles. No green. Retouched lips (the common way to find them). Market value: about $500 to $750. All original makeup would bring her value to about $1100. (no box)
9) Side Part American Girl (blonde or ash) with original coral lip paint. Blush is rare but, of course, adds value. The lighter, wheat blonde is harder to find and would raise her price by a few hundred dollars. Market value (estimate): $1400 to $1800.
10) Ash or Frosted Blonde Japanese Side Part with geranium lip paint, pink skin. Again, I love that thinner face! Usually can be found with the coveted hair string and original ribbon. Market value (estimate): $1500 to $2200.
11) Long Hair High Color American Girl (silver brunette is most cherished followed by two-tone blonde, silver ash, and cinnamon medium brown) with original cheek blush and flesh-toned facial vinyl (no darkening). Just love styling that long, luscious page boy. Definitely she is a crowd pleaser. Market value: $750 to $1200. A box would add $50 to $100, in my humble opinion.
12) “No Bangs” Francie. If you love Francie, this is the one you dream of at night. Blonde or brunette. I am not a Francie collector, but I have to admit the combed-back-from-forehead hair style with huge page boy is really lovely with its hair band. Not sure of current market value. I would say upwards of $500. Any Franciephile out there who can tell me?
13) Black (African American) Francie. Also a highly coveted doll for fans of Francie. Market value: I just saw one on eBay in what appeared to be very nice condition for $825.
14) “Sorbonne” outfit. Coveted. Very cool. This is what I would want to wear on my first day at college ! Very, VERY hard to find. Market value? $1500 ? I have no idea.
15) “Pan American Stewardess” outfit. Just a stunning ensemble for a silver brunette long hair American Girl. Market value: about $1000.
16) “Wedding Day Set” ensemble. Finding one without a tear in the netting at the center of neckline is hard, but possible. Complete with all accessories and mint. Market value: $150 to $200.
17) African American Tressy. Okay, okay, she is not a Barbie, but she is definitely a Barbie wannabe! A very rare find for Tressy fashion doll lovers. Market value: One sold for $372.00 this week on eBay (to me!)
"The Imitation Game": From Barbie to Tressy and Now Tammy
June 10, 2015
I thought the day would never come when I was scared by a fashion doll. But when I opened the shipping box and set my eyes upon the first Tammy I had ever bought (or ever seen), I gasped out loud, “She’s huge! Like a giant!” Her head was easily four times as big as Barbie’s and her feet were perhaps five times larger! With those disturbingly large and round “innocent” blue eyes and appealing high color cheeks, Tammy is about Barbie’s height, at 12 inches tall. But her head and torso dimensions are more akin to those of Little Miss Revlon. Or, as a Barbie friend of mine commented, “She’s like an overgrown child on steroids.”
I make that criticism with apologies extended to all you Tammy lovers out there; I am sure there are many, like my Connecticut neighbor and “sister” doll collector, Cindy Sabulis who wrote one of the most valued and popular Tammy reference books which is still available on eBay. Even so, Tammy’s oversized proportions were very disturbing and unattractive to my collector’s eye. And after I opened that first Tammy box, I was chagrined since I had already bid on, and won, four additional Tammys with different hair colors, and eight mint or near- mint outfits, complete with many adorable accessories. Now what was I going to do with all of them?
Well, sure, I probably should have at least looked at one of these very popular mid-60s Tammy dolls “in person” before committing my hard-earned cash to building a collection. But no, not me. What? Actually know something about what I was buying? I had resisted getting into Tammy over the past few months, after I expanded my fashion doll collecting from Barbie into Tressy, about whom I wrote in my last column. What struck me with Tressy was how much dolls were “queen” in the 50s and 60s, from Madame Alexander’s Cissy to Ginny to Miss Revlon and Betsy McCall. And fashion dolls most of all, once Barbie strutted down that runway upon her launch in March 1959. Barbie attained instant rock star status, despite all the brouhaha about her large breasts and tiny waist and even teenier feet. And guess what? There are stranger dolls out there from those two decades, from a gender viewpoint: Little Miss Revlon looks like a 12-year-old and yet she wears very high heels and also has breasts, albeit smaller than those Barbie proudly sports, and she had her own wedding dress -- since when do pre-teens get married?. And American Character’s Toni, even though she has a very sweet and girlish face, also comes dressed in a lacy one-piece camisole and she also has smaller breasts. Arguably the most popular toddler doll, Ginny, even had a wedding dress made for her as well (no breasts, thankfully!) in the 50s. What were doll makers trying to say with all these gender-specific contradictions? That they were little girls but also emerging teenage models? Really?
Even so, Tammy was a real contender upon her issuance in 1962 . Ideal was trying to jump on the fashion doll bandwagon by issuing a doll like Barbie, but without Barbie’s “negatives” (at least as claimed by those resistant mothers of girls in the late 50s who were repelled by Barbie’s very female proportions - her, as I call it, “va-va-va-voom” killer body. Let’s be honest: Victoria’s Secret’s models have nothing on a #1 Ponytail or a mint long-haired American Girl Barbie!) Tammy was given a chubby face but also one with lots of cheek blush. I, for one, am drawn to the enduring high color feature of Tammy dolls; it’s nearly impossible to find one without her original high color face paint. She, like Barbie and Tressy, also had side-glancing, coquettish eyes. But the iconic Tammy has shortish curly hair (some of the dolls had flips and bangs) and really offered no new feature, beyond her unthreatening figure. She wasn’t endowed with the shapely body of Barbie, nor the similarly curvy proportions of Tressy, who had the added attraction of being given a shock of hair that could be pulled out of the top of her head to allow little girls the ability to fashion new hair styles for her. (Magic Make Up Tressy/Mary dolls also had a remarkably plain face that you could make up with color sticks that American Character offered with the doll). Gimmicks that Ideal hoped might draw some of the legions of Barbie collectors into the American Character ranks. I think that Tammy -- as the newest “imitation doll” since she, like Tressy, was also a blatant rip off of Barbie -- was created to appeal to those mothers who found Barbie too “sexy” with Tammy’s thicker waist, and “girl-next-door” face. She was cute, if oversized, but not beautiful, by any stretch of the imagination.
But here’s the thing: Tammy has very articulated, if small, breasts, with clearly-defined nipples. Whoa! What is this? I mean, it’s a relative rarity to find a Barbie with a so-called “nipple” body and rarely does that mean you see defined nipples; more often there are just small, circular bulges at the end of the breasts. With Tammy, there is absolutely no doubt that what you see on each doll’s chest is a very pointed tip on the nipple. She may look in most cases like an “overgrown child on steroids”, but that’s only until you undress her from her very childlike one-piece turquoise playsuit. Then, look out! What is Ideal, through its blockbuster Tammy doll, trying to say to mothers and their little girls? That the doll represents youth, even childhood, but also is an emerging vixen, like Babs or Tressy? I mean, Ideal must have thought, “We are not making a doll like that ‘tart’ Barbie, but we do want to ride the wave of popularity enjoyed by the parade of fashion dolls that followed Barbie. We, Ideal, also want to depict young adulthood with our doll’s large array of outfits” that would befit a teenage doll, and just like those that Barbie and Tressy also were given. (Even early Barbie never looked like any teenager I ever knew; not until 1967 when mod Barbie replaced the sophisticated face of the ponytails, bubble cuts and American Girls did she begin to look like a teen.) Tammy outfits like “Pizza Party” and “School Daze” that sequed into fashions for college -“Campus Cutie” – and yet also of young womanhood like “Formal n’ Fur” or the conservative, but well-designed, blue brocade dress and jacket of “Dream Boat”. Even so, Ideal was clearly trying to keep as fans its legion of younger girls and their mothers who found Tammy to be less threatening since most of her outfits were more tailored towards early teenhood (nipples notwithstanding!) like “Skate Date”, “Phone Booth Tammy”, “Ring a Ding”, “Walking my Pet”, “Winter Weather”, and “Picnic Party”, to name a few. Ideal clearly was hedging its bets in trying to make its doll be all things for all children, and their moms, by 1963.
And, like Tressy, Ideal created an array of accessories, copying Mattel’s business model for Barbie, that would accompany each of Tammy’s outfits, from a transistor radio in its black carrying case, to a tiny plastic typewriter, to ice skates in their black Tammy case, to a hat box suitcase, to the pizza Tammy and her friends would enjoy at their “Pizza Party”. Ideal also offered a booklet with each doll and outfit that depicted all the different ensembles that children could buy for the dolls, with the same artistic designs and accompanying descriptive copy that Mattel created for Barbie and later American Character and Ideal did Tressy and Tammy. As with Tressy’s similar roll out, I am amazed that Mattel didn’t sock Ideal with a copyright infringement lawsuit. I guess Barbie was already so well entrenched in the doll world that Mattel wasn’t really threatened by the poseurs. But anyone who has studied Mattel’s history knows that the huge toy company didn’t take its success for granted and knocked off competitor after competitor in order to protect its brand throughout Barbie’s 56-year lifetime.
