Oct 28, 2026
How to Approve a Magnetic Base for a Collectible Figure
Approve magnetic collectible bases using the finished figure, actual contact surfaces, intended display positions and a clear removal sequence.
A magnetic collectible base should be approved with the finished figure, the actual base surface and the intended display positions together. The useful question is whether collectors can position, remove and return the figure as intended while preserving stability and the finish. A magnet specification alone cannot answer that.
Magnetic attachment can make a display feel more flexible: fewer visible locating features and more choice about where a figure stands. That freedom also needs a clear boundary. If a product invites repositioning, the sample review should establish which positions are supported rather than demonstrating one carefully chosen arrangement.
Start with the display experience being promised
Describe what the owner is expected to do. Moving a figure around a flat base is different from attaching a removable decorative panel. Connecting several bases is another function again. Separate those actions before choosing the attachment arrangement.
For a figure base, agree on the usable area, intended orientation and any restrictions created by the pose or projecting accessories. Decide whether positioning is free within a defined zone or limited to particular locations. The product presentation, instructions and physical sample should communicate the same experience.
This is a development decision worth resolving while the sculpt and base can still be adjusted. A promise of flexible display becomes difficult to support if the final figure only works in a narrow position that is never explained to the collector.
Review the complete magnetic interface
Bring the intended figure and base into the same review. Identify the magnet location, the mating material, how each component is retained and what separates the magnetic surfaces. Include the intended finish layers and any protective pads rather than reviewing exposed components that will later be covered.
A magnet attracting an iron plate and two magnets attracting each other are different arrangements. For a magnet pair, orientation needs to be controlled through assembly. For a plate arrangement, identify the actual plate and its construction rather than assuming that any metal-looking insert will behave identically.
The engineering review also needs to establish what locates the figure and what prevents unwanted rotation. A visible connection can appear secure while leaving another movement insufficiently controlled. That possibility should be checked on the sample, not diagnosed from a promotional photograph.
Treat catalogue pull force as a starting point
Magnet supplier K&J Magnetics explains that holding behavior depends on the application, including separation between magnetic surfaces and the direction of loading. Its guidance distinguishes straight pull from sideways loading and recommends trying the actual arrangement.
For a collectible, this means reviewing the finished interface rather than transferring a supplier's nominal force value directly into a stability claim. A coating, recess or protective layer may create separation; a projecting pose changes the assembled arrangement being assessed. The supplier value remains useful for selecting candidates, but it is not a completed product test.
Record the configuration used during review so that a later sample can be compared meaningfully. If the base surface, magnet position or intervening layer changes, identify whether the original observation still applies.
Check the positions a collector will actually choose
Review the agreed display area systematically with the intended accessories fitted. Include positions that the product presentation encourages, rather than selecting only the arrangement that looks best for approval photography.
Observe the assembled figure from several sides. Does it sit as intended? Is there unwanted rocking, rotation or sliding during the agreed handling sequence? Can an accessory or projecting costume element interfere with the base or a neighboring figure? Record the location and action that produces an issue so the development team can reproduce it.
These are proposed review questions, not a universal test method or a claim that a particular product has failed. The project team should agree on appropriate handling conditions and acceptance criteria for its design. A tabletop display feature should not be promoted as permission to lift or invert a collectible by its attachment.
Include removal and the painted contact surfaces
The first successful attachment is only part of the experience. Agree on how the owner should grip and remove the figure, then review that sequence using a representative finished sample. The intended movement should be understandable without requiring the user to pull on a delicate projection.
Inspect the contact surfaces before and after the agreed repositioning sequence. If a mark appears, identify its location and reproduce the action before selecting a correction. Possible changes to geometry, surface separation or finish protection should be reviewed together; changing one can affect the others.
This connects the appearance discussion to the engineering discussion. Our development process places those decisions within the wider path from the initial design to a production-ready sample.
Carry the approved arrangement into production
The release reference should identify the actual mating components, their orientation, retention method, finished contact surfaces and the reviewed display positions. Include clear photographs or drawings that show the functional arrangement, not only the front view of the finished character.
During production preparation, determine which observations can be checked on components and which require the assembled product. Keep changes to the attachment arrangement visible in the revision record. A substituted surface layer or mating insert should not quietly inherit an approval obtained with a different configuration.
Mancheng develops resin, PVC/ABS and mixed-material collectibles. For a proposed magnetic display feature, bring the intended pose, base construction and owner interaction into the project discussion so they can be assessed together.
FAQs
Is a stronger magnet always the right correction?
No. First establish the issue in the actual arrangement. Position, surface separation, mating material, unwanted movement and removal effort all belong in the review. Select and check a correction against the complete product.
Can an unpainted sample establish the final holding behavior?
It can support an early assessment, but the finished contact arrangement still needs review. Record any layers, recesses or protective elements that differ from the early sample.
Should every position on the base be approved?
Define the intended usable area first. Review the positions and interactions that the product promises, then make any restrictions clear in the product presentation and instructions.
External design reference
Kotobukiya's OSHI WORKS product page documents a figure attached to a printed iron base using magnets. View the manufacturer's original photographs and prototype notice there. This is an external industry reference, not a Mancheng manufacturing case or a verified performance test.
