Do you consider Dollfie Dream to be a BJD?

i consider them BJDs (maybe its because i plan on owning one...) they are just made of a different material and different base, like skeleton instead of elastic, vinyl instead of resin.

 

wow I'd never even heard of dollfie dream until today. After visiting google I have to say they are such a hybrid of doll and figure that it's really hard to say what category they belong in. It seems to me they just make the minimum requirements to be a part of this board, as someone else pointed out how they were 'grandfathered in' and they are officially a dollfie so that seems to help their case.

They remind me of how 1/6 scale dolls like Medicom's RAHs (real action heroes) are like both doll and figure (although RAHs are definitely more figure).

 

I learned a lot reading this thread. Me think I'm now confused. I like einon's inclusive definition best. Moreover antique German and French BJDs are BJDs. You can't argue with that. Vinyl and porcelain dolls such as Enchanted Dolls, ADG and Tonner BJDs are all BJDs. This forum focuses on Resin dolls. I was wondering why the Dollfie Dreams are included since they are vinyl and vinyl BJDs are supposedly off topic. Now, I understand better.

 

Personally I don't consider them to be true BJDs. They're nice dolls & highly articulated & no matter what shape the joints are, they don't have a strung construction which I feel is an integral part of BJDs. They are mechanically jointed as are so many other dolls that people incorrectly refer to as BJDs & that simply leads to more & more confusion when trying to define these various dolls.

 

BJD is a ball-jointed-doll...if it doesn't have ball-joints, then it's not a BJD. xD

 

I agree with Ver A bjd is a ball jointed doll whether its vinyl or resin. So Dollfie Dreams should be known as bjds.

 

The first DDs had a strung construction with elastic but were hard to pose. When Volks switched to a skeleton in 2006 or 2007 (I can't remember the date ), they were "grandfathered" in based on their original construction.

 

for my 2 cents... a DD is a BJD.

By my definition, a ball jointed doll.. has ball joints in some form or another.

If the criteria was based on whether it was strung or had a skeleton the definition should be altered to SKBJDs (Skeleton ball Jointed dolls) or STBJD (Strung ball jointed dolls) or something like that? And all of that would start to become a mouthfull to say

But to stick with the main question posed, as long as the joints are in ball construction they fit the criteria. It doesnt mean that they are accepted everywhere as such but to my eyes they are one and the same.

 

Well, I've had DDs before, and I found the joints, though ball-shaped really worked more like a hinge. So I guess if I had to say are they or aren't they I'd have to say no, they're not. ^^;;

However I totally adore them and I'm happy they're here.

Raven

 

I mostly just count dolls as BJDs if they are made of ball jointed and resin, because there is a whole different way of going about caring for, and customizing resin than there is vinyl.

Don't think I'm saying vinyl dolls are less 'lovable' that's just silly. I have vinyl dolls of my own that I love just as much as my resin dolls.

 

Sure there might be everyone's personal preference at play where you would use a term A vs term B. But let's look at the cold facts. BJD -- Ball-jointed Doll. As far as the term's concerned there's nothing saying how the doll are put together (strung, internal skeleton, etc), what material it is, who makes it, or how it is made. The definition only implies that it is a doll and that the joint has to be ball shaped (hence ball-jointed). So if it's a doll and the joint is ball shaped it should be a ball-jointed doll no matter how that ball joint was created, what material it is, etc.

Too many people say that Dollfie Dream's joint is different from the old ball joint. So it must not be a ball joint? Well look at a different example: the digital camera. It is really a camera? An old camera uses films, digital doesn't. Old camera has blades for the aperture mechanism to control how much light comes in, most digital point and shoot doesn't (mostly only DSLR lenses does that). And I can go on for a LONG list of what old camera does and digital camera doesn't. Honestly, I don't see any resemblance of the old camera with the new digital camera (especially the point and shoot kind that most people has) other than the following:

1. New digital camera still kind of look like the old camera, in shape.
2. They do serve the same purpose -- take pictures.
3. The principal is similar between the old and the new such as shutter speed, control of light, etc.

So back to BJDs. Sure the Dollfie Dream's skeleton is different, the joint is different, material is different, but let's see.

