American Girl’s Beforever

14 May

Many rumors are flying around for American Girl, many of them include extreme changes to the American Girl’s historical brand of dolls. Many of them aren’t very positive. Now, I can just conclude that maybe most American Girl fans aren’t comfortable with change. But in the fans’ defense, American Girl doesn’t make change an easy transition, either. Every doll line deals with changes. Heck, every company makes changes. But American Girl isn’t like most doll lines. The reason why fans have a harder time dealing with changes to American Girl is because the “changes” cost so much.

Many people who actually buy and support American Girl dolls have been fans for years. The things that made them love the American Girls are slowly diminishing. And I’m sorry, the kids don’t make up the largest percentage of fans. They are too busy on I-pads, computers, and buying Monster High. And kids don’t have $100 on them like adults do.

I’m included in this bunch of adult American Girl fans. For years, since the retirement of key historical American Girls, I’ve seen the American Girls tumble down in an endless cycle of modern-day emphasis and a lack of quality. Now, there are even more changes being made to the American Girl brand. I already did an article on the Beforever line, but I’ve seen even more about Beforever. This time, I have more to say. I’m going to hit hard here.

 The Introduction of BeForever

I’ve seen the books. American Girl gave some dolls new “Meet” outfits. With the consolidation of the books, that means there will be less clothes and accessories to represent each book. Last, Marie-Grace and Cecile aren’t apparently included in this new and “improved” line. American Girl is also giving the historical dolls a different name: BeForever.

Consolidated books

This time, American Girl is selling three books per character.

I love this idea. I love the fact that, instead of lugging six books around for EACH girl, I would only have to lug three, or in my case, two, because I don’t see the purpose in getting the boxed sets…if I do decide to buy these sets at all.

For those who don’t know, the books aren’t being re-written, according to American Girl. They are just making the text smaller and making alterations to fit the new outfits. They are fitting six books into two. They are trying to make their beginner books “feel” like novels since children today are more “sophisticated”. I mean, look at how many children read Hunger Games? This will basically be like the American Girl Story Collections they had a long time ago…

The only problem with this is that it will intimidate children who are not so comfortable with reading. The smaller books encouraged easy reading to young girls. The Story Collections didn’t make much money (maybe because the original series was also still being sold). Though that was a different generation, there are still children who won’t gravitate to a book that’s too thick.

The first two books come together to form the core series. The third book is meant to be centered around a modern girl who travels back in time and goes through an adventure with the historical character. So, yea, anyone can see that they are trying to make the historical dolls more “appealing” to modern children. Readers get to choose what happens next and decide the ending.

I read the My Journey with Samantha excerpt on Facebook. They are taking a concept they could’ve used for Girl of the Year, and are placing it in Beforever so that it shows how relevant history can be for children today. The third Samantha book seems to focus on divorce. The Girl of the Year line, supposedly American Girl’s modern line of dolls and books, hasn’t even dealt with divorce yet. Really? You’re going to give a good modern story to the third Samantha book? But all they can come up with for Girl of the Year are some ballerinas…

The stories kind of remind me of the Magic Attic Club books. If you’re a ’90s kid, you probably remember those. To children in the 1990’s, they weren’t as detailed, unique, educational, accurate, nor as interesting as American Girl. Ellie, the neighbor who sends the kids in the story to her attic so that they can go on “adventures”, creeped me out as a child. But maybe this generation might appreciate that type of story-telling more than we did.

I like the idea of the new Journey books. They tell me so much about the characters. My only sadness is that Molly and Felicity don’t have books for their time periods. It would be so interesting to see girls travel back to WWII or the Revolutionary War. It would also be interesting for African American girls to see that there is more to Black American history than slavery with a My Journey with Cecile book. And since she shares a story with another American Girl, it would be better. I’m such a dreamer. I recommend these books to American Girl collectors. When reading this, children will recognize how privileged they are to live in modern times. It definitely helps children appreciate history more, and it’s also very entertaining.