And it is true that both Tressy and Tammy were no longer made by the late 60s. Mattel may have lost the battle in not owning the only popular fashion doll on the toy market by 1964 but, in the end, it won the doll war. “Pink Box” Barbie is still sold today, even if lacking the glamour and high quality reflected in the earliest vintage Barbie dolls, while Tressy and Tammy are relegated to merely holding their own in the large secondary market for 1960s dolls on eBay. Barbie remains the queen of fashion dolls as reflected in her elevated eBay prices today. Which is to say, you can buy a mint, unplayed-with Tressy with original hair set for $100 today and a near-mint Tammy for, say, $150 or less, while a mint, #1 Barbie changes hands for upwards of $6000 and you can access an unplayed-with long hair American Girl Barbie in box for $1000. As the old advertisement said, what becomes a legend most?
(Ellen Taylor can be reached at [email protected])
Posted on March 3, 2015
Okay, before you Ken lovers out there – and I imagine there must be a few of you so please identify yourselves now, because I can never find you on eBay when I have a Ken lot to sell -- cry foul, let me explain the context in which I use the term “unworthy”. I intend it in the sense of having less worth, ie: a lower price value, in particular when compared with vintage Barbie. No one shows Ken the money.
Ken Carson, the doll, issued a scant two years after Barbie Millicent Roberts exploded onto the scene in 1959, was, in all senses, an exact counterpart and companion doll for the Ponytail Barbie in his marketing and quality. The Ken doll came in an oblong cardboard box covered with designer graphics of his early outfits, as did vintage Barbie; he wore a red cotton swim trunks with yellow terry towel (well Babs wasn’t given a towel; perhaps she was meant to seductively pose in her beach chair wet after swimming, all the better to show off her delectable measurements?) and cork sandals with red plastic straps. He had a stand and a booklet within which were detailed the early 900-series outfits for both Barbie and Ken. And he, like Barbie, sold for $3.00.
Think of it: Our vinyl vixen must have been getting a bit bored standing all by herself in children’s doll cabinets by the early 60s. She needed a friend and Midge wouldn’t come along until 1963. I mean, she may have been dismissed by many moms as an immodest doll with those eye-popping measurements, infamous characteristics that overturned the doll world at the end of the staid 1950s when she first displayed them. But she was really out there all alone; no other doll had been like her before or, I would argue, since. Of course that is why she was such a success, too. And because she was such a blockbuster, with 350,000 dolls flying off store shelves in the first nine months after her issuance in March 1959, Mattel executives must have been rubbing their palms together, thinking “how can we capitalize on this huge stream of revenues?” I hate to be cynical but you can’t blame Mattel for wanting to keep those sales coming in, as they wondered what they could do to build on Barbie’s success? I mean, at some point, little girls would own more than enough Barbies, wouldn’t they? (Of course, most collectors today know there is never a point at which we say “enough!” but that’s a topic for another column!) So… wouldn’t Barbie need a boyfriend at some point? Thus, Ken was born.
Ken’s early outfits were of the same high quality and design as were the ponytail and bubble cut Barbie’s wardrobe. He had a tuxedo of polished cotton with satin lapels and a white cotton tuxedo shirt with tiny tucks in the front. Anyone who has ever sewn will attest to how difficult it was to create all this fine tailoring. He carried a corsage in a box to bring to Barbie for the prom. He had khaki slacks with a sporty red cap and yellow knit shirt with a set of keys for when he drove off in the Barbie Austin Healy, and a blue pin stripe baseball uniform with red trim to wear when he played first baseman on Mattel’s team; a gray suit with striped rep tie for his “Saturday Night Date”. Ken’s early outfits were made of cotton, satin, knits, corduroy -- no polyester for him (until quality of the mod dolls began to erode in the last 60s). The tailoring was as exquisitely designed and finished as were any of Barbie’s ensembles, and they were sold with the same number of imaginative accessories.
So. Why did Ken never reach the rock star status of the vintage Barbies? Why can you pick up a mint in box Ken, pristine, with tag, and unplayed with for, oh, under $250 now, over 50 years later, when the #1 Barbie (which is nearly impossible to find in unplayed with, MIB condition) can tip the scales at $6000 or more? Why does even Barbie’s first stand garner $1000 or more itself alone when Ken’s earliest wire stand is lucky to fetch $30? I think there are a few answers. Most children were drawn to Barbie’s glamour and dreamed of owning one of the iconic ponytails after her issuance. By 1961, they might have also been given a bubble cut, first issued that year at the same time as Ken’s debut. (I was given a blonde #4 ponytail as a child and a first-issue titian bubble cut. I also had a brunette flocked hair Ken and I do have fond memories of some of his outfits which I also owned.) But for most children of the 60s, Barbie was the draw; it was the ponytail Barbie onto whom children projected many of their dreams of growing up and fantasies of going out on dates in fancy outfits. Ken was merely an accessory, in a way; a very nice and high quality doll, but not Barbie. You could play with Barbie without a Ken; many little girls did, probably most of them. Ken was nice to have, but not required.
And here’s the thing: even little boys who were engaged in doll play as kids seemed to prefer GI Joe over Ken. Today I suspect that GI Joe sells for much more than vintage Ken, though I do not collect either so am unable to seal my argument with hard dollars. But from what I have observed at doll shows and from conversations with male collectors, this seems to be true, or at least the interest level is greater. Oh that beard! Those bulging muscles! Physically, Joe leaves Ken in the dust. At one N.J. show, I arrived at one booth just as a fellow collector was shoveling about ten GI Joes in a bag after buying out the dealer’s stash. Once again, I don’t any women collectors who covet GI Joe (despite that oh-so-masculine bod!) but he does seem to attract the majority of collectors who want a male counterpart to Barbie. Poor Ken! Even with that cool red cap to wear while driving in his sports car, and his fun green swimming fins, snorkel and mask, or his very trendy two-toned brown and white loafers, he doesn’t get many swoons. But he’s not a simmering hunk like Joe with that sculpted bod; he’s not at all risky or bad . He is just a nice guy and I guess that, even in the doll world, it’s true that nice guys do finish last.
It's the Ankles, Baby!
Posted January 24, 2015:
Within a year of her launch date at the New York Toy Fair in March 1959, Barbie’s skyrocketing appeal to little girls essentially drove her predecessors off toy shelves. This included the very popular Little Miss Revlon, a so-called teenage fashion model that always looked more like a child than an ingénue; American Character’s 10.5 inch Toni, with her appealing peachy complexion, side swept bangs and shoulder-length flip hairdo; Vogue’s Jill doll, as well as the Hollywood glamorous (and still elusive) Miss Coty doll, and even Cosmopolitan’s Miss Ginger. Even the blockbuster Ginny toddler doll, who arguably posed the biggest threat to Barbie in her legions of fans among children in the late 1950s, saw her sales take a beating as little girls shelved their Ginnys, shifting their allegiances to the more sophisticated, teenage fashion doll that Barbie embodied – even if more “fashion” than “teenage”.
But why did Mattel succeed so mightily in its marketing of this new and very controversial fashion doll – I know many women who were girls in 1959 whose mothers forbid them from buying the bosom-y Barbie -- in the middle of the very repressed “Mad Men” era? What was it about Barbie that clicked with young collectors? Much has been made of the doll’s appeal as embodying a future role model upon whom these young girls could project their future dreams for their own lives. This line of reasoning said that children imagined themselves becoming teenage girls in few years, and loved this new sophisticated doll who possessed such beautiful designer-inspired clothes that you could buy separately for play purposes. For whatever reasons, toddler and baby dolls like Betsy Wetsy and Tiny Tears were largely out of fashion by the early 1960s as they saw their sales plummet. Many of Barbie’s predecessors in the doll world were completely removed from toy stores as competing doll manufacturers determined they could not take on the steamroller that was, and remains, Barbie.
But Mattel was smart when it came up with its blueprint for Barbie and for that we can thank Barbie’s creator Ruth Handler, Mattel’s co-founder. Handler might have pointed to Germany’s Bild Lilli as the inspiration for her new vinyl protégé but, in fact, the original Barbie doll was made of much better quality materials than was the earlierLilli that helped the doll remain a durable plaything for more than 50 years. Just look at how many near mint-to-mint vintage Barbies can still be found on the internet and at doll shows even into the 21st century. It’s really remarkable that the earliest dolls have held up as well as they have, with many of their hairdos still keeping their original styling, even after numerous washings and combing since the early 60s. It was a shock to me when I first saw a Bild Lilli “in person” and noticed, frankly, how cheaply she was made, with rubbed makeup, mussed up mohair wigs, and arms and legs comprised of lightweight and brittle plastic. Lilli, in fact,is very fragile in her construction and certainly is rarely found in anywhere near mint condition. She is not nearly as glamorous or as solidly constructed a doll as is vintage Barbie, nor do her clothes enjoy the same attention to detail seen in the couturier designs created for Barbie with their tiny buttons, lace hem facings, real fur trim, and manufactured of stunning fabrics like taffeta, brocade, satin, silk, and velvet. And the outfits always exhibited such wonderful tailoring.
