Well to get into the story, I received a dirge from good ol' Spencer, 
sealed in the bubble. Well I noticed earlier that the stickers on the 
wings have a black outline, both main and tail. The canopy of course 
is smoked and ridged. When I looked at the fists, there is no number 
and looks similar to the upper right hand corner one of lot shown on 
Fred's page. tabbed on both sides, and a circle (small) inside. Also, 
upon further examination, the die cast shows an "A" marking, not an 
upside down "A" (I believe upside down letters happened later down 
the line.) This would mean that it was made from the same diecast 
mold as let's say a joustra starscream, or any other pre rub jet that 
was first stamped or early rub. Now, here comes the whammy, The 
copyright is TWO LINED. On top of that, I was given a skywarp that 
has a two lined copyright with a "B" marked diecast. However, it has 
a smooth canopy and washer. (since I got it second hand I can not use 
it as any sugnificant evidence unfortunatly unless Fred can vouch for 
the piece in question.) To top things off, I noticed something that I 
overlooked before. A very obvious thing actually. There is a date 
marked in pencil on the toys R Us price sticker. I'm at school now, 
but if I recall it was April of 85. Now I would think that it would 
seem that I have in possession a very first release dirge, would it 
not? If so, then perhaps the sticker thingy on the die cast never 
occured, UNLESS if Thrust was issued even before dirge, hence why he 
can be found with a yellow cockpit not only on his art, but I would 
assume the toy on the box as well (since I don't have a US boxed 
thrust I cannot confirm, I'll need your feedback folks). Since the 
dirge in both toy and illustration for the box has a grey canopy, he 
is exempt from the rumor and possibly ramjet as well. Another note 
that I mentioned before that I just thought I'd bring up again is 
this box says "5 years and up" where later boxes say "7 and up".
Thanks.                               -Himawari

Response:---Bill Smith > Here's some pics which turns Himawari's comments to smoot.

(esteban replies:)Well, Himawari was always open to speculation and he at least theorized about what he felt could be, based on the evidence at hand. His ideas about what made sense were at the very least well informed guesses. He never claimed to be the last word on anything, but he would speculate on matters....

> The rest should be discarded which makes me question > how reliable his articles are on the Variations > page.

Just because some of his speculation on a matter may or may not be correct, ALL of his contributions are questionable? That's extreme. Just because you found one example that contradicts his theory doesn't mean others exist as he postulated. He could still be right.

> I know it may seem that I am attacking him > (perhaps I might be)

Yeah, you do seem to be on an anti-Himawari tirade.