Had this turn up from a friend today, I said I would do what I can to get some info on it so I hope you guys will be of some help, it looks to be correct in hand with the usual discolouration & paint wear, but it has no coo or date markings what so ever, it was bought in a lot stateside for onward sale, but on inspection it was not like the others bought.

Sadly no history on it & it was as said bought as a standard blue snag.

I know nothing about first shots & such pre production items, so I was hoping you could maybe shed a little light on this figure for me guys, I am going to take it in for Steve at UKG to have a look at when I take my next baggies for grading & see what he thinks as well.







I've posted this up on SWF as well as I want as much help on this as I can, but I know a few of you on here are big in to variants & pre production stuff, so figure you may well be able to help on this oddity.

Steve (The Dark Artist) might be your best bet Frank, he has a first shot so a good comparisson to work with.

Nice one Alex, will shoot Steve a pm with a link to this thread & see what he has to say.

Wow! I had to take awhile to really review these pics. First of all, I believe congrats are in order. Your friend appears to have purchased a first shot Blue Snag. But some things I noticed that are a bit different is the tint of the torso, arms and legs. He appears more green then blue. Is this just the pictures Frank? If not, he appears to have possibly been cast in a different color?.?. More green then blue. I keep looking at his boots. The silver seems different then what I have seen on first shot Blue Snags. Mostly because it appears sprayed on, which attributes to the silver going up onto the legs, over the boots. It also is not flaking at all. The majority I have seen, have some sort of flaking. In the 2004 Earth find, there were 3 that were pretty mint, like this one.
When figures like this end up in lots, unadvertised as just a Blue Snag, it usually is a good sign that it is authentic. If someone was faking one, they would have certainly advertised it as a pre-production piece. It would be very difficult to fake something like this without any signs of a coo or date left behind on the back of his left leg.... So, with all of that said, I believe 100% he is a legit first shot Blue Snag.
Let me know if Steve at UKG agrees with me, and tell him I said Hi : )
All my best, -Steve

The_Dark_Artist wrote:

Wow! I had to take awhile to really review these pics. First of all, I believe congrats are in order. Your friend appears to have purchased a first shot Blue Snag. But some things I noticed that are a bit different is the tint of the torso, arms and legs. He appears more green then blue. Is this just the pictures Frank? If not, he appears to have possibly been cast in a different color?.?. More green then blue. I keep looking at his boots. The silver seems different then what I have seen on first shot Blue Snags. Mostly because it appears sprayed on, which attributes to the silver going up onto the legs, over the boots. It also is not flaking at all. The majority I have seen, have some sort of flaking. In the 2004 Earth find, there were 3 that were pretty mint, like this one.
When figures like this end up in lots, unadvertised as just a Blue Snag, it usually is a good sign that it is authentic. If someone was faking one, they would have certainly advertised it as a pre-production piece. It would be very difficult to fake something like this without any signs of a coo or date left behind on the back of his left leg.... So, with all of that said, I believe 100% he is a legit first shot Blue Snag.
Let me know if Steve at UKG agrees with me, and tell him I said Hi : )
All my best, -Steve

Hey Steve, I just commented on this one on SWFUK. I agree it looks legit but likewise I was surprised there was not significant paint flaking to boots and belt considering there is visible play wear. I also thought the silver looked different but put it down to lighting in the photo. It would be hard to be 100% sure unless you see it in person.

It is actually quite easy to fake as the paint can be removed without trouble and the COO filed down and then repainted which would cover up any sign of the COO removal. As you know repainting and touched up silver paint is quite common on blue snags. I would check the paint with a black light and an eye loupe for signs of being touched up and also compare the paint colour and finish with another blue snag.

Definitely not non production colours just slight discolouration to green/aqua colour which is very common.

Oli

I agree with Oli in terms of removing the paint carefuly, removing the COO carfeully and then repainting wouldn't be impossible, but as Steve said, it would be an awful lot of intentional effort to have it then passed off as little more than a standard blue Snag.

Point been if you where going to go to the effort to fake something like that, surely you would cash in, as it would certainly invrease the price considerably.