But, for me, it is the little details that creators included on the doll itself that make her so special and which spotlight Mattel’s commitment to authenticity and quality when it created the first Barbies. (Unfortunately that devotion to high quality was something the company sadly abandoned by the end of the 60s, beginning with the mod line in 1967). Case in point: just look at Barbie’s ankle. It is so beautifully crafted with a tiny bone visible on the outside of her ankle. So feminine and also revealing the degree to which Mattel was committed to creating a doll that would exhibit all the real biological features of a young woman. Then there are, of course, the notorious breasts molded for Barbie as yet another representation of young womanhood; the original breasts even having greater nipple detailing in the dolls crafted on the assembly line in Japan until Mattel decided that such a biological detail might be too unsettling to the “innocent” children in America. (Uh oh, another “wardrobe malfunction”, indeed!) And who cares about Barbie’s impossibly tiny waist line anyway? Do you know of any vintage collector who has ever found her itsy bitsy circumference to be either strange or objectionable? We collectors are more enraptured with the high quality of the dolls: the individually painted (or seemingly so) facial features, the designer-inspired ensembles, the lovely hair styling -- be that of the ponytails with a myriad of tiny curls in the bangs, or the layered, sporty bubble cut style, or the wildly popular page boys worn by the 1965-66 American Girls. These hair styles were largely untouched over the years; you can still wash and restyle any of these doll issues and reclaim a doll that looks remarkably like one who just came off the assembly line years earlier.
It is for all these reasons that Barbie endured. Just compare the numbers of vintage dolls and outfits that are posted each day on eBay (vintage Barbie offerings totaling about 23,000, on January 8th) and consider how often you find your high bid overtaken in the last few seconds of an auction for the most coveted dolls -- even though seconds earlier it might have surpassed the then winning price by $200. Collectors love vintage Barbie for all these reasons. And it’s not just those women who were of doll-playing age when Barbies first hit toy shelves in the late 50s; there are thousands of women who were born in the years just before or after 1959 who had no childhood connection with the dolls but are avid collectors today. Because of her exotic and fabulous face – who else looks like a #3 Barbie? – and her variety of beautifully created hairstyles, as well as her stunning, high- quality ensembles that could be purchased for the doll both then and are still in near mint condition today.
But for me, it is also those delicate and adorable ankles, baby!
For the Non-Mint Minded: How Different Vintage Dolls Possess Different Flaws
Posted October 27, 2014
Here is a quote I saw on an eBay listing for a titian bubble cut this morning: “Other than having green ear on both ears, she is mint.” Oh really? So this seller thinks the dreaded green ear “disease”, apparent mostly on bubbles and later ponytails, is just a minor issue for a collector? That might be the worst, and least correctible, flaw that a vintage Barbie can suffer, other than an outright tear in the vinyl. It’s like saying, “Other than having no legs, the man walked perfectly.” It’s amazing what a wide array of deteriorating conditions can understandably exist on these aged dolls and yet a seller still calls them mint.
Misleading appraisals aside, what has really fascinated me since I became an active vintage Barbie collector after the internet was created in the mid 1990s, affording collectors access to, literally, an entire universe of vintage dolls that previously had remained unclaimed in dusty toy warehouses or hidden in the attics of their original owners, is how the array of vintage issues can exhibit such different types of flaws – or none at all – after the passage of more than fifty years. And, for the record, if you find a doll with any of these flaws, they are not mint, or even near mint. Flaws matter; flaws detract from a doll’s value. Period. The adjective “mint” characterizes a doll that has not been played with or is, at a minimum, pristine, with hair usually in its original set, and with untouched original lip and eye paint, no rubs. No toe nips, no broken knees on bend legs issues, no hair cuts. And yes, no green.
The most common issues -- green ear, neck splits, nose nips, fading or missing makeup – are not universal afflictions seen in every vintage doll. For example, #1s to #3s rarely possess any green ear; if they do, it is typically confined to a small dot immediately inside the earring hole. Also, the lip paint is usually intact, and not rubbed, on the earliest ponytails. For some reason, they retain in many, if not all cases, their original red lip paint and usually in the original outline. Heads were not, in my experience, as commonly snapped on and off their bodies, as you see with the bubble cuts or later ponytails, so neck splits on the 1s to 3s are also fairly uncommon. However, when they were, it resulted in even greater damage to the doll in a broken neck knob, next to impossible to repair unless you are an extremely talented vintage “engineer”.
However, many, if not almost all, of the earliest ponytails now possess a ghostly pallor since the first type of vinyl chosen by Mattel for the dolls heads and bodies has faded to ivory in the 55 years since the 1s to 3s were manufactured. And the fading is not uniform; some 1s have more peachy- toned torsos or darker legs while the face and shoulders have changed to the ivory or near white-hued vinyl.
Bubble cuts, issued first in 1961, on the other hand often acquire green ear after the metal in the earring post reacted with the particular vinyl used in making the doll’s head, creating over the passage of years a green stain that circled the earring hole. I have also seen green ear on other parts of a vintage doll’s head or body; for instance, I once bought an otherwise mint #4 blonde at a doll show that had a tiny dot of green on the front of her neck. I can only assume the doll laid in its box for years with a loose earring somehow touching its neck, producing the green. Most of the highly coveted brownette bubbles have been afflicted with at least some green ear; even worse, the greasy face vinyl used in the 1961 dolls often made virtually all their face paint slide off the face over the years. That is why it is extremely rare to find a brownette with its original face paint; they are almost all at least partially retouched.
Swirl ponytails, which came on the Barbie scene in 1964, are the most common dolls that have been struck with green ear syndrome; in fact, it is hard to find a swirl with no green ear at all (and if you do, hold onto her!) and often it results in a fairly sizable circular stain around the ear. Swirls often exhibit a very wide stance between the legs on their Midge Barbie bodies, too, which is less often seen in the bubbles or the “regular” ponytails with curly bangs.
In my experience, it is also hard to find a Fashion Queen wigged doll with either green ear or rubbed lips. You will see the term “high color” on listings of Fashion Queens referring to dolls that retain some visible cheek blush, but it is uncommon (and about the only characteristic that makes FQs desirable for many collectors, in my opinion). American Girls issued in 1965 - the so-called “short hair” AGs - almost always have lips that have faded over the years to a lemon or “buttery”shade from their original coral shade, while the more highly coveted 1966 “long hair” AGs almost always have intact geranium or raspberry lip paint (except for the “low color” long hairs, that have pale coral lips, and could be faded to more pale than coral). American Girls, long or short haired, never have green ear because they were not manufactured with earrings; that is, of course, unless some young child decided to pierce the ears herself! Neck splits can be found on any doll, but most often on bubbles or later ponytails (1961 through 64).
Of course the explanation behind why some dolls have, say, green ear or not is because Mattel constantly changed the type of vinyl it used to manufacture different issues (and you have to wonder, what was all that switching of plastics from year to year about?) It is interesting, too, that other 1950s teenage dolls did not suffer similar afflictions. For example, the Little Miss Revlon dolls, who held court in the doll world from 1958 to 1960 when Barbie knocked them off toy store shelves, only exhibit a tiny circle of green, if at all, immediately around the earring hole, hardly a problem. And they usually are still found with their original metal-posted drop pearl earrings in place so the green does not appear to get significantly worse over the years. Good thing since it is nearly impossible to remove the earrings without damaging the doll’s ear lobe since the ends of the posts are curved into a hook inside the doll’s head so they tear at the vinyl if you try to remove them. Also, LMR’s lips are usually intact, with no rubs to their trademark red hue and she was issued with deep “fever” cheek blush or with uncolored cheeks. On the other hand, American Character’s 10.5 inch tall Toni almost always still has cheek blush as well as her pink lips and the doll is renowned for her trademark “peaches-and-cream” complexion. Manufactured without earrings, she also has not had to endure the slings and arrows of the dreaded “green stain illness” often suffered by Barbie.
Some differences among the different vintage issues, however, are actually attributes adding to a doll’s value. For example, it is not unusual to find some cheek blush remaining on the earliest ponytails while most later ponytails, most bubble cuts, and the 1965 American Girls have lost that exquisite facial accent over the years. However, I have this year located two raven bubbles who still possess vestiges of their original cheek blush. Teresa has mentioned she also has some bubbles with facial blush. And of course vibrant facial coloring is still a major selling point for the high color Color Magics (1966 – 67), who also almost universally have retained their luscious geranium lip color, while cheek blush is less often seen on the so-called high color long-haired American Girls of 1966, even though they usually do not exhibit fading in their original raspberry lip paint.
One thing is certain, when it comes to vintage Barbie collecting, there is a little something for everyone at every price level and sometimes buying a flawed doll can save you considerable money. Especially if you can tolerate a small dollop of green on a bubble’s ear or a professional retouch of a short-haired American Girl’s lips.
