Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Recent Acquisitions: Tonner Ron Weasley

  First of all, I'd really like to hear from our giveaway winner about the prize's arrival. So if Miss L Spooky would drop us a comment and let me know she received it I would appreciate it.
  This is a 'recent acquisition' that I actually got online, not from a yard sale or thrift store. He was such a good price I couldn't pass him up. He's Tonner's Ron Weasley from the Harry Potter series of dolls.

Ron is 12" tall.

 I think he was released in 2010. He was a limited edition of 5000, which is not that limited.

He has the same body as Tonner's Marley,Agnes Dreary and Patience dolls.

In addition to the standard joints he has jointed ankles,wrists,knees and elbows,as well as an upper body joint.
And he comes with a spare hand containing his wand.

I love his Hogwarts uniform. The clothes are well made too.

The sweater, or, since he's British, the jumper, (Over here a jumper is a dress.), closes in the back with snaps.

 He has a beautifully hand painted face.
His tie is askew. I had trouble keeping it straight, but I think that's in character for Ron.

Must be a windy day at Hogwarts.
His pants even have a tiny zipper.

His little shoes lace up!
I LOVE these shoes!
But the lining of his pants is drooping below the bottom of the pants.

The doll is a great likeness of Rupert Grint, the actor who played Ron in all the Harry Potter movies.
Rupert as he looked in the first H.P. movie

Slightly older Rupert.
Well, I think so. Ivy says he looks more like actor Asa Butterfield.

 He does look a bit like him.

All you Asa Butterfield fans out there, customize your dolls now.   

But he still has a very Rupert Grint face.

The hair is a bit too long and thick though. He would look a lot more like movie-Ron with a bit of a hair cut.
I might give him a hair cut.

I think the Ron looks more like the actor who played him than the Harry doll, and way more than the Hermione.

The wig on this doll is really soft.
I love the skin tone on these Tonner dolls. It's very realisitic looking.

  The Ron character in the books was wonderful. He was funny. He was probably my favourite character.He had a lot more to do in the books than the character did in the movies. In fact, as the movies went along they gave Ron less and less to do until he almost disappeared completely. It was such a shame, because a lot of the humour went with him. (Not to mention one of the most horrifying and sad scenes in any Harry Potter book, which takes place in the Ministry of Magic and involves a tank and a 'brain'.) Another reason the deleting of Ron was such a pity is that Rupert Grint was such a talented child actor. I would have bet money that he would have been the one of the main three that would have had a career beyond 'Harry Potter'. He hasn't been nearly as popular or busy as the other two though. I suppose he might have if he had been considered as attractive as Daniel Radcliff and Emma Watson.(And for all you people out there 'shipping' Harry and Hermione, just...stop it.) Rupert has made quite a few films and recently made his well received Broadway debut in "It's Only a Play".


  1. What a pretty doll! But I agree, the hair is definitely too long for Ron. I love his clothes anf the shoes. They really look so well made!
    I agree, Ron is a wonderful character in the book, it's sad about the movies. But I was also very sad about the Sirius scenes (they were so much longer in the books! And better...) :D

    1. It was sad to see that so much of the books had to go for the movies to be short enough. That's always frustrating when you love a book.(Of course, they managed to make two movies out of the last book, and I bet they wish they had thought of that in the first place and made two movies out of all of the books.If they had known what a cash cow the movies were going to be I'm sure they would have.) It seemed to me that if you hadn't read the books some of the stuff in the movies didn't even make sense.

    2. I totally agree!
      In my opinion a looong series would have been the best. So they could have filmed all details.
      By the way, I'm curious about the new movies about Newt Scamander. I wonder what they will be about...

    3. According to Wikipedia the Fantastic Beasts movie "will be set in New York, 70 years before Harry's story starts". I'll be interested to see it. There is also a play set to premier in London next year called Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. It's not a prequel, according to J.K. Rowling, and the reason it wasn't a book is that the stage is "the only proper medium" for the story. Sounds interesting!

    4. Really interesting, I agree!


Thanks in advance for your comments.