The Energon Pub

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:01 pm**

This is a serious question, and one that I haven't seen properly addressed.

For a while now, the phrase "mold degeneration" has been thrown around and used as an excuse for many problems along the road of production from wonky faces to loose joints.

Here is manufacturing as it seems projected on Transformers forums.

- Hasbro produce a mold, there is only one of these in the factory
- Hasbro use the mold until it "rots"\breaks\gets lost
- Hasbro don't use it again

Here is manufacturing as I was taught at school

- You produce a master copy and all subsequent molds are made from this one
- You have loads of molds, several different ones per toy as you need different colours
- You use the mold, and if it breaks, another is cast from the master copy
- Repeat the process as much as you like, provided you still have the master copy

Now for me, there is a much more logical application to why particular molds aren't used - economics. There's a point at which manufacturing the toy simply isn't worth the companies money, due to potential sales, manufacturing cost and amount of market saturisation. A classic example of limiting manufacturing amounts would be Gamesworkshops remake of the board game "Space Hulk", which was produced only in limited quantities to maximise profit without saturating the market or damaging other potential sales.

Why is mold degradation as an excuse "illogical"?

A few toys to consider -

G1 Optimus Prime. There are definately a few "versions" of this figure out there, a fair old few of them made very recently. They certainly weren't "modified" 1980s molds, thats certain. No - they're new, fresh and recast, possibly from a new master copy.
G1 Soundwave
G1 Megatron
G1 Jazz

So, basically - what IS mold degradation? It seems to me to be more of a byword for "not worth the effort".

It wouldn't surprise me if the "lost and damaged" molds from G1 weren't in fact sold off\disposed during the 90s when Hasbro\Takara thought that Transformers was going to pass into the history pages.

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:24 pm**

I'll also give an opinion concerning this. Examples like Bruticus and Piranacon. WTF? The re-issues' qualities all look like K.O.s! Heck, even the Devastator K.O. looked better than the former. What's goin' on here?

Mold degradation? The Starconvoy and God Ginrai mold was a well made re-issue so what gives?

Classics TF Euro version of Motormaster had some degradations too (the recent K.O.s in fact looked well better than the former)

G2 and TFC Meister/Jazz also had the same problem.

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:32 pm**

I am actually useful in knowing something for once.

I have an history of building Gunpla kits and I can say that everything you said about molds are right.

The average steel mold lasts for 50,000 pulls. That basically means that the mold will make 50,thousand of whatever it is made to make before we encounter degeneration. This is caused over the course of time in which the heat from the molten plastic slowly erodes the surface detail on the parts. This can usually be resolved by adding X number pounds of additional pressure until the mold must be retired.

It is true that as long as you have the master then you can keep producing the molds. The problem however is that the masters tend to get stolen or have a habit of breaking easily beyond repair. The master is the grey resin prototype that we see pop up every now and then. Modern technology however has rectified this by allowing a virtual master to be stored on the computer. I think they've been able to do this for several of the G1 molds and are working on doing it for others.

To me mold degeneration is a crock. It's become more of a term coined for improper manufacturing. Like anything, our products are always produced by the lowest bidder. That usually evolved into parts not being produced properly. The mold themselves are perfect, but the problem comes through whoever is producing them. Crappy plastic and PSI for the injection mold is critical to getting good parts.

The actual assembly can be another problem. Notice how we've been getting more reports of figures missing parts? All the production problems with bad parts and lousy paint apps comes from those putting them together.

Also, I don't think that there is any single set of molds for one figure. As you mentioned the colors breakdown creates a need for multiplie molds. I remember a friend showed me pics of the Masterpiece Prime molds and it uses 15 different molds along with a seried of runner molds to cast the diecast parts. The guy also told me that they had about 3 of each mold going during production. I'm more than sure that Hasbro has a few of each mold lying around.

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:49 pm**

robofreak wrote:Modern technology however has rectified this by allowing a virtual master to be stored on the computer. I think they've been able to do this for several of the G1 molds and are working on doing it for others.

Yes - you can scan a 3D object with a laser and have the computer store its likeness, and when its required again, a similar device cuts the shape out of a resin block using a laser. It makes reverse engineering a lot simpler to do, which is a nice bonus for doing stuff like reissues.

Its important to note as well, that you can just design the toy straight from the PC and have the machine produce the resin prototype parts.

Model companies like Mantic and Citadel have been doing this for a while now.

Ps - I'm sorry if I sound like Shockwave when I talk about stuff like this, I just enter "pompous" mode the moment I attempt to be serious.

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:04 am**

Yes. Also, a bunch of molds and masters were lost or destroyed during warehouse moves in the nineties (Some of the Classic Pretenders' pieces and the Dinobots would be among those to have met with this fate). Other mold sets that have deteriorated HasTak can't justify the recasting cost (Sunstreaker and Wheeljack for instance). I'm sure they would love to have the masters and mold sets for the G1 Dinobots again, because dinosaurs sell.