Posted Sept. 2014
When my mother bought me my first fashion doll, in about 1957, she was Little Miss Revlon, a 10 ½-inch tall vinyl doll, chunkier in build than the yet-to-be-issued Barbie, with dark blonde saran hair that you could wash, comb, and curl without fear of damaging the doll’s hair. “Rooted hair!” my mom exclaimed. “That is the best thing to happen to dolls in years.” My mother’s generation -- if they, of the Depression Era, owned dolls at all – played with early “composition” dolls made of compressed material that would later chip and crack, damaging its glaze (at best) and (at worst) often causing the doll to lose a nose or finger. My mom might also have pointed out that the 50s dolls made of vinyl were also a vast improvement over the dolls of the 30s to late 40s. The new dolls were virtually indestructible, with painted facial features and metal earrings, as well as the rooted hair that revolutionalized doll play by the end of the decade.
The Fifties ushered in the era of the fashion doll, as first seen in Madame Alexander’s highly collectible 21-inch Cissy doll who was a coveted fixture of the doll market from 1955 until 1960. Until the mid 50s, most dolls were baby dolls (Ginnette, Little Genius, Betsy Wetsy and Tiny Tears) or toddler dolls, such as Vogue’s extremely popular Ginny and Nancy Ann’s Muffie dolls, made of brittle, hard plastic with body seams that could separate and chip as the dolls aged. They were each about eight inches tall and possessed bodies “strung” together with elastics affixed to metal bars. Their hair was of a mohair composition and glued onto their heads, allowing for little rearranging from their manufactured hair style during play time.
But as coveted as vintage Ginny dolls are, dating back to the first years of the 50s, they pre-dated the fashion dolls that would devour the doll market by 1960. They were little toddler dolls, and most of their clothes were created as clothes little girls would wear, between the ages of, say, four and seven. They were well tailored clothes – pinafores, lace, plaid skirts for school, pretty party dresses – made of taffeta, cotton, and voile. But what I find very strange is that Vogue also designed ball gowns and bridal dresses for Ginny. These had veils and bouquets, they were created as Ginny’s bride’s gown and it was never suggested they were for “pretend” play or dress up. What real-life toddler or little girl requires a bride’s dress? Perhaps the fact that the dolls had clothes that were “older” than the appropriate demographic for the doll itself was a way of setting the doll up for the transition into the parade of fashion dolls that would soon be introduced to the doll world by the middle of the decade.
In 1955 Madame Alexander introduced the stunningly beautiful Cissy doll, 20 to 21 inches tall with a mohair wig and hard plastic body, jointed at the elbows and knees. She was an immediate hit but was priced on the expensive side for most parents of the day. The highly esteemed Madame A. had not yet faced the reality that the Ideal Toy Company of Hollis NY was breathing down its neck as the latter was on the verge of marketing the much less expensive Miss Revlon dolls, in a myriad of sizes ranging from 18 to about 24 inches tall. Charles Revson, head of Revlon cosmetics, lent his company’s name to the new dolls created by Ideal when demographics showed the sizable number of baby boomers who were approaching pre-teen years by the late 50s. What better way to get those girls’ willingness to choose his company’s cosmetics later on than to put its name on the fashion dolls Ideal envisioned bringing to market? And so he did.
Then just two years before Mattel created what would become the doll world’s biggest blockbuster, Barbie (1959), Ideal sold its own almost Barbie sized (10 ½ inches) fashion doll, the adorable Little Miss Revlon. She had rooted saran hair, was posable with a twist waist, had sleep eyes, and arched feet for the high heels she wore. But the doll has a child-like face which looks, well, a bit creepy, or at least strange, on a doll with (like Barbie) vinyl breasts and who was sold wearing a girdle (not even a panty girdle but its forerunner!) and brassiere. What was she, a collector might reasonably ask? A child or a teenager or a 20-something? You could argue that Ideal sent a mixed message, for sure, in its LMR issue. Though very popular when she appeared on toy store shelves in 1957, and with a number of outfits that would be purchased separately, LMR frankly lacked the elegance and sophistication of the vintage Barbies that were sold from 1959 until 1967. Her face was girlish, and her hair was typically styled in a short ponytail, making her seem a bit weird on top of a body with breasts (although admittedly they were smaller than Barbie’s va-va-voom “protuberances”.)
In short, the glamorous and sultry Barbie, with her heavy lidded eyes, dark turquoise eye liner, and smoky shadow, never looked anything like a young girl; she didn’t even look like a teenager, despite her marketing campaign. She was exotic, sophisticated, and drop dead gorgeous. No wonder the still collectible Little Miss Revlon dolls gradually faded from the doll world by 1960. With Mattel issuing three different ponytail Barbies in her first full year out of the gates, she clearly knocked all competition off toy shelves, and there was no doubt she was here to stay, the leader of the doll pack since that day in early March 1959.
Was Little Miss Revlon ever in a serious position to take on Barbie, once our Vintage Vixen stunned the doll world at the New York Toy Fair in March 1959? Little Miss Revlon was cute, if a little puzzling in her child/woman likeness, and is still very collectible. But her price in the secondary market today is hundreds, even thousands, of dollars below that of the original Barbies. She was, admittedly a fashion doll two years ahead of Barbie and, like Barbie, she had a wardrobe of outfits that could be purchased separately. But LMR did not have any haute couture fashions, and I don’t think I have to qualify that assessment. She had nothing remotely similar to “Enchanted Evening”, “Evening Splendor”, “Black Magic”, “Easter Parade”, or “Saturday Matinee”. None of her outfits were timeless, such as those mentioned, as was most of Barbie’s extensive vintage wardrobe, every ensemble from “Suburban Shopper” to “Gold n’ Glamour”. Most of LMR’s dresses, from her travelling series to her pinafores to her rather basic cotton dresses, were rather dated in their prints and not in any way “high fashion” while Barbie was always about fashion. Heck, Barbie even had her personal designer team to create her wardrobe before she was a fixture on toy shelves. Barbie hit the ground running when she was released that March and within a year, even the popular Little Miss Revlon was fading fast in the hearts of little girls across America. Barbie never looked back. She didn’t have to. It was not even close.
Very Vintage Vantage/July 29, 2014
By Ellen Taylor
Why do some collectors crave “never-removed-from-box” vintage Barbies? Why are so many of us only interested in mint dolls or clothes? I mean, Barbies were always sold as toys, not collectibles. They were played with by millions of children in the 60s, daily and for years. So, is it reasonable, or even possible, to expect to find a 55-year old toy in pristine condition?
The simple answer is: yes.
When I began collecting Barbies, I was about 10 and Barbie had been on the market for just a year. I am not sure why I was never given a #1 ponytail as a child since I was at prime Barbie age when she hit toy store shelves in March 1959. But then again, within a few months, the #1 quickly evolved into the #2 since Mattel had received complaints of the potential for injury with small children handling the metal spikes that affixed the first doll to her hard plastic stand. Then the #3 ponytail squeezed her way onto the scene also in 1959 after Mattel abandoned the vampire-like black and white eyes of the 1s and 2s for the softer blue-eyed look of the #3 and later ponytails. My point is that maybe by the time my mother got around to allowing me to have a Barbie -- which was a controversial decision when our vinyl vixen first came on the scene; many mothers nixed the idea of their daughters owning such a “sexy” doll – it was 1960 and the #4 ponytails were the ones mostly available at toy stores.
I lost my two original Barbies (a #4 blonde ponytail and a #1 brunette flocked-hair Ken, followed by a first-issue titian bubble cut in 1961) in 1973. So for years, I pined for my lost vintage Barbies , though, of course, no one used the term “vintage” in the 70s or 80s. I finally found a somewhat beaten up brunette #6 ponytail lying in a dusty bowl in an antique shop in 1986 and quickly snatched her up. No box, in fair condition, at best, but still a vintage Barbie.
An aside: That was always the conundrum about the earliest Barbies during the 20 years following their 1959 launch date: they were too recently issued to be considered “antiques”, yet too old to be lingering on storeroom shelves in most toy stores by the 1980s. It is a different story in California where it seems former Mattel workers snatched up many of the unsold vintage dolls that had been replaced by the mod and then the Malibu and Superstar Barbie lines; I suspect that’s the reason you can still find so many NRFB or mint dolls online now and often from sellers in California. I bet you could find the earlier ponytails and bubble cuts on toy shelves on the west coast much longer than you could in most other parts of the United States. But it’s a bigger mystery to me why these former Mattel employees and their families would know to keep a “new” 1960 doll for 40 to 50 years. Why would they know, or even suspect, that what had always been a toy when it was first sold would rise to the lofty price levels now seen on eBay as MIB dolls attained the rock star status they currently enjoy?