Just seems odd. I look forward to hearing the UKG report Frank.

General Kahn wrote:

I agree with Oli in terms of removing the paint carefuly, removing the COO carfeully and then repainting wouldn't be impossible, but as Steve said, it would be an awful lot of intentional effort to have it then passed off as little more than a standard blue Snag.

Point been if you where going to go to the effort to fake something like that, surely you would cash in, as it would certainly invrease the price considerably.

Just seems odd. I look forward to hearing the UKG report Frank.

Yes i agree that if your going to fake something then you would be looking to sell it for a premium. I personally think it looks legit but just a couple of queries that are worth checking out.

I'd say it would be fairly easy to fake a Blue Snag first shot. Being that blue snags are frequently touched up with silver paint and that the paint would cover up any scratches or marks from filing down the COO markings it could be easily done.

Hi guys.... a little more food for thought. I was concerned from the beginning about the paint on the boots. It doesn't fit the match of other first shot Blue Snags. One of 2 things here. It was stripped, coo removed and repainted.... I actually don't think this happened but it is possible. I do think you'd see damage under a microscope or loop if you look hard. I also think this would be too much trouble if it was just sold as a production piece. So, I really think this option is not the case, but still possible.
The other option, and I'm really leaning towards this one is.... The figure is a legit first shot, it was stripped of all the flaky paint that was originally on there, and repainted. The guy that stripped it probably did not know the flaky paint was a good thing and wanted to resell it looking nice. Obviously he did not know it was a first shot either.
The paint, as I stated above, looks sprayed on. If this is the case, and I'm leaning towards it, EVEN if it is a first shot, should be turned downed for grading by UKG. They could verify it is a REAL first shot, but would have to mention in the COA it was re-painted LATER by a NON-Kenner employee. This will affect price and value GREATLY, because it was not originally this way. Kind of like the Tony Toy scandal.
That is my 2 cents. Again a legit first shot, but looks as though it was re-painted on the boots.
-Steve

The_Dark_Artist wrote:

Hi guys.... a little more food for thought. I was concerned from the beginning about the paint on the boots. It doesn't fit the match of other first shot Blue Snags. One of 2 things here. It was stripped, coo removed and repainted.... I actually don't think this happened but it is possible. I do think you'd see damage under a microscope or loop if you look hard. I also think this would be too much trouble if it was just sold as a production piece. So, I really think this option is not the case, but still possible.
The other option, and I'm really leaning towards this one is.... The figure is a legit first shot, it was stripped of all the flaky paint that was originally on there, and repainted. The guy that stripped it probably did not know the flaky paint was a good thing and wanted to resell it looking nice. Obviously he did not know it was a first shot either.
The paint, as I stated above, looks sprayed on. If this is the case, and I'm leaning towards it, EVEN if it is a first shot, should be turned downed for grading by UKG. They could verify it is a REAL first shot, but would have to mention in the COA it was re-painted LATER by a NON-Kenner employee. This will affect price and value GREATLY, because it was not originally this way. Kind of like the Tony Toy scandal.
That is my 2 cents. Again a legit first shot, but looks as though it was re-painted on the boots.
-Steve

Seems very plausible and it would explain the funny colour and finish of the silver paint. Of course its hard to tell for sure unless you have it in hand - it could be lighting.

Back to how easy it is to fake though. You really wouldnt be able to see the damage from filing off the COO as the paint would cover it up.

Thanks for all the great input guys   

I don't have a blacklight available to me, but I do have a huge magnifying glass like the ones they use in nail shops with the light round them & I also have a standard production snag, so I will get further close up & comparison shots done side by side with production figure & post up shortly

Great potential discovery Frank. I'm following this thread with interest.

Apologies in advance as I know very little about pre-production items, but if the figure is proven to be a genuine first shot & the boots have been sprayed (rather than hand painted), could it have been used to test the spray mask for the production figures? (my production figure has a similar amount of over spray on the legs.

