Mechagodzilla BE@RBRICK: compare the exact 1974 designation

One Medicom announcement names Mechagodzilla without a parenthetical year. Another explicitly names the 1974 version. Preserve that difference when comparing the products instead of silently assigning the more specific wording to both.

The two sources share a 100% and 400% configuration, so the nominal size combination cannot settle the identity on its own.

The sources provide different levels of specificity

The Mechagodzilla announcement without a title year specifies approximately 70 and 280 mm figures, November 2020 planned release wording, and a ¥12,000 before-tax quote.

The Mechagodzilla (1974) announcement specifies the same nominal sizes with April 2024 planned release wording and a ¥16,500 tax-included quote. Its body explicitly repeats the 1974-version designation.

Those facts establish two documented reference records. They do not, by themselves, establish that the earlier product has exactly the same design basis as the later one or that one announcement is a direct replacement for the other.

Keep the source’s precision in your own title

In a collection sheet, retain the earlier title as stated and keep its source alongside it. If further evidence supports a particular film-version identification, add that evidence as a separate research note. Do not rewrite an uncertain association as though it came from the original announcement.

The earlier detail and 1974-designated detail in the BE@RBRICK Master Index give you separate links for a seller inquiry.

Searching the Japanese name メカゴジラ can help connect the official wording with English seller descriptions. Keep both spellings if useful, but do not let a translated alias remove the parenthetical designation that differentiates the later source.

Make the comparison visual and documentable

If you are choosing between the releases, review their exact official images and photographs of the offered items. Record specific visual observations only after checking those images. A shared character name is not enough evidence for a claim that the figures are identical.

Likewise, a later announcement date does not automatically prove a technical improvement or a different production method. Those are additional claims that need their own source support.

For a collector interested in film versions, the explicitly named 1974 target is straightforward to label. For a broader Mechagodzilla collection, both documented releases can fit without needing to resolve every visual relationship in advance.

The original amounts also use different tax bases. Keep before-tax and tax-included wording with any comparison, and do not present the difference as appreciation of a single unchanged item.

If the target is a complete original set, confirm that the seller includes both nominal sizes. A single larger bear can match a release identity while representing only part of the original purchase unit.

The most useful research habit here is to preserve uneven specificity. One source can name a character broadly while another identifies a particular version. Keeping that distinction visible leaves a clear place for new evidence and avoids making the catalog appear more certain than the documents allow.

Index status: This index is in beta and may contain errors, missing information, or display issues. We’re continuing to review and improve it.

Browse the gallery’s BE@RBRICK collection for current listing details.