After I located that first brunette ponytail, I began to find a vintage doll, and its 900 series outfits, here and there, mostly at consignment shops. This was in the late 80s and early 90s. Oh boy, do I remember the adrenalin rush I would experience when I would spot an old doll at an antique store. My heart would actually beat faster and I would then begin to negotiate a selling price with the shop owner. None of these dolls were mint or in boxes, however, but they were vintage so I was elated to reclaim dolls like the ones that was been in my lost collection. Then the internet became a major focus of our day-to-day lives by the mid 90s, allowing us to greatly expand our collections while also depleting our bank accounts (ouch).
At the beginning I was overjoyed to find any vintage Barbies online; I never looked for, or expected, to find mint dolls. I knew these were toys and not items that were hoarded in expectation of them becoming valuable collectibles over time. So I bought my first American Girl (ash blonde with the thinner face) and Color Magic, whose over-the-top brash yellow hair color was a bit shocking the first time I saw one. I bought back “twins” of the three dolls I had lost in the 70s – and perhaps 125 more! The internet was perhaps the biggest boon to collectors, allowing us global access to a enormous range of dolls and clothes that had always been out there but we previously had no way of knowing where they were or how to buy them.
So in the 90s I never bought mint or NRFB items; I display my dolls and love to dress them, so I could see no reason to buy “like new” dolls. And these were, of course, 35- to 40-year old toys by then so I didn’t expect to find them in unplayed-with condition. I knew I had played constantly with my own Barbies as a young girl so couldn’t imagine that everyone who was a child in 1960 would not have done the same thing. How many childhood friends did you know who had received a Barbie as a gift and then merely placed them on an upper shelf in their closet, forever to be untouched and unplayed with? It was unthinkable.
And so I bought plenty of those so-called “damaged” dolls in the old days after eBay came on the scene in about 1996. For some reason, most of my favorite dolls have some flaw or sign of play, if not the worst detractors of a doll’s value like trimmed hair, green ear, or nipped noses. Matter of fact, if I happened to buy a doll in its box, I would almost always sell off the box to other collectors who I knew wanted them. I didn’t want to stash a boxed doll out of sight in a drawer. I wanted to play with my dolls and keep them on a shelf where I could admire and enjoy them every day. For the most part, I still feel that way.
However. Eighteen years later, I must admit that something has changed. I discover I am now enchanted by a pristine doll still in her original box with stand and shoes, her booklet in cello. I guess it makes me feel like I’ve taken a trip in a time machine, perhaps, and have gone back to the days when I could walk to my local toy shop and find a brand new, perfect Barbie for sale there for $3.00 (or less since you now find so many boxed dolls with discounted price tags on them from their early days lingering on the Rexall Drug Store shelf). It is so magical to see these dolls I have always loved, with all their exotic elegance and artistically painted faces, looking like new 55 years later. In some cases, with issues I never knew about as a child, it’s like I am getting a second chance to buy dolls I never had the chance to buy when I was 10 years old, like American Girls or Color Magics, because they hadn’t been manufactured yet.
Maybe this is just a natural evolution in collecting. I already have so many truly gorgeous dolls, some with a tiny dollop or more of green ear or retouched lips and others that are near mint; I love them all. Perhaps this new preoccupation with buying Mint in Box just represents the next logical step for a collector. Whatever the reason, I find it a real thrill to find a nearly perfect doll that has seen no, or very little, play time, some with original cheek blush and untouched hair. And suddenly I wish I hadn’t sold off all those boxes I dumped years ago. While I love to display most of my dolls in whatever 900 or 1600 outfit I choose for them, I am more drawn now to keeping a mint doll in her box, with stand behind her. Maybe in this way way I can pretend that those days of getting a new Barbie merely involved a walk to your local toy or drug store with $3 clutched in your hand are still with us (though now the $3 doll of yore has evolved into the $500 doll now. If only!)
Even so, it still astonishes me that you can find so many of these hardly or never played-with dolls today. Why were so many new dolls removed from toy shelves back then, especially when you consider Barbie has always led the parade as bestseller in the global doll market ? That question -- where do all these MIB dolls come from anyway -- is a mystery and fodder for a broader discussion among vintage collectors.
Posted on May 29, 2014
After the internet exploded onto the scene in the mid 1990s, it became possible for collectors to access a king’s ransom of vintage dolls, from Barbie to Madame Alexander to Betsy McCall, that had previously been unavailable -- or unknown -- to them. Which is to say, these early Barbie dolls were already out there -- on old toy shelves (perhaps, but that couldn’t have been many), in attics, in the corners of children’s (now grown up) closets. But with the internet’s creation (yes, even before eBay hung out its shingle at the end of 1996), a collector in Oregon could locate the seller of a particular doll, say a 1965 wheat blonde American Girl Barbie , in Florida and an exchange could be made. Suddenly buyers could access sellers, from Indiana to Italy, and deals were rapidly accomplished that made it possible for collectors to locate nearly any Barbie doll that was sold 35 to 40 years earlier. Frankly, it was a heady feeling for grown up doll lovers looking to replenish lost collections.
Take my case in point: when I was a child in the early 60s, I owned two Barbies (one #4 blonde and a #1 titian bubble) and one Ken (a flocked- hair brunette) doll and maybe fifteen 900 series outfits. Over the intervening years, I lost them all due to some friends’ marauding children who got into my doll trunk and made off with my dolls after I had gone to live in my single-room apartment, affording no doll storage, in New York City. Then even as I entered my 30s I, well, still pined for my lost collection but felt trying to recover them would be hopeless. Suddenly in the early days of the internet, “listserve” sites blossomed where people could exchange information on virtually everything -- from remedies for illnesses they suffered to collectibles. Until the early 90s, I had not been aware that Mattel had ever created a redhead ponytail until I saw one at a local vintage doll store. Soon that one sold and by then I had decided I had to have one for my own small, but growing, collection. I found a seller in Texas who had posted a #5 titian ponytail for sale and arranged to buy her.
In a couple of years the Barbie Board on AOL had been created by collectors and quickly grown by leaps and bounds. There a relatively large number of us early internet collectors could post restoration tips as well as lists of dolls we wanted to find or had to sell. Descriptions sufficed; deals were made without photographs, fees, or the benefit of eBay credit protection. You read a description and bought the doll; I don’t recall very many problems back then; there were some troublemakers but not a lot. I would attend a doll show in the adjoining state and buy, say, three dolls on a weekend day. That night after I came home, I would list a couple of my old dolls for sale and they immediately sold. Immediately, based only on my description. As a result, I would make $1000 in a matter of two hours, thereby covering the money I had spent earlier that day at the doll show. I have to repeat this for those who have only known the world of collecting through the eBay universe: we had to pay no fees for selling or buying, no Paypal existed for settling transactions, and yes, we also had no hard-and-fast credit protection. Our deals were based on reputation and personal experience. We actually became a fairly close-knit community of vintage collectors and formed friendships and trading relationships through our communal love of vintage Barbies. Then AOL disbanded the Barbie boards as we knew them and reinstated a new business model wherein they took a share of the revenues that were negotiated on their site. They realized what a good deal we all had and did some quick arithmetic to glean some idea of the enormous vintage pie from which they might be able to carve a piece.
That led to eBay being launched and that “friendly” community of vintage AOL Barbie lovers now had to be absorbed into a much larger universe of offerings of dolls and accessories. Somehow it wasn’t as much fun after eBay was born and became our collecting “referee” and I still get a remarkably warm feeling when I realize I have just done a transaction with someone I knew back in the old days on AOL. And of course, the size of the market for Barbie deals expanded exponentially as the market drew buyers and sellers from around the globe, with eBay and Paypal now taking their own extremely lucrative cut out of our bottom lines. It was a no brainer for AOL, eBay and its offspring Paypal. Money talks. This now became the way we collected. Why buy a #1 ponytail from a seller you meet on Craigslist when you might be getting a repainted #3 ponytail fronting as “the real thing” and you have no recourse for reimbursement after the seller grabs your cash and disappears through the subway turnstile? Once the market for vintage Barbies exploded beyond dealings between friendly fellow collectors, you really needed some credit protection and likewise, eBay needed to give buyers reassurance in order to develop its universe of buyers and sellers.
I will say that one happy side effect of eBay is that vintage prices have softened for the high end dolls since the late 90s. That could be due to the fact there are so many more dolls available in the global marketplace that is eBay; it could be due to the technology boom having inflated prices in the late 90s. But I remember when #1 Barbies in their box with stand sold for $10,000 in the 90s; without box or stand, probably at $5000. Number 2s changed hands in the neighborhood of $3500 without box and maybe at $4000 to $5000 if a box/stand were included. Long hair, high color American Girls used to enjoy a price tag of about $1000 for excellent to near mint dolls; I remember I got an extremely long-haired Cinnamon AG which still remains one of my favorite dolls from a collector in Canada by sending the seller two dolls, a bubble cut and a swirl, in exchange. I also bought the most gorgeous two-toned blonde LHAG with a slight trim to the bottom row of hair plugs in back at the Barbie Convention in the summer of 1997, totally covered by upper layers, for $800. I still have both of those dolls in my collection. Now you can find a very nice LHAG with few flaws for under $400 on eBay and all-original #1 ponytails without boxes now can be had for about $3000.