My Journey with Samantha Book Excerpt

My biggest, BIGGEST pet peeve with these books: Some of the stories require you to have internet in order to finish reading. I know this is the “Age of Technology”, but believe it or not, every child does not have internet. To add, some children are often reading while traveling. They may not have internet access while traveling. This is also a miss if children want to read this at school. Who’s bright idea was this?

What I also dislike is that this is the end of the six-outfit-per-book tradition. This is also the end for all of those beautiful accessories that brought the stories to life. With just two books, there are only a few items for each character in comparison to what they used to have. Bummer Summer. Many of the outfits look like spring-time outfits. Samantha and Julie are the only ones that have coats. So, there won’t be much variety, so far. I saw this happening on a smaller scale, but now it seems like American Girl is changing that tradition altogether. I’m not totally against it as long as they give us new and BETTER outfits…which so far, doesn’t seem to be happening…More on this later…



After a huge panic, I realized that there is sort of a “Looking Back” section: Inside __’s World. And while it isn’t as detailed, doesn’t have any pictures, and has been condensed to two pages, I think girls can get the point. At least they have something that focuses on the history. I do feel that the original “Looking Back” sections were parts of their books that American Girl’s competitors always tried to imitate. I guess now their competition can move right in on that opportunity. But I’m absolutely fine with a brief two-page segment that, at least, sums the whole thing up. I also like that in Beforever there is a lot of focus on the characters. To me, the books are turning out to be the best improvements to the line.

I am a bit sad that there are no illustrations. I can live without it, because I enjoy using my imagination. I also understand that the illustrations caged American Girl into making only outfits that were “in the pictures” (or otherwise be shamed for “deviating from the pictures”). Some of American Girl’s other books, like the original History Mysteries and the Girls of Many Lands series, didn’t have illustrations.

But those illustrations in the American Girl books helped put pictures to words. It helped children understand what American Girl books were talking about. For instance, the horno in Josefina’s book is unimaginable without a clear explanation. Even a glossary to translate it can’t help a child understand what it is. A picture would make a child even more curious about it and its history. Now, it’s even harder to get the kids to understand what’s going on…

Even though children are reading books as advanced as Hunger Games, children still find it easier to read with visuals. Hunger Games is more appealing to kids than it was before because it has a visual now: A movie. Now, as an educator, I, by all means, believe in challenging children to read age-appropriate material, especially considering the target age. However, I notice that some kids don’t usually read for fun, and even when they do, they find it hard to finish what they start. It is usually much easier for children to pick up a smaller book, especially with illustrations. It encourages “fun” reading, so that it doesn’t feel like “homework” reading. I just wish two versions could be made available: one with pictures, one without. But overall, I’m pretty happy with the changes made to the book series.

 New artwork

I love the new artwork. I love the realistic portrayal. I just wish Marie-Grace, Cecile, Felicity, Molly, and Kirsten were able to enjoy the new art…

Josefina Is Missing a Book?

Don’t panic people. I received an email from American Girl about this. My Journey with Josefina is expected to be released in the FALL of 2015.

Although Josefina doesn’t have a Journey book at this time, we expect to
introduce one for her in the Fall of 2015.

Thank you for being a fan of American Girl!

Best wishes,

Your Friends at American Girl

No Marie-Grace or Cecile or Best Friend dolls?

On , I don’t see any books with the Archived dolls. MG and C JUST came out two years ago and are already being archived. American Girl has announced that they would keep the Archived girls’ books even after the launch of the Beforever line,

archived dollsbut they don’t have the other books open and obvious to find on their shop website anymore. Now you have to flip through 8 pages of the “Historical Fiction” section to find them. I’m just happy that they are still around.

Oh, and, btw, they GOT RID of the website games for all of the old dolls. That means no MG and C games.