Right I have taken several more photos & looked at it closely, but TBH would not even know what I am looking for, the pain looks really evenly coated, but is a slightly different shade to the production one I have, the head pain & plastic colour also seem slightly different, I have all the photos also saved in full size & can forward them on via email if anyone wants a closer look.

I have taken photos in direct sunlight & also in standard daylight laid out on the table in case it helps at all, though my camera is only a point & shoot.

I also circled the bottom side of the boots, as I noticed the peg hole seems of a slightly different orientation & the join line (lined) is at a different angle  :scratch: but it may just be down to the way the figures were laying on the table, only spotted it when I looked at the photos.

Could well be a nice find then, be great to give the guy some good news on this.

Hi Frank : )
I'm still going to say that this is a first shot. After seeing your latest pics, I'm more convinced though that someone repainted the boots later unfortunately. I hope I am wrong, but the paint on yours does not match the flaky paint I have seen on other first shot Blue Snags and it seems different from your production piece also. Just leads me to think it was repainted for resale value. I hope I am wrong. But, as Oli said it would really help to have it in hand to give you a better conclusion.
Let us know what Steve at UKG thinks. I also wrote Chris G regarding this. We'll see if he chimes in, or drop him a message.
All my best, -Steve

...something looks fishy to me. The paint with cracks...the not so precise lines in the boots in the Coo area...etc!

If it is a afake it's a very tricky one but I would pass on it honestly. To me it looks fake...especially paint and even more especially the lines and pleats in the Coo area do not look clear and sharp...more uneven...and strange!

Just my 2 cents....

The new pics are better Frank, and what Wolff said about the lines and the crease, they do look a little odd  :scratch: 

Maybe that is what Oli was seeing too? Good eye(s) Wolff.... It is certainly not smooth and has some jaggity areas.
-Steve

Another note after talking to my buddy greedodidntshoot/Gary. My first shot and his have light creme colored painted nonproduction hands. This has darker, more production colored painted hands. The paint on the hands and boots don't match what would be a first shot.... At this point I can't say either way, unless it was in hand and I could compare to mine.
I still come back to why would anyone not advertise and sell it as a first shot, if the coo/date was removed and repainted as a fake. I'm just not sure if this is a first shot anymore???????
Frank, and no disrespect, but your friend, is he possibly testing us? I personally believe and trust every word you wrote, but could there be the possibility to see if he is just testing us for fun. Again, please don't take that the wrong way. There are just some visual things that don't look right, especially the paint. I wish we lived closer, so I could compare his in hand to mine.
-Steve

Noticed sth more:



The big rub on the boot: It seems like there is another silver paint, a more yellowish silver paint below. So the boots are oversprayed (airbrush I assume) and then were rubbed a bit to make them look old.

Normal "aging" on those boots also makes them look dirty and spotty because thats how the silver color from this particular figure ages.

Another interesting point is that only one boot has some wear and rubs looking from behind...The boot with the former COO has no rubs or wear in this area....because we woul then maybe see that it has been worked with.

I am now 100% sure this is fake. The color of the boots, the production color to the hands as Steve said and the uneven lines as well as the cracked and therefore to thick sprayed color.....

Ok, so Wolff is leaning towards it being a fake.
Oli is leaning towards it being a fake.
Greedodidntshoot (Gary) is like me, we think the paint has been redone but are not entirely sure if it is a faked first shot or not (on the fence) about the coo/date being removed.
We all agree the figure was repainted. So in my opinion, this will greatly affect price/value if it is a legit first shot or not. If it comes out that this piece is a fake, IT SHOULD BE DESTROYED! It is bad for the hobby. And also, look at the time we vested into it already. I enjoy looking at stuff like this. It can be fun, but at the same time, if it is a fake, it sort of angers me. Also, if it is a fake, it should be archived as reference material for the future and better of the hobby : )
-Steve

thanks for all the input so far guys, I guess the only real way to tell 100% would be to remove the paint from where the coo should be.

I know the guy is not having fun at our expense as he is a busy guy & does not have time for such games & from what I know of him is not the type, he does not even post on forums.