As for G1 Optimus Prime: The mold sets for the original 1984/1985 release are swiss cheese by now due to use. The reissues all show the detail tweaks made for the G2 rerelease castings. We have no need to fear this guy deteriorating though because due to enduring popularity they'll always be repairing and recasting his mold sets to keep them in tip-top shape.

Yeah, a bunch of stuff that some people call mold degradation is actually sloppy manufacturing, although the castings for the Classics Seekers have probably been worn down a bit. Mold flash is sloppiness. Real mold degradation would be the face on several reissue versions of Jazz as well as the roof alignment problem some of them suffer.

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:12 am**

This is a good issue to discuss Amelie. It seems obvious that the company doesn't create one mold and produce 50,000 Bumblebees from that one mold cos it'd take ages. If you create 10 molds you'll reduce the manufacture time to 10%.

If knock-off companies can produce detailed KOs then HasTak ought to be able to do the same when a mold is lost.

I suppose mold degradation COULD explain some problems - if the people in the QC department don't notice.

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2011 8:03 am**

You all are under the basic assumption that they WILL use a master mold. That may not be true.

Look at how many flash in the pan characters and toys they make. It may not be cost effective to do so. Speculation on my part, but the whole argument falls apart if that assumption doesn't hold true.

That being said, I agree that most of what gets attributed to mold degeneration is a crock of crap.

But there have been noted figures where this has been the case, RiD brothers and all of the Armada Microns come to mind.

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:37 pm**

I know my KO Defensor is better than my Encore Bruticus. I won't even compare it to the original Bruticus

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:58 pm**

Robofreak: interesting stuff, thanks!

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:32 pm**

Amelie wrote:
Model companies like Mantic and Citadel have been doing this for a while now.

Speaking of, they need go ahead and pop the damn Thunderhawk in that scanner for their CAD machine. I bet that'd impact their slow downward spiral since 2004.

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:47 pm**

Midnight_Fox wrote:
Amelie wrote:
Model companies like Mantic and Citadel have been doing this for a while now.

Speaking of, they need go ahead and pop the damn Thunderhawk in that scanner for their CAD machine. I bet that'd impact their slow downward spiral since 2004.

Just suck it up and import the Forge World model...

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:49 pm**

Wow.

I would have counted myself as one of the "mold degradation explains problems" crowd, but this discussion shed a whole new light on things. Thanks!

And really, it helps explain one thing that has never made a lot of sense to me. We talk about mold degradation being a reason why they don't release older molds anymore, and yet there's a mold like the G1 Combaticons which have seen at half a dozen releases over the years under various names. If mold degradation can happen to molds as quickly as we blame it to, then how has that mold survived so long? And now, the same goes for the Classics Seeker mold - two Starscreams, Skywarp, Thundercracker, Ramjet, Dirge, Thrust, various exclusives, Henkei...it's a lot.

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:01 pm**

Mold degeneration is a different explanation when referrign to G1 toys versus more recent toys.

For G1, the whole "collectors" and "reissues" world we know now did not exist back then so the original molds were not made to last, not stored for preservation, heck not even kept track of. Depending on the situation some survived better then others. The ones that were "lost", who knows what happens to them.

The manufacturing process Amelie describes above with a master mold is only cost effective when you're producing something in perpetuity. I don't think Hasbro has plans to do that with all the different molds they are churning out. It's a good question to ask Hasbro Q&A though.

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:10 pm**

videriant wrote:Mold degeneration is a different explanation when referrign to G1 toys versus more recent toys.

For G1, the whole "collectors" and "reissues" world we know now did not exist back then so the original molds were not made to last, not stored for preservation, heck not even kept track of. Depending on the situation some survived better then others. The ones that were "lost", who knows what happens to them.

The manufacturing process Amelie describes above with a master mold is only cost effective when you're producing something in perpetuity. I don't think Hasbro has plans to do that with all the different molds they are churning out. It's a good question to ask Hasbro Q&A though.

Um, you do realize that we're talking about 500 pound steel slabs that are near indestructible. A mold is made to last as short of overusing it or improper use, it won't die anytime soon.

@ Counterpunch, I wasn't referring to a master mold. What I'm referring to is a master copy. To make a mold you need a master that will be the base for making the mold. Now whether that's a resin prototype or a computer scanned model, the mold makers will always need to refer to the master copy in order to properly make the mold. Or did I miss something from your post?

Now the matter isn't so much making the mold, but how often they are willing to replace them. That comes down to cost. Keep in mind that we're using steel and that gets expensive no matter where you make it. MP Prime was like $10,000 just for one set of molds. Now I know of 3 sets used for general production. Who knows how many more are out there which explains that need for repaint to outweight the cost. Let's look at MP Prime repaints:

MP-01
MP-02
MP-04
MP-01 B (Black variant)
MP-04 Sleep Convoy
MP-01 with eh voice base

Hasbro MP Prime
20th Anniversary Prime

8 variants that I know of not counting the lucky draw. That shows a massive need to outweigh the cost of production.

