Some perspective here, though. Friend of mine got a "good" NECA Atomic Shin. I got one that was absolutely horrific in the QC department. Indefensible. So to me, it was a poor release._JNavs_ wrote:When the figure you own happens to lack the flaw that others are up in arms about, I think it's a fair counter argument to say "Well mine doesn't have that flaw, therefore it's a good figure"Godzilla21 wrote:Do you also think minimalizing obvious flaws with a figure is also a component of "shilling"?_JNavs_ wrote: Someone with nothing but good experiences, but is called a shill because of said experience.
The SHMA Gamera 99 teeth paint issue was widespread. It was a "luck of the draw" if you got one with messed up teeth. That to me is a pretty sketchy release, as I can't guarantee my purchase is going to be solid.
KOTM Ghidorah seems pretty much QC free from what we can tell, same with G19. But Gamera, was not. That's what 21 is talking about. Not every single release is flawless in terms of blanket QC. Sure, every now and then something will slip though, but those teeth were a very common complaint. Buying one was a risk.
Objectively denying that compared to "I don't care if my figure has it, I will still like it" are two different things.