A huge load of crap is the fact that there was no notice, no press release, no news of anything regarding these girls. There was inconsistency between what the store workers were saying and what the Facebook workers were saying. Nothing added up. Now, we all find out American Girl just basically LIED when they clearly stated to most fans who inquired about archivals that they weren’t “archiving any dolls this year”. American Girl has been designing these dolls for TWO years (maybe even more than that). It was trademarked long ago. They KNEW that these dolls were not in their plans, and yet waited so late to announce it. It was almost like they “forgot” about them. I’m sensing another 2000-2001 Felicity problem here, if anyone remembers her retirement back then… These girls ended up retiring on the spot, without warning, and fans are upset because they will not be able to collect and gather items before they disappear. They act like people can just pop up with $100 PER DOLL in two months. That’s someone’s rent money.

Maybe they plan on re-releasing the Archived dolls in the future with the new books. That is left to be seen. Samantha was re-released, so that option isn’t completely far-removed. The only positive thing about this whole change is the return of Samantha, and they couldn’t even get that right…

I’m not even concerned about the Best Friend dolls. It’s also as I said before, they are “accessories” to the main girls. It never was fair how some girls got friends, and the others didn’t have one. I was so mad when Julie got a friend before Addy or Kirsten, but I knew their friends’ dolls “wouldn’t sell” like some of the other best friend dolls they released. So, look how fast they disappeared. Just like all of the other outfits and accessories. What is a loss is the disappearance of their only Asian historical. Pathetic. But it was pathetic when they decided to make their only Asian historical a “sidekick” to begin with.

American Girl says they want to “move away” from the “best friend strategy”. I can see why. It stops them from making new historicals, and they stay stuck in one time period. The outfits they could’ve been making for the actual American Girls often got placed on the best friend dolls. Just a waste of space.

The difference between the other “best friends” and the Marie-Grace and Cecile collection, however, is the fact that MG and C represented a whole new event that was never touched on by any of the other American Girl historical characters. Now we don’t have anyone representing that event. Even with Ruthie and Ivy gone, Kit and Julie will still be around to represent the Great Depression and the 1970’s. We can still hope to see outfits and accessories for their collections. Since Ruthie and Ivy were best friends to two of the main American Girl historical characters, when and if they make new books for the Beforever line, we will get to read new books with Ruthie and Ivy in them. That is not the same case with MG and C. And yet, there was still a lot about the NOLA collection that was left half-done. I still didn’t get my musical stand and notes. Neither did I get my medical kit for MG. Oh, and by the way, now we’re only stuck with ONE black girl.

So, I guess that means Addy’s not being Archived any time soon, huh? I was quite sure Cecile was supposed to be the “pretty, well-dressed” black doll that was going to replace Addy. I was wrong. In this case, I’m glad I was. It’s just sad there isn’t room for two black characters.

Another additional mess is the fact the majority of Caucasian characters are blonde. Samantha will stick out like a thumb on a hand. Maybe that’s what they want, so she will get more attention, but I think we are lacking in the Caucasian variety as well (Perhaps if you don’t consider Rebecca a part of that Caucasian variety, and rather ethnic variety…). There are different hair colors besides blonde in the Caucasian ethnicity. Where are the red heads? Where are the brunettes? We lost three of our lovely bruns (Ruthie, Marie-Grace, Molly), and ALL of our redheads (Felicity, sort of Nellie, and Emily)…

No More Archived Dolls’ GAMES

As mentioned before, the Archived girls’ games are GONE. I know a lot of children who enjoyed playing Felicity’s and Molly’s games even though the girls’ dolls were no longer around.

This really bites my head off.

New “Meet Outfits” and other clothing 

I blame the fans for this one. Fans whined and complained about new outfits for the American Girl historicals so much, American Girl just decided to get rid of the old outfits altogether and replaced them with new, less accurate wardrobes. Way to go, fans. Again, as I always say, fans are always the first to beg for ridiculous things, and then blow a candle out when they realize it’s worse than before. The point is there is no point in fixing what isn’t broken. But fans didn’t see it that way.

