Looking for something?

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Barbie siblings, then and now

RagingMoon1987 here, and I've done a mini-shopping spree.  Hey, when's the last time I DIDN'T spend money???  I really need to grow up a little.  Anyway, I heeded the call of Barbie's Dreamhouse sisters and added a Skipper, a Stacie, and a Chelsea to my play group.  Let me tell you, they don't make these girls like they used to.  Check this out.

From right, these dolls are an unidentified Skipper from the mid nineties, Totally Yo-Yo Skipper from 1998, and Barbie Sisters Fun Day Skipper, whom I bought a week ago.  I also have Tropical Splash Skipper somewhere in my room; she is the oldest of my Skipper dolls and comes from the big-headed, bug-eyed late-eighties/early nineties era.  I find it odd that Skipper appears to have grown up and then back down again; I'd have expected the newest doll to look...well, if we were to go with age progression then I'd expect her to look a lot like Barbie!  Fun Day Skipper looks a lot like her 1964 self, to tell the truth.  Heck, her chest is even flat!  The other Skipper dolls in that picture have some chest development, and 90's Skipper even has a bit of an hourglass figure going on!

Happy Meal Stacie from 1993 (left) and Barbie Sisters Fun Day Stacie from this year (right).  Neither of them photographed well, but I think you get the drift.  The difference here makes a little more sense, with an obvious age progression showing here.  In 1993 Stacie was clearly a young girl, maybe six, seven, or eight.  Not a tiny child, but not necessarily a big one either.  Modern-day Stacie would fit into the "big kid" category; she looks like she should be about ten or eleven.  She's got a slimmer build than Happy Meal Stacie does, and her legs are longer.  In other words, Stacie's hit the gawky stage!  Poor child, I hope she weathers that stage better than I did (LOL).

We've come to a part of Barbie's new life that I'm not very happy with.  In the nineties and the early part of the first millennial decade, Barbie had a toddler sister named Kelly.  She looked like the doll on the left, only blonde and blue-eyed.  Fast-forward to the current year, and Kelly is gone.  She's morphed into a little girl named Chelsea (right).  Again, there's an obvious age progression here.  Kelly's brunette friend looks like she might be about three or four, whereas Chelsea appears to be six or seven.  Her build is slimmer but shorter than that of Happy Meal Stacie, who looks like she'd be in Chelsea's age group.  Fine, fine, that's all fine by me.  I don't mind the fact that Chelsea has grown up.  But WHY did Mattel change her name???  What's wrong with Kelly???  When I saw these dolls in stores the first time I thought "Who the h**l is Chelsea?  What happened to Kelly?"  Yeah, I know it's just a name change, but darn it, I was so used to calling Barbie's youngest sister Kelly!  I'm having a rough time remembering to call her Chelsea now. 

By the way, if you like irony, catch this.  I thought Kelly's friend on the left was Lemonade Stand Nia.  WRONG!!!  My memory was so screwed up that I remembered a doll that never existed!  There was Lemonade Stand Tamika and Lemonade Stand Maria, but no Nia.  The doll on the left turned out to be an amusement park doll, and her name is...CHELSIE!!!  LOL, there's your irony!!!  Maybe Barbie disowned Kelly, dyed Chelsie's tresses blonde, changed the spelling of her name, and adopted her!  Okay, doubt that, but it really does make me wonder who is in charge of these names at Mattel.  I mean, Chelsie was the name of one of Barbie's Generation Girl friends back during the Millennium.  She was my favorite of the Generation Girls, in fact!  There were some other Chelsie/Chelsea dolls in the mix, but it would take all night to discuss those.

Where was I?  Oh yes, Barbie's sisters.  They sure as heck aren't the dolls my sister and I had!  Not that the new dolls are bad, but they're a far cry from Barbie's old siblings.  I daresay that of the four, Barbie has changed the least in the past twenty years.  Yeah, she got a body swap, but she's still clearly identifiable as Barbie.  When I saw these new, modernized versions of Skipper and Stacie, I had to read their packages to figure out who they were.  And as I mentioned above, I was VERY confused when I ran into Chelsea.  It made me miss the older dolls with their solidly built bodies and big, innocent eyes.  However, it was also a huge relief to see my childhood friends back on shelves.  I can't tell you how long it had been since I'd seen a Stacie doll, and there were whispers during my teenage years of Skipper's retirement.  So it's good to see those whispers silenced, even if these dolls are highly different from my old plastic companions.

As a last little tidbit, I want to address a question that one of our followers presented.  When I went over the Vi and Va dress a couple of weeks ago D7ana asked if the dress would fit any of Barbie's siblings.  I couldn't answer the question then, and I can't right now because I don't have the dress with me at the moment.  However, it's a very good question and I plan on addressing that very soon.  Sooooo...see you very soon!

Yours truly,


  1. Hi RagingMoon1987! Thanks for sharing your update on Barbie's siblings. I think Skipper's age got lowered so that there'd be more of a distinction between her and Barbie now that they've age regressed Barbie. I prefer a teen Skipper; if/when I get the new Skipper-face, I'm going to re-body her.

    As for the Va and Vi fashion question, I'll see it when you get the chance to do the comparison. A la Arnold: I'll be back ;-)

    1. LOL, I completely forgot that they turned back the clock on Barbie! That's a fair assumption that you've made, though, because for awhile Skipper and Barbie did look quite a bit alike. Rebodying would probably be a smart move since the new bodies DO NOT BEND. Not even at the knees! I'll get on with that Vi and Va dress...oh, sometime this week. Probably tomorrow evening.

  2. Thank you for sharing these pictures! It's great to have a good comparison of Barbie's sisters in their various incarnations. Maybe they should grow up baby Krissy a little bit and she could have the old Kelly body. Mrs. Roberts won't mind having another baby, will she?

    It's my understanding that doll manufacturers have to trademark a doll's name, and then only that manufacturer can use it. I know there are people who eagerly watch for when American Girl trademarks a name, and then speculate on what kind of doll it will be. I also remember Never Give Up blogging about some new doll who had to undergo a last-minute name change because it was either Alex or Alexandra, like Madame Alexander's 16" Alex doll. I couldn't find her review, though. Anyway, if Mattel does own the name Chelsea, for example, I imagine the company just cycles through names it already owns instead of coming up with a new trademarked name for every doll.

    1. Trademarking a name would explain why there have been several dolls named Stacie/Stacey and Kelly/Kelley during Barbie's lifetime. And I was wondering whatever became of Krissy! It would be creative to utilize the old Kelly body and maybe an all-new head mold, but that might make older collectors get Krissy and Kelly mixed up. Still would be a cute idea, though. So glad you like the pictures!

  3. I'm so glad to see Skipper again. She was always my favorite of Barbie's siblings. Then Stacie a close second. I never liked Kelly or Krissy that much as a kid, though. I think they were just "too" young for me lol. I just love this new Stacie to death. This is my first time seeing her and I think I'm going to be adding her and Skipper to my wishlist. I even still have my childhood baby Krissy, she is so lonely and needs a diaper! I wonder if they'll ever reuse that name.

    1. Jeez, I'm glad Skipper made a return as well. There were some whispers a few years back that she was going to be shelved completely. I should probably tell you that I tied back my Stacie's hair myself; she usually comes with it down.