>>5914691oh, I'm not actually talking about the cost of the figure, just that this guy implies it's a HUGE difference
>>>5912620 >the improvements made are as blatant as night and day.And costing $100 more than the $150 is a pretty huge difference, don't you think?
Or is his night and day analogy is bigger than just 66%?
Anyway, even though i don't take the hyperbole seriously, it's a far cry even being a small difference.
Like i said, you really have to study the side by side images to see the difference and those subtle differences don't even have an effect from making it appear less doll-like. It's just thinner stiff as fuck doll clothes that is poorly fit.
If i didnt know that doll clothes was hard to arrange it so it looks less shitty, i'd believe the figure on the left wasn't fidgeted with as much to make it appear less frumpy and with collars/cuffs exposing poorly arranged under clothing.
It'd be like this if it were true.