Not that this drop in prices, facilitated by the exploding size of the secondary Barbie market from 2000 to 2014, has resulted in any of us collectors letting go of substantially fewer dollars from our annual vintage budgets. If only that were so! I don’t think I am alone when I concede that I just buy more dolls now. Over the years since the late 90s, I have been able slowly to fill out my collection with dolls so that there are really no issues that I do not now own from my vintage “wish list”. But that is also because there are just so many more dolls out there that enjoyed no marketplace until the internet was developed. And I will say that, having worked most of my life in the Wall Street markets, I am a huge admirer of the liquidity and safety of the eBay doll market. It affords collectors not only a venue to access desired dolls but also a reliable marketplace where doll assets can easily be converted to cash, what is called “liquidity”. Sellers basically bear no risks on eBay; you don’t ship a doll to a buyer until the money she is worth is in your account. Buyers don’t really expose themselves to getting stuck with fraudulent dolls either since eBay essentially offers them back-up repayment for nearly any reason if a doll they receive is not what they thought they were buying. All markets need to gain the confidence of both parties to a transaction if they are to attract participants, and you need a broad and deep market with many players in order to most efficiently price a collectible asset. Despite its often hefty cost of doing business, eBay works and has been successful because it offers a huge marketplace where collectors are able to buy and sell easily and quickly. Not that I wouldn’t happily redirect my buying and selling to a smaller collecting platform, if we could only resurrect the old AOL Board…. (just kidding ?).
Posted on May 1, 2014 on ofbondsandblondes
Okay, we vintage collectors can all come clean and admit it: How many of your fellow doll obsessives actually own a Miss Barbie, that truly scary looking Mattel creation of 1964, Barbie doll’s fifth year on the earth? But then you have to ask why the doll’s very earthbound corporate creator devised a Barbie doll who looked more like a Martian than a California girl?
For the unanointed, Miss Barbie was a new incarnation in the Barbie line with knees that bent and weirdest of all, sunken eyes that would open and close. For hairstyling, no long and flowing blonde or raven locks pulled back into a ponytail. No black and white “zebra” swim attire for her. Miss Barbie sported a more modest hot pink one piece suit with a short ruffled skirt to shade her upper thighs, not a strapless number like that worn by her early Barbie sisters. And on her head she wore what appeared to be a bathing cap with a pink mop on top.
No kidding, Miss Barbie was the original “mop top” — and maybe that is because she came off the Mattel drawing board and onto toy store shelves the same year that the Beatles landed in America. Mattel certainly was always aware of its competition, or perhaps more accurately its competing trends in the cultural zeitgeist of those times. They cannily created Barbie issues that bore a resemblance to Elizabeth Taylor, Ann Margret and Kim Novak and designed haute couture clothes that bore a striking resemblance to those worn by Jacqueline Kennedy, whose “reign” as arguably our only American queen coincided with Barbie’s ascendence as the Vinyl Goddess of toyland in the early 60s. To wit, Barbie was launched into the doll stratosphere just eight months before John F. Kennedy won the presidency.
I also read that Mattel felt the heat of the popular Ginny toddler doll, who preceded Barbie by a decade, breathing down its neck by 1960 and tried – unsuccessfully – to buy the rites to that doll in order to curtail competition. And Ginny, like other best selling dolls of the mid 50s like Nancy Ann’s Muffie, Ideal’s Betsy Wetsy, and more formidably its Little Miss Revlon, all had the so-called “sleep” eyes that would open and close. But somehow Mattel fell flat on its face when it manufactured Miss Barbie. The eyes didn’t work for children. They looked sunken in their sockets, and yeah, scary. If the company opted to dump the black and white vampire eyes of the #1 and #2 ponytails because they were deemed too frightening for children, they neglected to understand that much of Barbie’s perceived sophistication came from her exotic, handpainted eyes. The smoky eye shadow and deep turquoise and sometimes lighter blue eyes of the early ponytails and bubble cuts that were issued from 1959 to 1964 made for glamour and beauty. Little girls didn’t want to put their Barbies to sleep; they wanted to dress her up in one of her stunning gowns so Barbie could go out and dance the night away. But in Miss Barbie’s case, the eyes are just medium blue with a single black dot in the center for the pupil. No eyeliner, no shadow, no subtle artistic variation from doll to doll. And reddish brown eye brows. Talk about your weird stepsister that you keep locked in the attic, that was Miss Barbie more than any other member of the vintage Barbie line like the freckles-laden Midge. And what’s the deal with that strange, oversized “lawn swing” that children got when they were given one of the new sleep-eyed dolls? Who dreamed that thing up? Who even cared? With Barbie, it was always about the doll and her wardrobe. One of the wonders and alluring aspects of the painted-eyed Barbies was the simplicity of her “package”: a single doll with ponytail or bubble cut (pre-1964) in different hair coloring, a strapless swimsuit (b/w “zebra” suit or red helenca or gold and white striped Fashion Queen swimsuit), open-toed heels, fashion booklet, and stand. All sold inside a narrow box covered with stunning artistic renderings of all the early 900 outfits. But a relatively huge piece of equipment like a two-person lawn rocker — why? Oh, I guess it was one way for Mattel to show off Barbie’s “shapely” legs that could now bend and be crossed at the knees as she hung out in the swing. But seriously? I think that it is entirely conceivable that, in the eleventh hour, a Mattel engineer realized that Miss Barbie was not going to fly. That in envisioning a sleep-eyed doll, they had abandoned everything that made the earliest Barbies, well Barbie. The sophistication of the face paint — as I have said, she never looked like a teenager until the 1967 TNT issue — the infinite facial varieties such artistic individualism allowed. So perhaps her engineers decided to throw in a bulky piece of metal when parents bought the doll and hope that would distract little children from just how unattractive the new “Martian cousin” was. Even Chris Varaste in his terrific book, “Face of the American Dream” — while being overall far more charitable to Miss Barbie’s legitimacy in Barbie history than I am — did say she looked like a “refugee from Future World”.
There is probably no more evidence needed to support an unabashed Barbie collector’s sentiment that Miss Barbie was a complete failure as a “(not so) missing link” in the Barbie evolution than the fact that Mattel only manufactured the doll for one year. At least as far as I can determine, she was only made in 1964 and ultimately deemed unpopular due to her hard plastic face (required to accommodate those heavy weight-laden sleep eyes), according to Stephanie Deutsch in “Barbie: the First Thirty Years.” American Girls hovered on the horizon for 1965 and 1966 with an entirely new visage (sans sleep eyes!) on the drawing board for 1967 when Mattel planned to launch its mod line with what would become the extremely popular Twist n’ Turn Barbie. At least we can give Mattel credit for cutting its losses; it would have been understandable if the top selling dollmaker had dug in its heels and stood behind its decision to come up with a sleep-eyed doll to hold the line against Ginny and Little Miss Revlon (neither whose eyes were sunken). But they didn’t as they cleared the decks and made room for three new issues after 1964 that would all be huge successes with children then and collectors still today: the American Girl, the hair-color changing Color Magic and then the lovely and sweet TNT.
So I think we can honestly conclude that Midge was not really Ponytail and Bubble Cut Barbie’s homely stepsister, whose first issues, mint in box, garner $200 at most. While admittedly perhaps costing more these days due to her rarity without the dreaded but common “melt marks”, Miss Barbie is the single vintage doll relegated to the spare room in the attic. She is the strange relation that is kept out of sight at Barbie family gatherings, sitting up in the darkened attic collecting dust on her mop wig as she sits alone in her swing chair. Well, okay, I have to admit one curious thing I noticed as I researched Miss Barbie’s tenure on the Mattel doll scene. Though disregarded by most collectors today as unappealing, perhaps Mattel didn’t entirely abandon the issue; I noticed an unexpected similarity between Miss Barbie’s face and the freckles-less visage of the Japanese Midge who came out in 1966. Perhaps it was her molded head, but also in the round blue eyes that gaze out from that much more coveted doll’s face. Call me crazy. Miss Barbie might have just turned Japanese.
Posted on March 22, 2014 on "ofbondsandblondes"
So what is it about Mattel and their XY chromosomal response to Barbie, the Ken doll? Why could they never get the poor guy’s image right back when he was still laying on their engineer’s drawing boards in 1961? I mean, not only has Barbie’s male companion (the Archie to her Veronica!) never attained anywhere near the value of Barbie, he can’t even compete with his macho counterpart, Hasbro’s GI Joe, who goes for much higher prices at doll shows these days, outfitted in his “don’t screw with me” camouflage gear and five-day stubble. With the high flying “Barbie, Teenage Fashion Model” bursting out of the starting gates two years earlier, when about 350,000 dolls were sold within her first nine months on the market, Ken continued to linger on toy store shelves, getting dusty, for many more months in his first years. Even now there are far fewer Kens being sold on eBay and it’s easy to pick up a mint-in- box Ken, bedecked in his red swimsuit, towel, sandals, stand and booklet, for less than $200 (mint #1 Barbies from 1959 now change hands for about $5000; her doll stand alone sells for upwards of $1000!)