Gary was good enough to send me some photos of the snags he has I did notice something on the ones he has, that being that dent in boot & no dent in boot variants did have slightly different colour silver on the boots, like these which are also both types, with the no coo being the no dent type.

Glad I am not in to these PP items as they seem a bit of a mine field.

I greatly appreciate all your efforts at helping out with this, remember I can send you full size photos via email for much greater detail if you wish guys, just pm me with your email addy's

It's important to note that the dent in the boot is simply a mould flaw in one of the two moulds cavities used for the figure (1 mould with two cavities in it for the figures) The dented boot and normal boot figures where produced in exactly the same numbers. They would have also been painted and assembled together. Any difference in colour is likely a result of ageing in some way.

As with anything of value people will find a way to produce fakes if it's worth their time. I mean people can drill holes through sabers to make a DT outer saber! If it's molded in production colours and fully painted in production colours (Ie just defined a first shot due to missing COO and copyright) then it's going to be an easier task to fake because it just requires removing the COO and copyright. Similarly a simple unpainted first shot with COO and copyright still present (more common with ROTJ first shots) will also be easier to fake because you only need to strip the paint off. Figures that have very little paint (like the AT-AT commander for example) will be easier targets here. If it's molded or painted in non production colours is certainly much harder to fake. Although still not impossible. Of course this needs baring in mind a lot more for 'out in the wild finds' which despite a few recent occurrences really aren't that common. In most instances first shots have rock solid provenance with a traceable history back to a Kenner employee.

The problem with a blue snaggie first shot found out in the wild is that the silver paint which as we all know is notorious for being touched up and is not easy to detect, can be used to cover up any tapering.

Being one of the more common first shots that turns up more frequently than the others in the wild I'm inclined to go with the most likely situation that it is indeed a genuine first shot however there is indeed something odd about the silver paint that would suggest it may have been touched up which would hugely reduce it's value. I would suggest your friend invest in a cheap black light (or taking the blue snaggie out next time he goes night clubbing ) which may help make paint touch ups more evident.

I suspect that in this situation our opinions (despite how educated or even from seeing it in hand) won't count for much at the end of the day and are just speculation. I would highly recommend your friend sends this one in to AFA for authentication and casing. And that advice is coming from someone who never uses AFA

I have my fingers crossed for you

Sometimes over-analyzing can be worse than under-analyzing. I think this is a case where it's right on the money and to over-think it can really make things seem convoluted.

It does not look repainted to me.  The coverage above the top ridge of the boot is consistent on both and it looks like factory paint to me.  The worn areas looks pretty consistent with age as one would expect.

It's totally plausible that not all Blue Snag FS have the bad paint (that flaked badly) and that at some point the paint was improved to the production version.

The COO doesn't look like it was removed and that area repainted. Given how it was sold, I think it's just another example of one being found in the wild.  These Blue Snag FS were always among the most common SW-era FS figures.

I think it's fine.

-chris

Chris...I respect your opinion, but have a close look again...maybe not on a smartphone?? Not sure...anyway...people out there have "skills". I know people who do not have skills with colors or customizing etc (not pointing...just saying) do not believe what's possible! Paintwise and "removing coos" everything is indeed possible!

And it is so easy for people with "skills". Check out some of the "pro" customizers....blown way...you will be :O

Anyway....someone tell me these are the very same paint layers:



This is exactly how it looks if you rub off a second paint layer!

Anyway...useless to go on further with noone having it actually in hand! :/

In this case I think it's more convoluted to try prove that it is fake rather than admitting that it's real. You just can't remove that much COO lettering right on the area where the paint is the focal point of the figure and it crosses the crease in the ankle. Then repaint it, wear it down, and then sell it for a regular figure price. The over-spray look like it would if it sprayed underneath the paint mask at the factory. You'd see evidence of sanding even if it was painted over.

Anyway, with no clear connection to a Kenner source you would just have to believe this one. Not that I have a horse in this race, I just think sometimes you can look at something and feel it's right.

From the photos I've seen here I just don't think it looks repainted and/or that any lettering has been removed.

Send it in to CIB and see what Tom says. Once it's in a case nobody cares about the provenance.

-chris