Was over at the bookstore earlier today. Found a comfortable chair and sat down and perused this book for about 15 minutes.

Overall, I found that it was pretty enjoyable to leaf through. I really just looked at the pictures, which I think is what your supposed to do, and didn't really pay much if any attention to the labels. I didn't read the intro, or any of the interviews with the artists at the back.

I liked the larger format, hard-cover format. The photography is adequate at best, which is kind of suprising considering that this book was published by Abrams. Their stuff is usually top-notch in my experience. Some of the photography was just plain bad and/or looked like it had been scanned in from some other source. In most of the pictures, the colors seem washed out, and the contrast is poor. (E.g., the picture of the Os Gemosis is really bad.) Interestingly, I didn't find any photo credits anywhere. Nevertheless, I still enjoyed the whirlwind tour of all the stuff that is pictured, and was reminded of some figures that I hadn't thought about in a long time.

While there are a lot of toys pictured in this book, it can really only be viewed as offering a sample or cross-section of the toys that are out there, not as a checklist or inventory of everything (if that is even possible). But just from a quick glance through it, I noticed it didn't even have a single figure by Eric So, some key figures by Brothersfree were missing, etc. I guess there will always be things the different people think should be included or excluded.

I noticed it included pics of two custom painted figures that I have in my collection (one by Jled and one by Andrew Bell) and primarily on that basis, I am going to go ahead and order it from Amazon (the local store wanted $40 for it). (Again, however, the Jled picture was one that they just cut and pasted from his website or something. Yuck!)

So doesn't JLed take good photos or hire people with adequate skills to take photos?

i believe that mr huck gee made the statement that ALL of the photographs in the book were done by him. that he had gone to each studio himself and photographed the figures.
at least that is what he said over on KR

jled's pictures are usually quite decent.

http://www.joeledbetter.com/custom_toys.html

nice mix of studio shots and ones that appear to have been done by him

ok, here is his quote:



from this thread: http://forums.kidrobot.com/viewtopic.ph ... sc&start=0

I don't know the answer to your question and I guess you are missing my point.

I don't have the book in front of me, but I pretty much instantly recognized the shot that they used in the book of the Ringo Bear Custom [expletive deleted] as being the shot from JLed's website. I own the [expletive deleted] and have looked at this picture a number of times.

The original shot on Joe's site is great, although I have no idea who took it. It is the way that it appears in the book that seemed crappy - the colors were off (like they seem to be in some of the other pics in the book - some of the whites looked yellow, etc.); and it just looked like a sloppy cut-and-paste job - something weird around the edges of the figures. So, I am not criticizing Joe, or Joe's photographer, or whatever other ill-motive you seem to imply; what I am criticizing is the quality of the transfer of this photo to the book. I know the original looked very good; in the book it doesn't.

Here is the picture that is from Joe's website that I am almost positive is used in the book (I will be able to verify that for you when the book arrives in my mailbox).

Based on the quote from Huck Gee you provided, it seems he says "almost all" - not all.

I don't know whether or not he took the original picture of the custom I have that is on Joe's site. I kind of doubt it - this pic has been around for quite a while now. Certainly, it was not taken FOR the book, even if Huck took it... Again, the picture itself is great - it is the transfer of it in the book that is just not very good, in my opinion.

I only took a quick look through the book, but it really stood out to me that the images were of varying quality - in terms of lighting, contrast, color, etc. That surprised me because this is a picture book, a coffee table book, by Abrams.

Like I said before, I enjoyed looking at the book nevertheless and I am buying a copy.

Have you had a chance to see the book in person?

havent seen it in person yet.
i've been locked up in custom toy crunch

I took a quick look over it at the weekend and thought it was a pretty good selection of the current/recent toy market, although as stated a bunch of stuff has been completely bypassed . . . I didn't see much evidence of Mr Lau (or others of that ilk) . . . lottsa [expletive deleted]'s though!

The photography quality didn't strike me as particularly bad and from recollection was a big improvement on Vinyl Will Kill, which up until now I guess was the definitive Toy scene 'must have' . . . Pogues already 'voiced' his thoughts regarding the incorrect captioning of various pieces elsewhere and whilst I find it mildly frustrating that, given (I presume) access/permissions to all the source artists and all the information available online the guys involved in its production still manage to fugg it up, if it's taken as a picture book/base reference, it's well worth the $20-30 it's retailing for on Amazon.

When I first just starting paging through it, I thought it looked fine too. But next time you take a look, check out the picture of the Os Gemeosis (sp?) - the orange guy with the gas mask. It was when I saw that pic that I started taking a little bit more closer look at some of the others...

Bottom line: I bought the book in any event. It is not perfect, awesome, beautiful, etc., but still worth owning for anyone interested in toys, at least at the $24 price point.

Is there much writing in this book? I think a book about this toy shit that is only about the pictures is pretty stupid and uninteresting myself. We all look at pictures of these toys all day on the internet and in our collections as it is, I'd rather hear more of the story behind them as well.

For the 2nd time today I'm going to bring up the Disposable: A history of skateboard art book, because I've been reading it lately and it's amazing, for the storys as well as the pictures. I guess it could be that there isn't that same kind of history with the toy scene to write about? I don't know. I haven't seen the book, but it sounds real sucky from all accounts.

I can't say too much, since I have only spent a little time with the book. But there is really no text other than a sort of rambling intro by Paul Budnitz (sp?) who owns KR; and some interviews with some of the artists which I didn't read, except for Kozik's. All I can remember from Frank's inteview was that he like Silly Putty and claimed not to own an iPod.

I am nuetral on Silly Putty

I do not nor ever will own an iPod.

Frank: Again, I am just going by memory, but you were asked what toy you would have love to have invented (or something like that) and you said "silly putty."

That doesn't seem "neutral," unless you just said it for the F of it or didn't know what else to say. Maybe just meant to be a joke?

I have no idea. i have done hundreds of interviews over the years.I cant remember what I said to who. I had even forgotten I had one in this book until you mentioned it.


maybe I love the concept of Silly Putty...something very simple that has universal appeal?

I love silly putty! It is a desert island toy (just have to keep the sand out of it).

Huck lies a lot.

wait until you see my shitty book. I am gonna get it all wong on purpose.

admit it, your memory is slipping.

lol. sure is kiddo.

god-damn hippies. get offa my lawn.

Gonna be printed in China I see?

everything is printed in China.

Can you get it printed in GID ink? If so, put me down for two.

Don't know if that is true or not. Here, it was just that el maz didn't correctly remember at first what huck said.