MMS Diecast - Iron Man: 1/6th scale Mark III Collectible Figure

[Motuxmen]

From a looks stand point there is no difference between diecast and plastic. Easy way to think about it. Hot wheels vs matchbox toy cars. One is diecast and one is plastic. They look the same. Diecast is more or less a sales gimmick. It does add weight to the figures but unless you walk around holding it that's a poor thing to base a buy on, IMO.

As for which one you should get. Well, buy the one you like best. Everyone else is going to have their own reasons and history to pick one over another.

The mk7 has more accesorys and options. It's like buying 1.5 figures. The mk6 is a great armor on screen of that matters, and it's my favorite looking armor. Has a decent amount of pack in stuff. The mk3 is classic. It's newer so it's got updates the others don't. The hip articulation for example. And despite some reviews, it can do many of the iconic poses better then the other two(landing/ground punch for example). And has the potential to be the focus of a future accessory pack with more swappable midsection pieces. Each one has upside and things people won't like. The choice comes down to what one you prefer.

 

[JamesXGZ]

Interesting point to ponder, some collectors seem to limit their IMs strictly to die-cast, and have no problems staying away from most of the non-diecast HPP/Classic Marks. Optimistically, I would like to think of it as, there's no turning back after a hands-on experience on a diecast IM.

I have the die-cast MKIII as my definitive armor alongside my Avengers line-up. The sheer weight of the figure is what stands out from the rest of my figures. Make the 'Iron' in "Iron Man" count!

But if you personally prefer the MKVII, ignore all that I've said and get the MKVII!

 

[Brainiac]

Interesting point to ponder, some collectors seem to limit their IMs strictly to die-cast, and have no problems staying away from most of the non-diecast HPP/Classic Marks. Optimistically, I would like to think of it as, there's no turning back after a hands-on experience on a diecast IM.

I have the die-cast MKIII as my definitive armor alongside my Avengers line-up. The sheer weight of the figure is what stands out from the rest of my figures. Make the 'Iron' in "Iron Man" count!

But if you personally prefer the MKVII, ignore all that I've said and get the MKVII!

James I forgot to rep you for the photos you took a little while ago, the ones from your sig pic
Great work man Really amazing photography
Repped

 

[alex1984]

Guys, I need help. I want to buy just one "definitive" Iron Man and I narrowed down my selection to Mark III Diecast, Mark IV and Mark VII.

Is it really worth paying extra for a diecast? Or will I need to mindtrick myself into believing it is, despite it's not noticeable at all?

Can you tell the difference MK3 is diecast and the others are not when displayed side by side? Can you give a recommendation for the purely aesthetic reasons?

To extend that question, is any of them a better choice in the general opinion for any reason whatsoever? I'm thinking - better detail, articulation, less noticeable shoulder gaps, etc?

Thanks in advance for your help! I'm still new to the 1/6 collecting and didn't have time to read the entire forum yet

To me, die-cast adds to the feel of the figure, I feel they're best used in parts that need to handle more stress as well as the lower body to improve stability by lowering the centre of gravity. However, it doesn't matter a whole lot when you're not handling it. The Mark VII is probably still the one I'd choose as it offers great value with all the interchangeable battle-damaged parts. I didn't like the missile pods at first, but they are an essential part of the look. However, once I saw that it also had smooth shoulder plates and thigh plates that can be swapped in for a cleaner IM look, I was sold.

The XLII and XLIII saw pretty huge improvements made to the articulation over the VII, but the new III die-cast inexplicably did away with many of those. I'm getting III die-cast still, but really frustrated as this could've been the definitive IM for me.

 

[JamesXGZ]

James I forgot to rep you for the photos you took a little while ago, the ones from your sig pic
Great work man Really amazing photography
Repped

Thank you Brainiac!

 

[rocbolt]

The diecast WM2, Mk43 etc are nice because they are vastly more posable than the previous generation of figures, and this can offset the fact that the weight limits you to standing and crouching poses. The Mk3 is missing that posability, but its also heavy so you cannot do flying dynamic stand poses either. If you are happy with a HoA pose or the pre-made ground punch pose then the Mk3 isn't hampered by its design for you. The weight is nice, but the plastic holds details better I think. I'd definitely go for the Mk7, but its no secret I'm not a fan of the DC Mk3.

At this point, for the money I'd rather they do more plastic. $350 for the Mk43 is getting insane, and from the looks of Shotgun they are getting better articulation on the plastic figures anyway. Diecast is nice, but for an extra $50 to $70 a figure I'm over it.

 

[Craig Walker]

Guys, I need help. I want to buy just one "definitive" Iron Man and I narrowed down my selection to Mark III Diecast, Mark IV and Mark VII.

Here's my 2¢ on the Mark VII Battle Damage and the DC Mark III, the two I own:

As said above, the weight of the Die Cast make it just feel like quality in your hands. Pick it up, then pick up a plastic one, and it feels 'cheaper'. As said, it feels like what IM should feel like. Weight.

Positives on Mark 3: Quality of build. Rock solid. Looks 'classic'. Greater detail under leg flaps and air brakes. I love the paint job. It gets ragged for articulation, but in some aspects, articulation is better on the M3 [doing splits for instance, there is no comparison, hands down winner]. Elbow articulation - MIII is the winner.

Positives on the Mark 7 BD : Cool look and vibe of the weathering/damage. The arm joints are better looking, but not that big a deal. In the museum pose it only wins slightly. The Chitauri base is better looking, although the DC lights up. Slightly more articulate. The waist only really turns about 10º maybe (?) Ankle articulation is slightly better.

Negatives on M3: Weight If you put it on a dynamic stand, it's a bit more 'iffy' [although I'm fine with it]

Negatives on M7BD: Plastic. Feels cheaper.