One intractable problem for Mattel’s designers, in my opinion, has been Ken’s various hair styles. He has been issued with the famous “flocked hair” of the earliest 1961 Kens, in a fuzzy crew cut in blonde or brunette, with a rare special brownette issue; soon followed by the infamous “molded hair” (just rubber ”waves” on top of his head, also blonde and brunette) when he looked like the actor who might have played the life guard in the “Beach Blanket Bingo” movies of the 60s! What a dated, retro buzz cut that suggested! The flocked hair Ken, again just my opinion, was far better looking with his large soulful eyes, shaded by those even larger brows, but his hair flocking hasn’t fared well over the years, typically with significant chunks of the fuzzy stuff rubbed off on many vintage Kens 53 years later. Then came Mod Ken who looked like a peacock with flared tail sitting astride his dome, and Malibu Ken, not much different and both looking like Neal Diamond wannabes. The hair either looks silly or rubs off or sticks out in unmanageable styles. His neck is typically as thick as the base of his head, reminding one of your least favorite gym teacher in high school!
I mean, Mattel was able to get Barbie’s hair looking fabulous in so many styles: from soft curly bangs and long ponytail, to bangs that swirl across her forehead, to the “tight” bubble cut that led to the “big” bubble cut, to flip and pageboy wigs for Fashion Queen Barbie, soon followed by the elegant chin- and shoulder-length pageboy ‘do of the highly desired American Girl Barbie. I mean, Mattel was even able to successfully market a Barbie who sported nearly fluorescent yellow shoulder length hair that could be color changed “magically” to a vibrant red shade! (The more rare, and highly coveted, version of the Color Magic Barbie being one who had raven or “midnight” hair untouched in her box that turned into a ravishing auburn when a powdered color solution was brewed and applied to the doll’s locks. Be still, my heart!) Many of those styles required some ingenuity to get bangs to lay flat, and page boys to remain curled under and remain thusly for 50 plus years to come. Mattel could do that for Barbie; what happened to Ken?
Check out any Barbie reference book (and yes, there are many out there including the Barbie Encyclopedia, Marcie Melillo’s must-have comprehensive Barbie reference tome, to name just two) and you will cringe when you see that this problem never got any better as the years went by. I mean, Ken’s early buzz cut admittedly reflected the late 50s buttoned-down culture of the time; by the time of the mod dolls from 1967 on, Ken had sprouted a mane of dark hair sticking out from all sides of his head, like the Beatle that never made the cut (apologies to long lost Pete Best, the Beatles’ first drummer before Ringo strutted his way onto the stage in London and then New York). The Malibu Ken of the 70s looked remarkably like Neil Diamond, but without the sex appeal. (I guess we are lucky that Mattel never dreamed up an issue to replicate Englebert Humperdinck — can you imagine!) I recently bought a near mint blonde flocked hair Ken from 1961 and was astonished to see how much he looked like Vladimir Putin (my Bad Vlad doll!) but maybe that is just because I have him displayed only in his gray slacks with six-pack abs fully exposed (and also maybe, just maybe, because Putin has been so prominently featured in the news lately.)
Posted originally on March 11, 2014 on "ofbondsandblondes"
So Barbie (The Doll) turned 55 this week. Which is to say, it has been 55 years since Mattel pulled away the proverbial veil to reveal its superstar: the very first, one and only, Barbie doll ever created, at the New York Toy Fair in 1959. And the rest is, as they like to say, history.
Or rather hysteria. So much fuss has been made over the past half century about the “shocking” body proportions displayed by an 11 1/2-inch tall piece of vinyl since the retro year of 1959. (Joseph McCarthy! Communists lurking everywhere!) Good grief, such was the uproar over even the thought of making a doll with hard plastic breasts that, before Barbie was ever made, her “creator” Ruth Handler, Mattel’s co-founder, sent her concept for a more adult doll than the Betsy Wetsys and Tiny Tears and Ginnys, who dominated the doll market in the mid 50s, to Japan with one of her engineers to see if it could be made there, after her US production team and husband Elliot thought the doll would never fly here. No problem, said the Japanese who apparently did not have such a Puritannical coda in their historical genes that would suppress their creative inclinations. We’ll make it, they said, and so they did (and always have, until the late 60s when cheaper Barbies began to be made in Malaysia, the Philippines and Mexico.) So therein should lie the really shocking aspect of Barbie, beyond the mythology of her supposed blonde bimbo persona: Barbie was never made in America. Forget outsourcing or cheaper labor markets: Barbie was made in Asia in the 50s because the Japanese didn’t resist the idea of a doll having anatomically correct features, at least not above the waist. And boy, in the end were Elliot Handler and subsequent Mattel executives glad they didn’t.
And I suppose you might have also heard (unless you’ve been sleeping off a drunk for the past month or so) that the iconic blonde Barbie (the original ponytail Barbie was made with either blonde or raven hair — called brunette, but it was really very black — with blondes outnumbering brunettes by 2:1 in 1959) recently shared the spotlight in a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition with some other less famous but equally shapely blondes, brunettes, and maybe even a redhead. Except those femme fatales were not made of vinyl but rather real flesh and blood. I am not sure what it did for either Mattel or SI to have the vinyl partner up with the flesh for yet another edition of this annual salivation rite for America’s men. Barbie remains the bestselling doll of all time and the SI Swimsuit issue remains the bestselling magazine issue every year. So why the marriage….. ? I find myself bombarded by friends sending me articles speculating on Barbie’s imminent fall off the bestselling toy list (to which I say, baloney! It will never happen) and I wonder why I feel compelled to defend the doll. I don’t collect nor even care about the disparagingly termed “pink box” Barbies that are sold now. But I guess I feel an obligation to set the record straight, based on my favorite doll’s stellar history. I guess it’s the brand I am defending (and would someone please inform Mattel of my crusade so I might be able to collect some royalties from her sales??)
Anyway, why all the hysteria about Barbie’s “scandalous” (and yes, a tad unrealistic) dimensions anyway? I mean, she is just a hunk of plastic and I personally do not know one collector of the so-called vintage dolls (the ones made from 1959 to 1969) who is anoerexic because she or he felt compelled to go on a starvation diet because they loved Barbie. Take a gander at the hundreds of people who attend any doll show in any given state on any given weekend and you will probably be more surprised by the exact opposite in body types seen among the many genuine characters you might encounter there (the humorous characters typically seen at doll shows is delicious fodder for another post.) What captivated early collectors of Barbie during her first decade were her stunning, fashion designer-inspired ensembles that were made of top quality fabrics with their incredible attention to detail. Materials like polished cotton, lace, chiffon, brocade, satin, velvet, netting, (real) fur, mink even! Tiny buttons, miniature zippers hand sewn into dresses, finished seams, feather adornments on hats, tiny finished fabric bows on swing coats, and all the mini accessories that a certain outfit required (fashion portfolio for “Career Girl”; tiny potholder and barbeque tools for “Barbie-Q”; a diary and small apple to accompany Barbie off to dreamland in (what else?)her “Sweet Dreams” shortie pajamas set.
About 20 years ago, when I was trying to recover my original childhood Barbie collection which had been lost over the years, I found an antique toy dealer who unearthed five large boxes of vintage Barbies and accessories which he placed on the floor of his store’s front room and told me to have at it. Painstakingly I sifted through the contents of each dusty box, uncovering a catalogue of 1960s toys: hot pink-haired trolls, Little Kiddles, Dawn dolls, Tammy, wooden doll chairs and beds… box after box of miscellanea — but no Barbies. Until the last box. Inside I found a treasure trove of all the Barbie outfits I had owned, and some I had not, from my childhood. As well as a smaller plastic box containing fifty different little accessories that completed many of the outfits. And finally, one beautiful redheaded (“titian” Bubble Cut Barbie (with a short layered hairdo) from 1961, identical to one of the three dolls I had lost. In a daze of euphoria (much like I typically feel when confronted with a roomful of hundreds of the oldest Barbies at dolls shows), I bought the entire lot of clothes, accessories and the bubble cut for $250. It must have included 25 outfits, most nearly complete, in very good to excellent condition, 30 years after Barbie first hit store shelves. It’s hard to understand that adrenalin rush unless you are likewise mesmerized by the classic and exotic beauty and quality of the earliest Barbies. But consider this fact: on any given day on eBay, there are about 10,000 vintage items (pre-1967) listed for sale and it gives you some idea of the dynamics of supply and demand at work in the secondary Barbie market. The doll is hot. Period.