So now, Kit, Rebecca, Samantha, Addy, and Julie will be getting new outfits…and some of the clothing items stink. Kit’s birthday outfit hardly seems like Kit. It’s so flouncy, I wonder, again, how much American Girl reads their own literature! Everything is so drenched in pastels, my head is spinning. Sure, everything is frilly and pretty. But not all of it speaks to my historical tastes. This is not to say everything is bad and ugly. Some items are very attractive. But it just feels like the vast majority is…missing something.

Samantha is marketed with a freaking HEADBAND on! It’s almost as if they stuffed a modern girl in a pretty dress from the 1990’s, and labeled it 1904. It’s almost as if they drew inspiration from Disney’s 1950’s version of Alice in Wonderland! And okay, I know bangs were never extremely accurate for a Swedish girl like Kirsten at the time of her release in the 1980’s. Bangs weren’t an extreme trend in the 1800s, though the trend came and went often. I mean, there were bangs, but the convenience of every doll that came out in the 1980s (the era of fringe) having bangs seemed like an attempt to modernize historical dolls rather than focus on historical accuracy at the time.

Am I asking too much to expect an improvement?

Oh well, at least the actual Samantha doll has a bow, even if she does still come with a headband…

Possibly, the girl on the front cover IS a modern girl, since the third book is supposed to center around a modern girl. Perhaps Samantha has go-go boots because she got “tips” on modern fashion from this modern girl. That doesn’t make me happy. I get enough of modern girls with the Girl of the Year. And I’m not a big fan of Girl of the Year story-telling.



Samantha’s Holiday outfit is awkward for me and a far cry from the beautiful cranberry dress she used to have. The plaid fabric makes it look more like a school outfit than a holiday one. But maybe that’s just my taste. I love the boots, though. The shoes are getting better and better every time…


Samantha wasn’t the only doll stuck with a headband. Caroline follows the trend from all the way in the 1800s! And the outfit that matches that headband looks like they borrowed inspiration from Disney’s Elsa from the movie Frozen…Yes, it looks like a DISNEY PRINCESS costume. In person, it looks cheap. I do not recommend this at all. And yet, this is the only new outfit Caroline got. I didn’t think her old birthday outfit was all that great, as I wasn’t fond of the “stickers” on the dress. BUT at least the style was more authentic.


Kit looks like she belongs in the 1950’s instead of the 1930’s. I really miss that bell cap. They “dumbed down” Kit’s wardrobe. It lacks so much detail and authenticity. I expected an improvement, not a down-grade. Kit’s school dress was more realistic than this. Would a Depression-era girl wear matching shoes with her outfit like this? And what about Kit’s androgynous overalls? Oh wait, maybe they don’t appeal to these girls today…It takes the next generation to ruin a perfectly-created line. Kit’s collection, by far, is my least favorite.

They added too many bright colors to this line. I understand that the colorful dresses make it more appealing to little girls (I suppose), but Depression-era kids found it hard enough to keep their clothes clean. Pastels would’ve made life harder. I would understand if they made one colorful dress for Kit. But they went crazy with the fabric colors and designs. I don’t like Kit’s designs or fabrics. It’s just too busy for me. Kit’s collection was once my favorite collection. It is now a collection I hope will have many items retiring.



I’m really going to miss Kit’s feed-sack dress, which brings me to another conclusion. Because they changed the birthday scene on the cover, they changed the text dealing with Kit’s birthday, too. If you are not a fan of the series, this may not bother you. I know most fans only collect dolls anyway. I got into American Girl for the stories, so I’m a stickler about the books. I am in fact more in love with the stories than the dolls. And yes, I know it’s a doll company, and doll companies will change outfits to fit their business, but I don’t have to support something I don’t like, either. Everything has a consequence. If American Girl makes changes that I don’t like, then they have to deal with the loss of my money and support. Simple as that. However a fan becomes a fan varies, and I’m one who appreciates their story-telling. I collect so many other historical dolls, I don’t care so much about American Girl’s dolls alone. American Girl had appealing characters and story-period-accurate clothing,which made them stand out from other historical doll lines. In fact, I’m more about story-character accuracy than even historical accuracy. I absolutely love the individual character personalities. These characters have more depth than any other personalities associated with doll lines. They have distinct interests and hobbies. Most doll lines (and I collect many) have cue-card descriptions to characters, descriptions that usually give typical, superficial diversity (she’s the sporty character, she’s the glam character, she’s the sweet character, she’s the smart character, etc). But now, the things I happened to appreciate about this doll line are a bit screwy.