1. The ball joint looks kind of like the old ball joint, namely the all look like a ball. (Check)
2. They have the same purpose -- serve as a joint so that the jointed parts can be bent. (Check)
3 The principal is similar namely have a ball shaped part at the joint to serve both as the joint itself and provide then continuity for the piece that are bent. (Check)

So to that I say if you call today's digital camera (especially today's point and shoot digital camera) a camera, then you should call the joint in Dollfie Dream a ball-joint. Now Dollfie Dream is a doll that I don't think anyone argues about. Hence Dollfie Dream is a ball-jointed doll -- BJD. Sure you can say you call the old camera film camera and new one digital camera. To that I say well you can call Dollfie Dream a Skeletoned BJD and call the old styled dolls Strung BJD or whatever additional qualifier you like to put in front. None the less the ball-jointed part is common and the doll part is common between the two.

Sure there are also ball-jointed action figures and others that also uses ball-joints for the joints but they are not classified as dolls and so they are only ball-jointed action figures and not ball-jointed dolls. However, dolls that made of any material such as clay, plastic (resin or vinyl), wood, or any other material that are jointed with a ball shaped joint should be technically speaking BJD. Of course this is just technicality. How you like to refer to your collection or how you like to use the word of course is up to each individual.

 

Yes, I do.

They're as much of a Ball-Jointed-Doll as a Volks Super Dollfie.

Just because they have no stringing and are vinyl, they aren't any less then a Resin BJD.
I hope to own a Mini Dollfie Dream someday, but I'm worried about the vinyl getting stained and doing their face-up.

They are really pretty dolls, even though some look like they should be in a guy's room with some Playboy posters and other things of that sort. (But only the HUUUUUUUGE busted Dollfie Dreams. >.< Most people don't have a chest THAT big, unless they've had plastic surgery.)

 

Honestly I don't consider something a ball jointed doll if it is not strung, just because there are many dolls with skeletons that would need to be considered. That is just my personal definition though. I am very glad that Dollfie Dreams are on topic here though because I love them and like to read threads about them.

 

The original Dollfie Dream (version one) was already a stretch on the idea of a strung BJD, but aesthetically still qualified (with the 'eyehole' heads, anyway) as much as the resin Chii head qualified. Personally I think the body of the Dollfie Dream is gorgeous and proportionally compares to the SD16.

Yes, the dollfie dreams are vinyl rather than resin, but have a sort of mirrored fickleness. Where you need to worry about sun damage or fall damage with a resin doll, your biggest concern with a vinyl is staining (from everything..). They require the same amount of care and look just as nice in photos (they're not plasticy or reflective), they don't ever need sanding or seam removal.. They're cheaper because the process of making them is easier and they require less steps, not because their material is particularly cheap. Pound for pound, I can't imagine the base material to make one or the other is much different in price, its just the work (and hazard) involved in the production that creates the price difference.

I own a dollfie dream version one and love her to bits for her strengths; No sun damage, no sanding, minimal worry about falls or being bumped around (soft vinyl hands are the best thing since sliced bread, seriously), but I hate her for how prone to stains she is. The tips of her fingers turned green from making contact with my rug (which has been steam cleaned more times than I can count) for an hour or so.

As far as being a BJD.. Yes, I consider my version one to be a pseudo BJD, a borderline, a hybrid. Not completely true to the definition, but not completely excluded. The dollfie dream version two however.. no strings. Completely soft vinyl body..

Doesn't do it for me. Oversized figurine deal.. probably photographs incredibly nicely, the soft vinyl mimicking soft skin and giving a glow, the inner skeleton allowing beautiful poses.. but I simply can't look at it the same. On the same token, I don't think the Obitsu's ever really qualified (the bodies I mean, heads like Haruka and Gretel are actually really nice). They've always been a skeleton, with visible screws no less, and have an appearance of "I'm not supposed to be seen naked" which falls under the whole fashion doll thing etc etc.. more or less, both obitsu and dollfie dream seem to have been included for the sake of those who were new to the hobby, needing to keep on the less expensive end of things, needed a body for a resin head, or simply took moreso to anime than realism.

Ultimately this is the decision of the admins on the board and they've already made said decision, so I don't think much more could come from this debate besides hurt feelings and false elitism.

 

I didn't know that Dollfie Dream was not considered to be BJD by most people, or that discussing them here at DoA would be off topic? Then I am new to this obsession!

I would think that any doll that has ball joints, regardless of internal or external appearance is a BJD (ball jointed doll)?

 

I don't know much about BJDs or DD, but shouldn't dolls with ball-joints be considered a BJD?

 

I most definately consider them BJDs! XD They have ball joints don't they?

 

Being a newbie and having not seen these type of doll before I would hate to say one way or another. They are however very intriguing and interesting dolls which look very appealing.

 

So the newer dolls that has odd (yet very functional) joints like the IED Superhero body are not BJDs?

 

Thay may not give off the resin BJD vibe but they are still BJD's.