A recast is still a recast, even if it's vintage. So, Is it wrong to challenge the editorial?

R. John Wright recently made a post in his blog challenging the cover choice and some of the editorial in a recent issue of the UFDC magazine, Doll News.

Now, I am not a vintage doll collector and many of you here probably are not either, BUT, I think the article is still worth reading as copying work/recasting has been happening since the very beginning and is a constant challenge and point of contention no matter what style dolls you do collect.

His piece points out the the doll on the cover has a controversial past that the writer never brought up, and is based on a copy of another artists' work, an obvious recast from back in the 1920s. He then goes on to point out another article with the same situation but provides some additional history as well.

I have mixed feelings about ‘celebrating’ the work of such blatant copiers in this way. If the article pointed this out more it could be okay but it really doesn’t. And on top of that the doll they chose to feature on the front cover is a pretty bad example!
— http://rjohnwrightblog.com/weblog/2016/4/25/doll-history-getting-the-facts-straight

I encourage you all to hop over and give this a read - it's not a long post at all. Then, read the comments.

What is your stance on it? To me, a recast is still a recast, even if it's vintage. Do you feel he is wrong for pointing out the history of them or for speaking his opinion? Why do we have to be so damned sensitive to everything or every opinion that is not our own? And is the UFDC so powerful that pissing them off is the worst thing ever?

Will speaking out about their cover or article hurt R. John Wright's business? Hell no, if anything I respect him more, but that is my personal opinion - and we see what opinions do nowadays ;)

Controversy can be a good thing - it gets people to think and talk. Discuss.....

Source: http://rjohnwrightblog.com/weblog/2016/4/2...