Original Rubber Ugly Creatures

[Astronit]

Okay, this topic may get a little controversial but I want to try and answer a question that comes up quite frequently on this forum;
"what monsters were the Original Rubber Ugly Set?"

I have very specific memories of the first dozen Rubber Ugly creatures that I got from the dime store around 1968/69. They were all made after the Topps Ugly Stickers trading card series. (But I didn't learn about Ugly Stickers until the 1973 release so I thought the Ugly Stickers were copies of my Rubber Creatures.

So, in this topic thread I would like to hear other collector's opinions about what and when the very first Rubber Ugly creature toys were.

Here are the ones I am absolutely sure were first generation Uglies.




Note, there is no Carl in this group because I don't own one. But I believe he belongs on this list.

[Astronit]

One more piece of information to debate; I believe that color is a strong indicator of the First Generation Rubber Uglies also. Both the colors of the rubber and the paint used.

For instance, yellow and red eyes on these Rubber Uglies are scarce. I think that is an indicator of a First Gen figure.

Likewise the ones that I attribute as early Rubber Uglies have only a few shades of rubber colorings. Notably Yellows, Greens, Reds and Blue.

The air-brushed highlights were also very basic.

Other thoughts?

[JP1000]

Very interesting & informative Astronit! Much appreciated!

So, even though they are generally mentioned in conjunction with Uglies, figures such as Don, Albert, Ralph, and Doc are NOT considered "true" uglies?

Or ARE they, but didn't come along till later?

I know that with some of those odd-ball ones (like the Tree Guy and that one that looks sorta like Sandy but with lobster pincers on it's legs), that it's sort of a stretch to even see the similarity between the rubber figures and the stickers. But I always see Don, Albert, and those guys mentioned in discussion on Uglies.

Or were they considered Second Generation Uglies, or something like that?

[Astronit]

First Generation refers to to the molding time period. You'll usually see degraded details and smaller figures in second, third and subsequent manufacturing. Over time, as different manufactures make copies of the same piece and get cheaper in the amount of rubber poured the monsters become very crappy.

As for later copy-cat companies they came out with similar pieces by creating look a like's. That's very evident in the "Horror Reptile" line. See the Iris, Sandy, Artie and Kenneth look a like's. New designs of the Topps Ugly Sticker monsters.

As for Albert, I think he comes from a completely different set of figures. I haven't discovered the band name on this line of figures but they all had the same worm-like bodies. The resemblance to the Topps Ugly Sticker drawing may be coincidental or deliberate but the Albert figure was not in the 1960's run of Rubber Uglies.

When you look at the Norm Saunder's web pages both Albert and the Karen figure are from the same series. I base this on an e-mail I got sometime back in the 1990's. It was from a collector looking for others in the series to complete his set. He lived in London and even told me the name of the series they were from. Unfortunately I didn't save the e-mail and have forgotten the name of the series. I think he said there were six different ones in the set and he had four of them.

However, it's fair to call them all Rubber Uglies if you like, they are designed to be ugly monsters and they are certainly made of rubber. But when you can pin down a series name it's better to use that name. For instance, Slurfies, P.V.C Animals and Spooky Kookies are unique and discreet to be named that way.

Just my .10 cents worth of memories.

[JP1000]

Ah ok, got it. Thanks Mike. So does the same hold true for Don, Ralph, and Doc? Not acutal "Rubber Uglies", but rather simply other "ugly creatures made of rubber"?

I have always thought the Don figure pictured didn't really resemble the sticker that much, but actually Ralph seems to be a pretty close arch to the creature in the sticker (the jury is still kinda out on Doc!). And it seems that in most folks collections they usually have a Talph or two hanging about the group. But you say that Ralph (and Don) is probably not an actual "Ugly" either?

[RubberUgly]

Thanks for starting this thread, Astronit.

I'll give my opinions, but this is a very tough situation since these toys were made and remade so many times since their introduction.

I get a little confused on the terms, as true original first gen Uglies are very rare and to be honest I don't know what brand name the absolute true first gens were sold under if "Teacher's Pets" weren't the first issue.

The Dual eye-stock Joel is a true first gen, along with most of the red or yellow-eyed Als and the Kenneths with the more defined ears & bumps on his back. There is a deep blue colored rubber that I also believe was only used during the first gen. First gens did come in many rubber colors and all eye paint colors, but some may take more of a trained eye to detect when viewing blurry eBay photos.

I have original teacher's pets on card including a Joel, and while they are early molds, they are not the first dual eye-stock style on the examples that I own on card. However, The red & yellow eye paint models were sold under this Teacher's Pets name, so maybe I just have some from a later production run.

Albert:
I have heard Astronit's story about Albert and the Wormies. I have never seen Albert in any packaging, so he's just up in the air. He's a rare toy, whatever he is. He could quite possibly be similar to the "moon bug" in pedigree, meaning that he could have been sold in the same boxes as rubber uglies, but had origins that started elsewhere.

Ralph: I'd say this guy is a legit 1st-gen & 2nd-gen all around. Hard to find, but even came in a Dark green w/red eye variation.

