Stuffed Creature Design Part IV

It is good to see you are still with The Stuffed Animal Review, a publication dedicated to the analysis of stuffed creature design and their larger worlds.  Or perhaps you are a new reader.  Confused?  Lost?  A fuller explanation of The Review’s purpose can be found on the “Philosophy” page.

Today’s post is Part IV of The Review’s in-depth analysis of high-quality stuffed creature design.  The first three installments established fundamental, baseline principles that are crucial for finding your way through the thicket of exceptional and mediocre stuffed creatures.  These principles are archived as the “Core Principles” page of this blog, a road map of sorts for those seeking an outstanding stuffed animal.

Today’s Stuffed Creature Design Part IV issues a statement regarding Fur Quality in the United States.

Fur quality in the United States has declined in the past twenty years, a victim of cheap outsourcing.  A large swath of the stuffed creature population in the U.S. suffers from what The Review has come to call “Furrier’s Disease” (F.D.).

You can diagnose Furrier’s Disease through visual and physical inspection. 

F.D. fur is like a cheap polyester suit – synthetic, misshapen, disheveled.  Note the monkey and rabbit [Figures 1&2]: shaggy tufts of fur yield a scraggly stuffed creature.  Instead of smooth, even fur an F.D. creature looks like they received a lousy haircut and were left with uneven, stringy ends.  And F.D. fur feels artificial: there is no question it is a petroleum byproduct.

Figure 1

Figure 2

To confirm Furrier’s Disease, physical manipulation is a must.  If the fur easily plucks free when stroked between forefinger and thumb, illustrated in Figure 3, diagnosis is confirmed. 

Figure3

The Review also recommends close inspection.  Furrier's Disease can be quickly detected in some creatures, like the monkey and rabbit above.  A quick glance, however, might arouse only faint suspicion.  Take the frog in Figure 4.  You might not guess he is riddled with Furrier's Disease by looking from afar.  The mouth area reveals shaggy patches, but those are easily missed.

Figure 4

"Balding" is the F.D. symptom to look for when conducting a close inspection.  F.D. creatures typically have bald patches of cloth with no fur attached.  Usually this is only detected by physically parting the creature's fur to check its density.  With well-constructed animals, it is difficult to see the cloth base because the fur is so thick: every square millimeter is "furred."  With F.D. animals, upon parting the fur the creature's skin is immediately apparent - there are lines of bald patches with no fur attached.   

"Balding" is shockingly illustrated on the frog from Figure 4 [See Figures 5&6].  Typically one has to part the creature's fur to view this symptom, but balding on this creature is blatantly, and shamefully, on display. 

Figure5

Figure 6

Furrier’s Disease is disturbing both physically and aesthetically, but also philosophically.  It signals the valuing of low prices over quality; instant gratification over thoughtful, measured, long-term investments.  It has gone too far.  Given the ubiquity of Furrier’s Disease-infected stuffed creatures, it appears people will buy these animals no matter how blatantly and shamelessly cheap the construction.  Take the frog in Figure 3.  The tag says it all: "Wow $10".  It should say, Wow, what fool would pay $10 for such shoddiness?

Fur trend alert: as if Furrier’s Disease wasn’t bad enough, stuffed animal devotees also have to contend with an awful “fringe” fur look The Review despises [Figures 7&8].  No, this is not advanced-stage Furrier’s Disease.  It is intentionally sparse and straggly.  The fur conjures up a combination of images: a severe skin condition requiring serious ointment and 1970s jacket fringe.  Neither image is particularly appealing.  The Review suspects the fringe is a cost-cutting measure meant to reduce the amount of material necessary to “fur” an animal.  

Figure 7

Figure 8

Not only does this fur look ugly, it has an inferior feel.  A stuffed creature’s fur should be a consistent velvety or suede-like soft.  There is not enough coverage on a fringe-furred creature to give you that smooth, even feel.  What you sense instead is the cloth netting underneath; a wholly unsatisfactory tactile experience. 

High Quality Fur
We've looked at - and averted our eyes from - poor quality fur.  Let's turn to satisfactory examples.. 

The Gund bear in Figure 9 is well-furred.  His coat is dense, thick, even, and smooth; like a thick pile rug.  Look closely at his tummy folds: the fur is parted, but no cloth is visible.  You have to probe deep to find his cloth skin.  And The Review does not doubt his fur is synthetic, but it has a natural feel.  [Note: this is Newbie, a Review staffer.  Click on "Staff Directory" for his profile.

Figure 9

The penguin in Figure 10 has a different style of high-quality fur.  The penguin's fur is close-cropped.  Thousands of fur nubbins act in concert to give this creature an incredibly smooth feel akin to suede. [Note: this is Artie, another Review staffer.  Click on "Staff Directory" for his profile.]

Next Saturday, The Review breaks down a common assumption: stuffed creatures are stuffed and, therefore, soft, right?  What is there to talk about? 

Plenty…stay tuned…