Chris_J wrote:

Same figure with the COO partialy removed. So possible it couldve came on a number of cardbacks. Im not even going to strech and say one or the other for it might be the wrong card.

But if it is an US figure should it then not be from a kenner card ?

But was there also partialy removed coo on kenner cards ?

pomse2001 wrote:

Chris_J wrote:

Lars, the last pix I would consider a partial erased COO. Reasoning is its not a complete erased no COO since part of it is still there. But some may say it couldve been from a dirty mold not being cleaned good enough. But majority would be parcel erased COO. Hope that helps.

Thats the thing I seen on that site when I posted it, you cant enlarge the pix in it. But the text is pretty good.

Hi chris it looks like the us version, last picture on the link ? what do you think ?

He write Here is a photo of the US raised copyright located on the upper left boot for comparison:

Lars I have that other figure in my collection mate. It's a NO COO like Chris says, not the same as the figure in the YPS write up Joe posted.

snaggletooth wrote:

pomse2001 wrote:

Chris_J wrote:

Lars, the last pix I would consider a partial erased COO. Reasoning is its not a complete erased no COO since part of it is still there. But some may say it couldve been from a dirty mold not being cleaned good enough. But majority would be parcel erased COO. Hope that helps.

Thats the thing I seen on that site when I posted it, you cant enlarge the pix in it. But the text is pretty good.

Hi chris it looks like the us version, last picture on the link ? what do you think ?

He write Here is a photo of the US raised copyright located on the upper left boot for comparison:

Lars I have that other figure in my collection mate. It's a NO COO like Chris says, not the same as the figure in the YPS write up Joe posted.

Thanks scott. Do you know why the deleted stamp is much more different than the others ?

pomse2001 wrote:

snaggletooth wrote:

pomse2001 wrote:

Chris_J wrote:

Lars, the last pix I would consider a partial erased COO. Reasoning is its not a complete erased no COO since part of it is still there. But some may say it couldve been from a dirty mold not being cleaned good enough. But majority would be parcel erased COO. Hope that helps.

Thats the thing I seen on that site when I posted it, you cant enlarge the pix in it. But the text is pretty good.

Hi chris it looks like the us version, last picture on the link ? what do you think ?

He write Here is a photo of the US raised copyright located on the upper left boot for comparison:

Lars I have that other figure in my collection mate. It's a NO COO like Chris says, not the same as the figure in the YPS write up Joe posted.

Thanks scott. Do you know why the deleted stamp is much more different than the others ?

No but there is similar type No COO in some Macau figures.

snaggletooth wrote:

pomse2001 wrote:

snaggletooth wrote:

pomse2001 wrote:

Chris_J wrote:

Lars, the last pix I would consider a partial erased COO. Reasoning is its not a complete erased no COO since part of it is still there. But some may say it couldve been from a dirty mold not being cleaned good enough. But majority would be parcel erased COO. Hope that helps.

Thats the thing I seen on that site when I posted it, you cant enlarge the pix in it. But the text is pretty good.

Hi chris it looks like the us version, last picture on the link ? what do you think ?

He write Here is a photo of the US raised copyright located on the upper left boot for comparison:

Lars I have that other figure in my collection mate. It's a NO COO like Chris says, not the same as the figure in the YPS write up Joe posted.

Thanks scott. Do you know why the deleted stamp is much more different than the others ?

No but there is similar type No COO in some Macau figures.

Ohhh, I will look after that. I think it is a very strange coo :scratch: