Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

I have a dumb sort of off topic question:

How do COA's work? I mean, is their a regulatory body that verifies these things? Seems like anyone with a decent printer and the right word processing program could crank these things out. Just curious.

El Duque wrote:Tough crowd.

Indeed.

Yeah, wow, this makes even the sloppiest of those leftover parts KOs of Masterpiece Sideswipe look not only better, but more ethical as well; at least their sellers are up front about what you're actually buying, in the listings I've seen anyway.

And RodimalToyota's on the right track: let's scrutinize the hell out of SidePrimeon's component parts and dust layer until we've analyzed him to death, for that is the Transfan way. As much as I doubt CofAs, questioning it too much sounds uncomfortably like a Birther argument, and I don't think long-form Certificates of Authenticity even exist.

RodimalToyota wrote:Hrm.. I'm pretty sure that Bburago Countach wasn't even sold until 96'.
There's no way they were kit bashing in 1988, parts from a car that hadn't yet been in retail.

Makes sense dude!

Edit: Just checked, I did own a Burago Countach of the same make (except it was black) and Rodimal's date is right on the money......around the late 90s

I just checked with my Diecast buddy, he agreed, and to be even more observant, the very early versions of the Bburago Countach has chrome rims, where as the ones made after 94' had silver (as pictured on the "mock up". He says it's a 88' Countach that was made in 1998.



** anyone else notice the bottom of the COA says
"TRANSFORMERS copyright 1999"

That's.. Coincidence.

People are arguing over it's authenticity but what does it matter? It looks like ****. Whoever made it made the laziest custom I've ever seen.

Mykltron wrote:People are arguing over it's authenticity but what does it matter? It looks like ****. Whoever made it made the laziest custom I've ever seen.

Because it does matter.

1. A Takara designer had this in hand and gave it to someone at Hasbro.
2. It comes from an official source, or one that was.
3. It's costly.
4. It comes with certification.

If all or any of that is faked, then it's not only a rip off, it's a lie to everyone, it's fraud, and they're dragging HasTak employees into it. Hasbro could investigate if they so wish.

So, yes, it does matter.
And yes, it does look like utter ****.

As for being the laziest? Nah. Rushed? Yes.

Seibertron wrote:

El Duque wrote:Tough crowd.

Indeed.

dont we have the right? when you weigh the evidence versus what this represents AND the price it (will) command, it is lie, insult, and rip off.

RodimalToyota wrote:I just checked with my Diecast buddy, he agreed, and to be even more observant, the very early versions of the Bburago Countach has chrome rims, where as the ones made after 94' had silver (as pictured on the "mock up". He says it's a 88' Countach that was made in 1998.

** anyone else notice the bottom of the COA says
"TRANSFORMERS copyright 1999"

That's.. Coincidence.

i think this, coupled with the quote on the COA itself saying "no seriously, this is real" is enough to damn this thing.

Maybe not 1988... but 1998 is a real possibility, especially if its a mock-up for BinalTech. It takes a few years for a toy line to be ready for mass-retail and a mock-up for a figure released in 2003 would probably be made around 1998. It would go some to explaining the 1:24 scale of the car used, too.

Just my two cents. It could be fake, of course.

RodimalToyota wrote:I just checked with my Diecast buddy, he agreed, and to be even more observant, the very early versions of the Bburago Countach has chrome rims, where as the ones made after 94' had silver (as pictured on the "mock up". He says it's a 88' Countach that was made in 1998.



** anyone else notice the bottom of the COA says
"TRANSFORMERS copyright 1999"

That's.. Coincidence.

It says copyright 1999 because that's the year the auction agency originally got this thing. The COA is not made by this guy, he got it along with this thing when he bought it back in 2000.

Dead Metal wrote:

RodimalToyota wrote:I just checked with my Diecast buddy, he agreed, and to be even more observant, the very early versions of the Bburago Countach has chrome rims, where as the ones made after 94' had silver (as pictured on the "mock up". He says it's a 88' Countach that was made in 1998.



** anyone else notice the bottom of the COA says
"TRANSFORMERS copyright 1999"

That's.. Coincidence.

It says copyright 1999 because that's the year the auction agency originally got this thing. The COA is not made by this guy, he got it along with this thing when he bought it back in 2000.

But "Transformers" wasn't copyrighted in 1999. It's the wrong date.
Regardless of what I hear, I've seen proof of concepts from the late 90's and this isn't something a Takara designer would do. I'll check out wether Bburago even was sold in Japan in 1988 ( or really 1998, which is what year the Takara designers would have traveled to in their time machine to get)

RodimalToyota wrote:

Dead Metal wrote:

RodimalToyota wrote:I just checked with my Diecast buddy, he agreed, and to be even more observant, the very early versions of the Bburago Countach has chrome rims, where as the ones made after 94' had silver (as pictured on the "mock up". He says it's a 88' Countach that was made in 1998.



** anyone else notice the bottom of the COA says
"TRANSFORMERS copyright 1999"

That's.. Coincidence.

It says copyright 1999 because that's the year the auction agency originally got this thing. The COA is not made by this guy, he got it along with this thing when he bought it back in 2000.

But "Transformers" wasn't copyrighted in 1999. It's the wrong date.
Regardless of what I hear, I've seen proof of concepts from the late 90's and this isn't something a Takara designer would do. I'll check out wether Bburago even was sold in Japan in 1988 ( or really 1998, which is what year the Takara designers would have traveled to in their time machine to get)

It is not the wrong date, look at official TF stuff, there you'll see the copyright date also being current, stuff you find on shelves today will be marked as copyright 2013.
I mean, according to this Bumblebee, Transformers was copyrighted in 2012
http://www.geek-station.co.uk/ekmps/sho ... 1448-p.jpg
Also, where do you get that this is Bburago? I can't seem to find that being stated anywhere.

On top of that, we already know how authentic this is:

NicholasPrime wrote:The WhizBang auctions were legit. I bought some model sheet animation cels from them years ago. So, while this guy's story checks out, this item is still a piece of junk. Ick.

Pic: http://instagram.com/p/l5UXoqmILY/

And all the other instances of mock ups. wanna see another pitch mock up from the 90s?
http://www.behindthetoys.com/forums/top ... IC_ID=7209
http://www.behindthetoys.com/forums/top ... IC_ID=7202
Those are just simply colour changes using Gundams.

I'm not trying to argue, your basis for it being legit is (one) members dealing with the company once?
Your also comparing digitized graphic arts being used for proof of concept, to distinguish a screwed together and glue piece of isht.

It's a Bburago because it's a Bburago, anyone who's in Diecast can tell you why it's a Bburago, the first thing would be the plastic red seatbelts, which was there gimmick. I find it hard to believe that Takara (known for the brilliance in engineering) instead of making traditional prof of concepts that has to be acquired with packaging and concept drawings, threw together that, and sent it to Hasbro. If so, that's the most unprofessional concept ever given to a Corporation.


Sorry, but nothing here sounds "legit".

@ DM

I'm at the side of caution as Rodimal positions himself, scammers can easily fake COA even from legit authenticators [ if such a term I use is applicable ].

Recently watched an episode in Pawn Stars (the episode where Corey's dog iirc was left p00ping all over the store). There was a vendor who attempted to sell a sword from the movie Rio Grande. It was supposedly used/assigned to the "Duke"himslf. It had a COA but Rick called the ultimate expert on the Duke's memorabillia.......the Duke's son himself.

Thanks to the "Duke's" son, who personally knew the "authenticator", they discovered that the COA was a fake (thank primus for hi res camera phones). The giveaway was a serial number. The authenticator admitted that it was his signature but that it came from another document contract. Must have been photo shopped or something.And that they don't assign serial numbers when they authenticate an item.

Maybe a different set of circumstances but a fool and his money might soon be parted.