Images
Powered by

Encylopedia of Cabbage Patch Kids the 1980s Sample of Pages (part 3 of 5)

(PID:51354853076) Source
posted by alias A Thousand Splendid Dolls on Friday 27th of August 2021 01:01:56 PM

When I first received this book in the mail, I was impressed by the number of dolls included. I wasn't paying close attention to the layout or photos. I simply did a flip through and it felt like there was loads of information and photographs. Upon closer inspection, I was annoyed by the repetition, poor layout, and photograph quality. First of all, take a look at this page selection I photographed. Notice anything? Well, the same doll repeats himself in THREE photos which are randomly placed all over the pages. The guy in the yellow jacket and jeans is shown in his box, then in a group shot with other dolls, and finally by himself on the following page. ALL the information about him is repeated in the small paragraph beside the photos. Why on earth did the author feel the need to do group photos? Why on earth was the deboxed picture of this guy separated from the boxed one? Wouldn't it have been easier to place the boxed/loose photos side by side and only have the information paragraph printed ONCE?!!! I'm sorry if I sound salty or annoyed, but as someone who takes pride in organization this section really bothers me. I get that not all dolls have boxed photos or facial closeups. I understand that perhaps she wanted to show a doll's face mold in detail, or wanted to include a picture of them boxed. This could have been done in a more user friendly way by keeping the pictures together. Or, since the authors already have a head mold section with detailed photos in the 1990s edition, omit the facial closeups all together. The boxed photos could have been put in a separate section about packaging if the authors wanted to go into more detail about the boxes themselves. The random group shots bother me most of all though. They serve no educational/research purpose. Actually, correct that. The random chairs, trains, accessories, and needless props bother me most of all. I get it, you had a Beanie Baby you thought would look cute in the photo. But this isn't a blog, this isn't Instagram...this book is meant to be a professional, educational resource. The chairs might have been needed to prop some dolls up, but the variety of them in the book is an eye sore. Choose one stand or chair for the dolls who have trouble being propped up on their own to create consistency. Also, there were some adorable Cabbage Patch accessories and furniture pictured with the dolls. They are even labeled in the photos. But WHY is there no section on this stuff?!!! I would have loved to see this collector's assortment of trains, high chairs, etc. You can't properly admire them when dolls are stuffed in them. Also, the way some dolls are photographed, you can't even see their outfits in detail. I would have loved a whole section on clothes (and a better explanation of how long outfits were reused, when they were marketed as fashion packs, etc). You are left with more questions than answers about CPK dolls' wardrobes. The blurbs beside each photo get redundant too. Plus, the way each page is laid out makes it a tad complicated to figure out which paragraph goes with which doll. It would have made more sense to lay the photos out in a consistent manner (like in Marcie Melillo's "Ultimate Barbie Book"). Some dolls are in redressed fashion packs (which again, why is there no section on these outfits?). Being that many of those redressed dolls aren't anything special, why were they included in the first place. It is confusing to someone who is new to the hobby or has trouble following along with the blurbs. Sometimes it's easy to understand that the doll has been redressed. Other times the author says "came in" such and such outfit. Does she mean that she got the doll secondhand in the outfit? The clarification is abysmal. I also don't need to know that one doll is someone's daughter's. I understand that some collectors took the photos themselves and sent them in to be included. Crediting such doll like "photo courtesy of person" makes sense, and I see this all the time with collector books. But when the main person whose collection was used for this book gave some dolls to her daughter...why do we need to know that? Again, this isn't a personal blog (for instance, if I had my own doll book for research I wouldn't have "personal fun facts" because that's not what people want in such a book). Speaking of those blurbs, I don't know why the author has to state the eye and hair color. We can see those features for ourselves (it reminds me of those painful doll reviews where the reviewer describes in excruciating detail the colors of the outfit and hair....but provides no information on how thick the fabric is, what kind of closures are used, how heavy the doll is...things you can't "see" yourself). I think it would have flowed better to just include the year of the doll, the head mold #, the type of signature, the tag info (some collectors really care about the "P" and "OK" tags and what not), and the value (I have feelings about values since they are arbitrary and change over time, but I can see why some people would want that info). We also don't need the manufacturer included with every doll when we are in the COLECO section!!! Yes, every doll is labeled "Coleco Girl" or "Coleco Boy." So much ink and paper was wasted.



Educational Outfitters,
Educational Outfitters Boise,
Educational Outfitters Chattanooga,
Educational Outfitters Tampa,
Educational Outfitters Orlando,
Educational Outfitters Near Me,
Educational Outfitters Denver,
Educational Outfitters Mn,
Educational Outfitters Temple Tx,



on topic

License and Use

This Educational Outfitters - encylopedia-of-cabbage-patch-kids-the-1980s-sample-of-pages-part-3-of-5- on net.photos image has 1024x726 pixels (original) and is uploaded to . The image size is 146100 byte. If you have a problem about intellectual property, child pornography or immature images with any of these pictures, please send report email to a webmaster at , to remove it from web.

Any questions about us or this searchengine simply use our contact form

  • Published 07.01.22
  • Resolution 1024x726
  • Image type jpg
  • File Size 146100 byte.

Related Photos

Comments


Comments
comments powered by Disqus