Just look at the hideous birthday dress Kit’s wearing now. I’m disappointed. My favorite part of Happy Birthday, Kit *SPOILER ALERT* was when Aunt Millie made Kit her mint green dress. Kit had been grouchy from the heat, and from having to wear winter clothes in the spring and summer. Then Aunt Millie surprised Kit with a mint green feed sack dress. The color and style was so cool, that Kit felt cool in the middle of the heat as she put it on. I loved that moment, that connection with Aunt Millie, and it made me love the dress even more. This new birthday dress doesn’t even compare. I hate when companies change the book to go along with future plans. They could’ve at least made the dress a cool color.

This also goes along with all of the other dresses that they’ve changed. Samantha never talked about her dress in Meet Samantha, so that’s an easy change. But what about Addy’s dress? That hardly looks like a simple dress she would’ve gotten from a simple southerner in Meet Addy. Rebecca’s dress is okay, it just really isn’t AS authentic, but it will do. That’s how I feel about most of the outfits. Many are just barely hanging on a historical thread. Some are just out-right modern. Many outfits seem re-used or seem to belong in another time period besides the one it is being marketed to. It’s just…messy. I’m not one of those fans that like cute and frilly, semi-historical, semi-contemporary outfits. Some people like to collect dolls for their cute-ness, and if you’re that type of fan, you may fall in love with Beforever. But as for me, I buy things that are story-accurate and historically-accurate, even if it’s not cute. I prefer a home-museum of hideous but authentic artifacts to just a bunch of pretty semi-historical items, though I like pretty things too…If they represent the characters and history well. I am a fan of that first and foremost, so most of the clothing items turn me off.

This is also what I hated about Felicity’s lavender dress. It was just not as authentic. But at least, they didn’t have to change the text. They had to change the text in Felicity’s books after they changed Elizabeth’s hair from brunette to blonde in Felicity Learns a Lesson, but it didn’t change the nature or emotions of the story…Though I never bought any of the new books with blonde Elizabeth…

brunette elizabeth

And no, the above is not a photoshopped picture…

blonde elizabeth

For those of you who don’t know, Felicity had been retired in 2001. Prior to 2001, Felicity’s best friend Elizabeth’s hair color was brunette and her eyes were brown in the original book illustrations. When Felicity was re-released with her movie in 2005, they decided to change Elizabeth’s hair color to fit more with the movie. They changed the character’s hair for the movie so that she wouldn’t look related to Felicity or wouldn’t be confused with Felicity because many of Felicity’s relatives had dark hair in the film. I still don’t understand how they thought people would confuse red hair with dark hair, but that was their explanation…Yea, I didn’t really like blonde Elizabeth.


Aside from the fact that the text will change, Kit’s new birthday dress is hideous. It’s the ugliest and most disarranged dress I’ve ever seen coming from American Girl. The collar stretches awkwardly to an obvious make-shift bow. If I were Kit, this would be more embarrassing than the rick-rack dress she was always complaining about. The ribbon belt on the lower half of the dress looks like it’s awkwardly holding up a skirt that’s too big to fit on Kit. It looks embarrassingly raggedy. The dress LOOKS like it came from a sack. It looks like it was cut up every-which-way, and thrown together at the last minute. It definitely doesn’t look like a kind and caring Aunt took the time to put a beautiful dress together for, basically, her granddaughter. It looks like she slapped some table cloths together just to shut Kit up…

To add, Kit hates pink. That’s a “no, no” in my book. I am all about character-portrayal accuracy. Thus, this piece is definitely not something I like. I would be so embarrassed to wear a color I despise to my own birthday party. Maybe a Depression-era girl would appreciate just any dress. But wouldn’t it have been better if it was a dress that was in a color she actually liked? Wouldn’t it have been better if it was in a style that was true to Aunt Millie’s talent of making things “beautiful and useful”? It just looks useful…not beautiful.