Everywhere on the internet over the past week, you see the hash tag followed by “Unapologetic”, referring to Barbie’s birthday and the concurrent premiere as an SI swimsuit model a month ago. Such commotion. I wondered why the doll should be “apologetic”? She is, after all, just a dollmaker’s lucky creation who hit the catwalk running. She never was a bimbo, as accused, in the various incarnations imagined by Mattel (fashion model, teacher, torch singer, stewardess, nurse, and yes even astronaut — years before Sally Ride was launched into space). And she remains beloved by women now in their 60s as well as many who are younger and had no experience with the first Barbie dolls. When I wrote a monthly column on the oldest Barbies in the late 90s, “The Vintage Vantage”, for a doll magazine in Spokane WA, I once surveyed a number of fellow collectors I knew from the AOL Barbie board, which was a place where dolls and outfits were bought and sold — no fees, no credit protections needed, on a venue that predated eBay’s launch by four to five years. I asked them why they were drawn to the old Barbies, marketed between 1959 and 1969 that, by most appraisals, are the classiest and highest quality of all the Barbies ever created over the past 55 years (estimated to be about 1 billion dolls). Most of the women (and men, too, who tended to play with GI Joe over Ken, as well as Barbies) said they remembered fondly many afternoons sitting on the floors of their bedrooms playing with their Barbies with their sisters. Of how they loved being able to dress a doll, who was most often sold in either a black and white zebra-striped suit or a red helenca swimsuit, in the variety of wonderfully tailored outfits that Mattel sold separately for each doll. How they loved to imagine the different roles they could have when they grew up by dressing Barbie in her different career ensembles. Of the fun, and the imaginative stories created when a young girl held an 11.5 inch doll in her hand. Those stories aren’t a bad legacy for a plastic doll who is shockingly now of an age that qualifies her for AARP membership. Unapologetic? You betcha.
March 20, 2015
So I bought a Tressy doll. Actually I bought five Tressy dolls. You probably aren’t surprised to hear that since you know how we collectors are: ob-sess-ive! We claim we’re going to get just one doll, just one, to see what they are all about, then suddenly we own one of each hair color.
So, yes, I bought some Tressys this month. I wanted to see for myself what fashion dolls created by other toy companies competing with Mattel during that decade looked like in appearance and overall quality. From what I can tell, Tressy was the doll that was most “like” Barbie and, thus, comprised, her stiffest competition by the mid 60s. She was a fashion doll created by the American Character Toy Company of New York City, also measuring about 11.5 inches, also with rooted hair, also sold with a separate line of outfits, who hit the market in 1964, five years after Barbie made her debut at the New York Toy Fair in March 1959.
It’s hard to claim that Tressy posed any serious competition for the rock star fashion doll that was Barbie by the middle of the 1960s. But American Character certainly tried very hard to carve out for itself a piece of the lucrative fashion doll pie -- and shamelessly so, since Tressy is, in my opinion, such a blatant rip off of the early Barbie brand. She was, as noted, the same size as Barbie, with blonde (pale and ash) or brunette hair; first with swirl-type bangs and later sporting straight American Girl-style bangs. She also came with a small booklet with artistic renderings and descriptions of her outfits with names like “Black Magic” (sound familiar?), “Bon Voyage”, “On the Avenue” (also sounds like…), “Pink Champagne”, and “World’s Fair”, just in time for the expedition that was being held in New York City in 1964 and 65 -- and also the dates when American Character sold most of their Tressy and Cricket, (her younger sister like Skipper was to Barbie) dolls. The earliest Tressys had side-glancing eyes, also like our most cherished vinyl vixen, and at least one doll I have is wearing pearl earrings, like the third-issue ponytail and bubble cuts. However, unlike Barbie, she did not seem prone to the dreaded green ear syndrome so perhaps American Character learned something from Mattel’s mistakes in coming up with a vinyl that was less prone to discoloration from the earring posts over time. ( Or else they were just lucky in using the plastic they used.)
But Tressy, in a bold (and in the end, perhaps lame) attempt to try to lure from Barbie some of the huge numbers of fashion doll devotees, had a gimmick that Barbie did not have (and, I might add, did not need.) And that was, she had hair that grew. No kidding! Tressy was sold with a key that --even if did not ultimately unlock the hearts of the millions of young Barbie lovers -- inserted into a keyhole in Tressy’s upper back and would allow children to retract a swatch of hair that “grew” out of a hole in the crown of her head when a button was pushed on her stomach. Push button: a stalk of hair is forced up out of the top of her head; turn the “T” (for Tressy!) key and it disappears back into the doll’s head again. (You can’t make this stuff up.) That piece of longer hair that had come out of her head could be braided or wrapped in a bun and affixed with small bobby pins on top of the doll’s head, with the remaining hair falling to her shoulders in a page boy. Or the longer strands would be twisted into a pointed beehive -- how sixties! --and pinned to her crown. Where is Audrey Hepburn when we need her? I will give it to Tressy on this one point: that beehive hairdo was more reflective of the Swinging Sixties than ever was Barbie’s ponytail or bouffant bubble cut.
That’s about the only area where Tressy successfully one-upped Barbie. I got my first three Tressy dolls in the mail this week and it’s astonishing to see the cheap construction of the doll’s bodies. She has an alarmingly large head but with a sweet face with lip paint that rarely fades or rubs. But her torso and legs are made of very thin, cheap plastic, with a seam that runs down the side of the legs. I remember buying a “Flair” fashion doll from a drug store shelf years ago, before the internet opened up a universe of old dolls for collectors, when I needed a quick fashion doll “fix”. Her hair stuck out of the sides of her head and her body was made of cheap and crudely molded plastic. Tressy is only of slightly better quality. You stand a Tressy doll side-by-side with a vintage Barbie and it’s like a Michelangelo sculpture next to one molded by your artistic aunt. And I really do not exaggerate! No toe nail or finger nail polish; no molded eye ridges, no well-articulated fingers, no ankles! Barbie is solid; she’s got heft. Tressy is thin and insubstantial. In fact, Tressy looks a lot like the very cheap Flair doll, with slightly better hair and much nicer clothes.
Accordingly, I will give some points to American Character for the impressive attention to detail and quality they gave to Tressy’s clothing line. While the fabrics they used didn’t come close to the brocades, silks, taffeta, and furs seen in the earliest 900 design series for Barbie, they are of a higher quality than I expected. “Chic Shift” is a turquoise knit sheath with a leather belt with two decorative brass buttons on it and black mules almost identical to those worn by the vintage Barbie; the “World’s Fair” ensemble is comprised of a crisp white cotton sun dress with a design of black and navy lines and lace edging, with short white gloves, a branch of flowers (corsage), and a terrific shiny black straw hat. And she carries a tiny metal (not cheap plastic) camera on a strap with her name emblazoned on it! “Black Magic” is my favorite: a long gown with a black velvet sleeveless bodice and a long black satin sheath skirt, embellished with a cluster of two purple flowers at the waist. The ensemble includes a netted shawl of black and silver. “Gay Parisienne” it may not be, but many of Tressy’s outfits are very lovingly tailored, indeed.
Of course Tressy’s main draw for those fashion doll enthusiasts on a budget today is that she is very affordable (though as far as I can tell, she surprisingly retailed for $5.00 compared with $3.00 for Barbie in the mid 60s) The doll comes dressed in a red knit sleeveless sheath with white trim on the arm and neck openings and you can find one in excellent condition on eBay today for about $35.00 to $50.00. I have not found any NRFB Tressys and actually, her boxes themselves are hard to find in very good condition, in my experience. Often they have water damage or missing top panels or have torn seams. I have seen a Tressy in very good-to-excellent condition (however, often their hair is in various lengths since young girls have pulled out the top swatch of hair and it remains in a bun or braid) with her box, her hair pins and curlers for about $125.00. As with Barbie, brunettes are harder to come by and so are priced accordingly higher. But that gimmick thing with the hair: the mechanism that allows it to “grow” is prone to breakage so you often find a doll with permanently extended hair. You have to have that “T” key in hand to help retract the hair back in the head but, with many older dolls, it often doesn’t work fifty years on. While the hair-extending mechanism undeniably proved popular with 60s children, it was just one more thing to break and that likelihood reduces her overall condition. And because of that, it may be nearly impossible to find a mint/near mint Tressy today with untouched hair.
In the end, I am not sure how American Character was able to essentially replicate Barbie’s booklet of outfits without being hit with a mega lawsuit. It was not like Mattel was known to play nicely with companies that tried to take them on in those days, or even in recent times. Just check the company’s history with the very popular 1950s Ginny toddler doll, or more recently, the Bratz doll-- or even with Miller’s Doll Magazine, my former employer, in the 90s. Not only did Tressy come with a similar booklet of her outfits but there were names and descriptions of those ensembles that could have been penned by the same copy editor! It’s amazing that American Character could get away with that sort of, well, plagiarism. And perhaps in the end, they did not, since they declared bankruptcy by 1967 and sold its “growing hair” patent to Ideal for its 1969 Crissy doll, who was never a fashion doll. As far as I can tell, the last Tressy rolled off the manufacturing line in 1965, a short life indeed when compared with Barbie, at 56 and counting.