I personally prefer the body proportions of the Mark III. It looks more like a dude could be in there. The Mark VII has it's own cool vibe if you aren't handling them, just looks.

To me the deciding factor is handling them. I think 10 out of 10 people would say "this is better quality" when handling the MIII. Both are outstanding figures, but I'd keep the MIII if forced to part with one. Plastic is fine in the other figures, but the DC just is 'right' [IMO] for Ironman.

 

[alex1984]

The Mark VII normal version has a lot more display options than the BD version, though. For me personally, it was enough to tip the scale in its favour.

I don't mind the lack of waist articulation on the Mark III, but with this being a die-cast figure, and HT more or less telling us not to keep it in a flight pose, the lack of ankle tilt really hurts it.

I'm mainly buying it just because: 1. Mark III is a classic armour I must have, 2. the old Mark III has its limitations, and 3. I'm worried about the fading issue on my old Mark III.

If they were to do a Mark VII die-cast at this price, and cut out so many of the accessories, I'd pass it up as the original Mark VII is already good enough for me.

 

[Craig Walker]

and HT more or less telling us not to keep it in a flight pose

Explain please. The weight?

 

[alex1984]

Explain please. The weight?

Yeah. I recall reading them recommending against using those stands for flight poses, can't remember where though.

 

[LexiKon318]

It says so in all the diecast figures' instruction manuals.

Sent from my SPH-L300 using Tapatalk

 

[Craig Walker]

Oh, I'll re-read it. Thanks.

 

[Motuxmen]

Plastic feels cheaper? I still don't get this. When did being heavy become well made? You can buy a car from Russia that is 5000usd brand new and made from steel or buy a Lambo that cost 300k new made from carbon fiber and plastic and glue. Which one is higher quality? Man whomever brought die cast back up as a selling point needs a raise. All they gotta do is throw some fishing sinkers in a hollow leg and they can charge more becuase it's heavy. Diecast has been around since the 1950s. It's not better quality. It just weighs more. I still can not understand how weight of a toy equates to quality.

 

[Plastic Bateman]

Guys, I need help. I want to buy just one "definitive" Iron Man and I narrowed down my selection to Mark III Diecast, Mark IV and Mark VII.

Is it really worth paying extra for a diecast? Or will I need to mindtrick myself into believing it is, despite it's not noticeable at all?

Can you tell the difference MK3 is diecast and the others are not when displayed side by side? Can you give a recommendation for the purely aesthetic reasons?

To extend that question, is any of them a better choice in the general opinion for any reason whatsoever? I'm thinking - better detail, articulation, less noticeable shoulder gaps, etc?

Thanks in advance for your help! I'm still new to the 1/6 collecting and didn't have time to read the entire forum yet

Mk IV all the way if you can get one without fade issues. Beautiful figure with great accessories and fantastic articulation, even now.

Plastic feels cheaper? I still don't get this. When did being heavy become well made? You can buy a car from Russia that is 5000usd brand new and made from steel or buy a Lambo that cost 300k new made from carbon fiber and plastic and glue. Which one is higher quality? Man whomever brought die cast back up as a selling point needs a raise. All they gotta do is throw some fishing sinkers in a hollow leg and they can charge more becuase it's heavy. Diecast has been around since the 1950s. It's not better quality. It just weighs more. I still can not understand how weight of a toy equates to quality.

I've got a couple of the Diecast figures. Prefer the recent plastic ones, to be honest. Hot Toys haven't worked out how to use metal as smartly as Bandai or Sentinel yet.

 

[franpincho]

Plastic feels cheaper? I still don't get this. When did being heavy become well made? You can buy a car from Russia that is 5000usd brand new and made from steel or buy a Lambo that cost 300k new made from carbon fiber and plastic and glue. Which one is higher quality? Man whomever brought die cast back up as a selling point needs a raise. All they gotta do is throw some fishing sinkers in a hollow leg and they can charge more becuase it's heavy. Diecast has been around since the 1950s. It's not better quality. It just weighs more. I still can not understand how weight of a toy equates to quality.

Agreed. Blows my mind everything I read that too.

It's like most of these guys have play dates daily and are all like: "feel how much it weights"!

I haven't seen a better looking IM than the HT 1/4 MK 43, but oh yeah, it's plastic. Therefore it should feel cheaper than the 1/6 version that happens to be made of 40% die cast. Please.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[YankeesFanboy]

Guys, I need help. I want to buy just one "definitive" Iron Man and I narrowed down my selection to Mark III Diecast, Mark IV and Mark VII.

I'd go with the Mark VII. Good luck!

 

[Heroman15]

 

[Craig Walker]

Plastic feels cheaper? I still don't get this. When did being heavy become well made?

It's just my thought and opinion. I hold each figure, and the die-cast feels better quality. It's not *fact*, that's why it's called opinion. It's ok to have your own, different opinion. There is a sense of condescension in a few posts here. No one is *right*, no one is *wrong*.

 

[kriskelv]

It's just my thought and opinion. I hold each figure, and the die-cast feels better quality. It's not *fact*, that's why it's called opinion. It's ok to have your own, different opinion. There is a sense of condescension in a few posts here. No one is *right*, no one is *wrong*.

View attachment 218479

How come I notice a pattern of early collectors who got into collecting hating the diecasts and the new collectors loving diecasts?

 

[Craig Walker]

How come I notice a pattern of early collectors who got into collecting hating the diecasts and the new collectors loving diecasts?

No idea.

I didn't diss on the Mark VII BD. I like it. I like the feel of the DC better. Not sure if we zip 10 years into the future my opinion changes on that.