Kit’s birthday dress isn’t the only dress I’m not feeling. I’m not a fan of polka-dots, so they can have Kit’s reporter dress.


AQ_BKC52_FL_1Julie’s Meet outfit is so plain without all of the fancy accessories. It lacks the detail that the original outfit had. They simplified her outfit with a shirt, jeans, and a sweater vest. Really ordinary. The original “Meet” outfit had embroidery near the neck-line of a tunic-styled top, a little belt on the waistline, and even had pleats. It even came with two tops instead of one. This new outfit looks like a costume. Any kid today can throw this look together, and I think that’s what Mattel is aiming for: girls can draw inspiration from this simple fashion and create their own Halloween look-a-likes. Any girl can find a tank-top with decals on it, jeans with flowers on them, put a sweater vest on, and call themselves a 1970’s girl. Everything about this look screams “costume-ready”, and, yes, Mattel has taken advantage of this.



It takes a little more effort to make a perfect costume that matches the original “Meet” outfit…There are just so many details to consider! It had more of a “historical” and an “authentic” feeling to it.


Most children wore stripes and tunics in the 1970’s, and fashion magazines don’t show children sporting decal-printed tank tops in the 1970’s…

Just go to Google, type in 1970’s tank tops, 1970’s tops, 1970’s fashion, and look at the results…There are no results showing 1970’s decal-printed tank tops…There are hardly any results showing blue-jeans with decals on them…

But there are plenty of stripes and plenty of tunics, so we know it must have been popular and common. Let me make it easier on you. Click the links below.

Google Search

Instead of creating actual time-period costumes, they have designed some “modern-day” outfits that are “inspired” from the historical American Girls’ outfits! That…is even worse than I thought they would do. But at least they didn’t funk up time-period costumes. Apparently, they have been shifting through Polyvore…

I’m assuming that American Girl decided to make the dolls less “historical” and full of pastels so that it would make it easier to make more modern clothing for girls to match. I guess their “market research” showed that little girls don’t like dressing up in historical costumes, and would rather wear clothing that is trendy; clothing that they can wear anywhere without looking weird. These “inspired” outfits are supposed to promote the Beforever line because it’s supposed to show how girls can borrow styles from the past to apply it to modern-day clothing. And that is a lovely idea–in theory. However, if the cost is a less educational approach or a more inaccurate approach to the actual dolls’ wardrobes, that defeats the purpose in promoting Beforever with girl-sized, “history-inspired” modern wardrobes when the doll’s clothing is basically modern itself. This is fundamental proof that American Girl is trying to “modernize” a HISTORICAL line of dolls.

They also tried so desperately to turn Julie into a 1970’s teenager. “Let’s grow her up a few years so she can have trendier clothing”. One of Julie’s outfits come with some platform shoes! What? No child at the age of 9/10 would look like this in the 1970’s! What research do they do? I’m sure over half of those designers at American Girl LIVED during the 1970’s as children. Do they honestly remember wearing PLATFORMS as children? It’s like they got amnesia the moment they began working on Julie’s design! However, the outfit that is marketed with those shoes are to DIE for. I think the outfit is period-accurate and attractive in person.