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:55 pm**

Surely Has/Tak would have kept the original production designs, even if the master molds were lost or damaged?

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:21 pm**

I used to run injection mold presses. I made auto parts but it's the same as this. Plastic injection molds, and I also ran some rubber injection molds. robofreak is pretty much right on the money here.

Those molds are made to last. They are 500lbs slabs of steel and sometimes even bigger. There is no such thing as a "master mold." Just like robofreak pointed out it's just a master. It may be made out of styrofoam or now days very likely an autocad program. Molds will last for the most part forever (OK, not forever but you know what i mean, right?

) as long as they are taken care of. When the molds are damaged the company must employ the services of tool and die makers to repair them.

It is likely that Has/Tak has a few molds of each more popular character. But changing the color of plastic is no problem on the same mold. You can run red plastic for a run of 1000 then clean it and run 1000 of yellow in the same injection mold.

It is most probably sloppy press operators are to blame for toys that have what people here have referred to as "mold degradation." Sometimes a large run of parts can be damaged and go unnoticed by an operator in too much hurry to pay attention to quality control or someone too lazy to get someone that is certified (mold technicians who work in the same factory just like maintenance guys) to come to their machine and have it corrected. If those parts make it out the door and are missed by the customer (in this case Has/Tak) the defect could be in a vast number of similar/same toys and thus giving the "illusion" of mold degradation when in fact it is poor quality control. And, when those bad parts make it out and it gets caught, someone usually has to answer for it. I've seen people fired for running a run of bad parts. Most companies take it serious, but on toys, as long as it doesn't mess with it's function, it is probably easily overlooked.

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2011 12:30 am**

@ Hoosier

So in the Encore Bruticus and Piranacon's case, Takara and Hasbro just had sloppy QC manager/management. What a pity though if they took better steps prior to the re-issue.

It's like a slap in the face if K.O. companies do a better job than them.

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2011 12:46 am**

fenrir72 wrote:@ Hoosier

So in the Encore Bruticus and Piranacon's case, Takara and Hasbro just had sloppy QC manager/management. What a pity though if they took better steps prior to the re-issue.

It's like a slap in the face if K.O. companies do a better job than them.

I'm not HoosierDaddy, but it's true. I personally have not handled the reissue Piranacon or Encore Bruticus, but plastic quality comes down to whoever is making it what what they set their machines to inject into the mold. The Piranacon mold itself is fine, but this is where we come to the issue of the lowest bidder. The manufacter is going to be as cheap as possible in order to drive down costs. This wasn't as neccessary during a time when oil was in the hands of scalpers.

For all we know, if the BBTS price had been $80 instead of $60 you would probably see a whole different kind of quality on the figure. Again, this is taking a shot in the dark, but that's where logic is taking me at the moment.

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:59 am**

@ robofreak.

On Piranacon, no surprise, but on the Encore Bruticus, a pity.

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:01 am**

fenrir72 wrote:@ Hoosier

So in the Encore Bruticus and Piranacon's case, Takara and Hasbro just had sloppy QC manager/management. What a pity though if they took better steps prior to the re-issue.

It's like a slap in the face if K.O. companies do a better job than them.

I haven't handled those figures myself either but, if there is a defect in the plastic, it COULD have been attributed to a defect in the mold that was overlooked or just ignored. Again as robofreak points out, the lowest bidder, can equate to; you get what you pay for. And in this case it could be a defective mold but it still comes around to the people in charge for either missing the defect or ignoring it. So, it is still basically a quality control issue.

Posted: **Mon Mar 28, 2011 11:59 pm**

so, there's no way to reproduce the mold from the existing toys? i mean many people still have a original g1 jazz in mint condition or even the KOs( how they do to make knocks of "figures without master mold?)
so i think is a conspiracy and takara and hasbro do this to make more money from the "only" existing g1 figures that remains
0_o

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2011 1:12 am**

f-primus-unicron wrote:so, there's no way to reproduce the mold from the existing toys? i mean many people still have a original g1 jazz in mint condition or even the KOs( how they do to make knocks of "figures without master mold?)
so i think is a conspiracy and takara and hasbro do this to make more money from the "only" existing g1 figures that remains
0_o

They can use the existing toy, but detail gets lost in translation. It's like making a copy in a photocopier and then making a copy of that copy.

It's called reverse molding where they take the figure and produce it. If memory serves properly, Takara bookbox reissue Hound had to be reverse-molded.

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2011 1:42 am**

so why they seid that they cant remake some tfs because they dont have the molds?

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2011 4:32 am**

f-primus-unicron wrote:so why they seid that they cant remake some tfs because they dont have the molds?

It all boils down to cost. Hound was able to secure enough of a demand in which making his mold was feasible to do.

Hasbro and Takara are not going to make a mold unless they can get more use out of it than the occasional reissue. It's only a matter of time before we see Hound again.

Posted: **Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:01 pm**

so, again its a conspiracy
XD

The Energon Pub

Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?

Re: Can someone explain "mold degeneration"?