Don:
This is a later-gen toy. I believe it is an ugly for all intents and purposes, but it probably was first released in the late 70s at the earliest.

Doc: This guy is without a doubt a P.V.C. Animal, I'd bet my life on it. P.V.C. Animals were high-quality unofficial rubber Ugly Hybrid creatures that I believe popped up during the second gen. He bears little resemblance to other creatures, but I'd say that Danial was his inspiration. Not only does he have a human body, but also a letter on his chest. Doc is featured on the P.V.C. Animals header card. This toy is very hard to find.

Karen: I don't know. It's a rare toy, but I have a hard time believing that she's an ugly.

Bruce: Another rare figure that I'm unsure about. Quite possibly could just be from a rare finger-monster set. Whatever it is it's still super rare.

Pat: This tree monster is a late-gen bootleg hybrid ugly with Al origins. Pat was even sold alongside the harder plastic bootleg uglies in the 80s.

Carl: This guy! He's a true first gen, and possibly was sold in the early second gen. My first-Gen Carl has dark green rubber and is a red eye variation, it came from a seller in New Jersey. My second Carl is of the just barely translucent medium green rubber color with black eyes, and came from the UK, quite possibly second gen but who knows. Two other Carls have surfaced, one in TheSpaceFarm's collection (Was it from the US?) and the one recently sold on eBay in the UK by the member Chancre. Both of them are also the medium-green black eye variation. Topps should have known better than to sell this guy at all! At a nickel or a dime a pop, would it be worth a lawsuit from the infamous Basil Wolverton? Topps sold them anyway in the early years, but those that have surfaced can be counted on one hand. This is further evidence that these wonderful rubber toys were produced by Topps, or Carl would have never ceased to exist.


I hope some of this info could be helpful.

[JP1000]

<<I hope some of this info could be helpful.

Very much so! Thanks to both you and Astronit!

[JP1000]

Hey spacefarm, who is the ugly in your second picture, next to Florence? is that a Don? I've never seen one except for the rather nondescript one on the Saunders site.

[Astronit]

Nov 26, 2013 13:09:09 GMT -8 X said:

Let's get to the bottom of this. Is Albert a rubber ugly

I vote "NOT"! And this is not just based on information provided by another collector more than a decade ago. (Which sadly, I did not save except for in my slowly deteriorating mind.) The underside of all those "pencil Monsters" are smaller openings than in the Rubber Ugly monsters which have holes underneath that are able to fit on my thumb. Those are a completely unknown series of uglies to me. WOW!

Gotta get more information about those!

Yeah, You got some series of figures that I have never encountered before. The underside hole is just too small to have been in the first series that we saw here in the U.S.A. Maybe the U.K. versions and collection you have were done at a similar time by the same manufacturer but no way were they ones that were sold at my local "Five and Dime" store.

What a breakthrough moment in the Rubber Ugly story. Thanks Spacefarm. Let's continue to investigate these differences.

[RubberUgly]

Oh my, pencil monsters! Yet another variation to collect, not that I mind.
Looks like I'll have to photograph the underside of all my monsters.

[Astronit]

Spacefarm;

Your Rubber Uglies may be original for the U.K. but they are quite unique from the versions we had/have here in the U.S.

I've never seen a Kenneth with a pencil/finger hole on the underside. Do all of your Alberts have a similar hole to the one you photographed earlier?

Very interesting.

Here is a picture of U.S. Ugly Bottoms:

Holes are all larger than the pencil diameter shown. They were certainly designed for Finger Fun activities.

And the underside of a U.S. Kenneth here:

I have taken a few pictures of them with the ruler for scale if you think the overall size is different than the U.K. Rubber Uglies.

[Astronit]

Since we're on the subject and showing the true ugly underbellies of this hobby; let me share another unique property of an original Rubber Ugly. In this case it is Joel.

Notice the deep scoop in the middle where rubber was removed from his body after pouring into the mold. All the original Joel creatures I have show this same pattern of rubber removal. Then after the rubber was removed it was embossed with a "Made In Hong Kong" stamp.

The bellies on later versions of Joel are more rounded.

[RubberUgly]

Nov 27, 2013 13:39:02 GMT -8 Astronit said:

Spacefarm;

Your Rubber Uglies may be original for the U.K. but they are quite unique from the versions we had/have here in the U.S.

I've never seen a Kenneth with a pencil/finger hole on the underside.

My what I believe is my earliest Kenneth was purchased on eBay from the USA, and it was sold as "Monster Pencil Topper". I never really gave it much thought, but I guess it's safe to assume that it has a hole in the bottom. Lol

[RubberUgly]

I've snapped some photos of my Kenneths and Joels.

Here are my Kenneths. The Kenneth on the upper left is by far both the bulkiest and most detailed example that I have ever seen. He was purchased from the USA.

(Click on any image for a higher res version)








Here are my Joels. Once again, the figure on the top left is also the bulkiest and most detailed of the bunch. Both the first and second Joel have the scooped bottom, but the earlier example has no "Hong Kong" markings at all that I can find. He also came from the USA.

[Astronit]

My there are so many varieties, this is not an easy task to identify which uglies were first.