There’s one more pet peeve I have with Julie’s collection. Julie’s Christmas outfit doesn’t even look like a Christmas outfit, even for a girl who lives in California…And yet, that’s what American Girl calls it. At least it’s cute. Anyone can buy it and pretend it’s for some other occasion. I accidentally told a friend that this was Julie’s birthday outfit. They believed it. When I told my friend what it really was, after looking it up again, my friend said I didn’t even need to explain because it can pass for anything. This won’t go well with “Christmas” playtime. So that just means Julie is without a Christmas wardrobe…The only thing that even slightly screams Xmas are the bow and belt as they are of a velvet fabric.

Julie 1

Julie’s outfits are not where it ends. Most of the new outfits for all of the girls look more like modern-day costumes effortlessly trying to depict the past rather than actual antiques. Some of them are just completely “out-of-season” and don’t match the events they are marketed to represent…

Some outfits just feel recycled and re-used. They basically recycled Cecile’s outfit, dyed it a different color, tweaked it a bit, and threw it on Addy. Talk about a lack of creativity. And if any of you know the story of Meet Addy, you would also remember that *SPOILER*the southern woman in the story gave Addy her “Meet” dress while she was running away from slavery with her Momma to the North. Can you really see a girl running away from slavery in a dress that looks as fancy as Cecile’s dresses? Addy, sitting on a ship for months (*SPOILER*At the end of the first story, the southern woman takes them to a ship heading North), in a dress that possibly a wealthy girl of color would’ve worn? It just doesn’t seem very realistic.

In fact, isn’t that the exact same dress Harriet wore in the Addy: An American Girl Story play? Fellow blogger and American Girl wiki admin, Nethilia, pointed this out. It’s obviously a dress a wealthy girl of Color would’ve worn…


Nethilia’s photo, from and American Girl Outsider blog. A very strong-willed African American woman. 😉

Despite the lack of character-accuracy, which is a must for me to buy, many of you may be pleased to find that the dress is really gorgeous in person.


Screen Shot 2013-12-16 at 7.54.18 PM

I also like Addy’s school outfit. It is the most period-accurate out of all of the outfits. I love that it’s still a blue color, though the pastels are getting to me…But that outfit was done perfectly.

Click to see Addy’s School outfit

But even this isn’t enough to ease my irritation.

To strike the lowest blow, what is with all of this PINK? All of this barfing pink! Samantha, Caroline, Rebecca, Kit! Kit even has some hints of pink in her “Meet” dress! They even changed Kaya’s and Samantha’s background colors to PINK! Didn’t the Girl of the Year JUST come out with PINK?! I mean, aren’t there other colors in the rainbow that people in history bought? All of these pastels are sickening! Attack of the Barbie, anyone? Not that I don’t get enough of it walking down the toy aisle in my nearest Walmart…



AR_BKC54_FL_1   AQ_BKC52_FL_1

AW_BKC60_FL_1   AS_BKC63_FL_1 If this is what’s supposed to sell to these kids, then I’m glad I’m not a kid today. This is pathetic. At least throw in some white.

I was impressed with Josefina’s Meet outfit. I love the color tones in her skirt much more than I liked the old one, and it is period-accurate, but maybe not as practical for a rancho worker and her daily life…It looks more like something a New Mexican girl would wear to a fandango. But since that happened in the first story, I like it. If you see it up close, it looks really nice. The colors are rich and vibrant. I like it.

Click to see Josefina’s outfit

Rebecca’s outfits are rather nice in person. Her Holiday dress is a favorite of mine, but NOT necessarily appropriate for a winter holiday. It fits more of a “spring-time” theme in my opinion.


What really “Grinds My Gears” about Rebecca’s collection is how badly they are trying to “remove” the emphasis on her religion in her collection. They changed “Rebecca’s Hannukah Dress” to “Rebecca’s Holiday Dress” as her title description. When my classroom kids clicked it, they thought it was her Christmas dress…

Overall, we have some outfits that are pretty, but many others that fail at being story accurate, character accurate, historically accurate, age-appropriate (Julie, you’re guilty), or just simply beautiful (Kit, why did they screw you over). The rest are one color, you guessed it: Pink.

American Girl is starting to realize people don’t like many of the fashions, so they have revived their old “Meet” outfits. They are now called “Classic Outfits”. So, they are still available for purchase, if any of you are interested. I know I am.


As I mentioned before, there are not as many new outfits for the books as there used to be in the 1990s. Many of the old accessories have retired. In just TWO MONTHS, some of the items have disappeared. Some items are still around, and some have been re-used from other American Girl collections (Many from the NOLA girls’ collection).

And guess what ya’ll? The quality of some of the new items are horrifying low. One example would be Samantha’s locket. Samantha comes with a locket that DOESN’T open. All of the old lockets could open. And that new thing costs $24! Maybe they are so low on funds that they couldn’t produce high-quality lockets, but it’s so disappointing that American Girl has lost so much value with such high prices. Advice: Keep your old locket. When buying something from this new line, I recommend you see these items in person before you buy them. Or ask questions about everything you desire to purchase before you buy the item or before you decide to replace your old items. Many of the items are not of great quality…

Another problem I have is, again, Rebecca’s religion being “neutralized” to appeal to more “Christmas-celebrating” households in the advertising of Rebecca’s products. They mashed her tea time collection with Sabbath.  Her Sabbath set is now called her “Tea-Time Traditions”. Come on, American Girl. State it as it is. They are a part of her Jewish culture. Don’t try to mold her to feel more comfortable with “Christmas-celebrating” households. Educate children on the diversity of religion in the USA. Please.


Despite the obvious lower quality and inaccurate “period” clothing, American Girl decided to BUMP the price of the dolls up $15! Apparently, in American Girl’s mind, they think they deserve a pat on the back, a job well done, as if we should grace them with 15 more dollars! No they didn’t just screw us over by discontinuing FOUR $100 dolls in TWO MONTHS. No they didn’t just retire MOST of their old accessories in TWO MONTHS, which would usually take months to collect. And now they expect US to buy their $115 dolls? And that is not including the prices of the playsets and accessories, which are at very awkward prices as well.

One of Samantha’s outfits HAS to be bought with a tea set! They made it a “requirement”, which bumps up the price of that outfit. Um, I don’t need another tea set, thus I don’t need that outfit.

American Girl, you’re making me laugh as I start to realize the joke you are. I am NOT fitting $115 in my budget. Considering how people feel about some of these horrendous outfits and your poor unprofessional moves, you would think they would make it easier by lowering the prices. But oh no! You just have to find more reasons to screw people OVER!

And they just gave me more reasons not to support Beforever’s dolls. If I do get a doll, she will be naked and half this price. She and her outfits won’t be coming home at the same time, I’ll tell you that. I feel sorry for anyone who wants to put this kind of money into the line. Good luck pumping this kind of change out. I have plenty of bills to pay that I won’t put on the side for this mess of a doll line.



The new “title” for the historical characters is “Beforever”. Whoever thought that this name was a good idea must have been drunk. Or they wanted to appeal to the “hashtag” generation (I suppose “historical characters” doesn’t go over well on Twitter, Facebook, Vine, Instagram, or whatever other social media). I guess this is supposed to be easier for kids to read and understand more than “historical”. But it cheapens the brand. What’s wrong with children learning about the word “historical”? It is supposed to be an educational line, after all. Apparently, they think this lame, cheesy new title will appeal to children more. It might. But it’s still lame. Let’s replace the value of history by telling them to “beforever”. I hope they don’t keep this title “Forever”. What’s wrong with keeping it simple? They are historical characters, therefore, historical. Period. Apparently with Mattel, fans don’t talk, money does. So this fan’s money will stay in her pockets.

So that’s my spin on the new Beforever line. After reviewing everything I’ve seen and heard, I am just completely torn apart when it comes to the line. Man, it looks like I’ll be saving a LOT of money this year, first with the Girl of the Year and now with this. I am open to some changes. I am considering getting the new consolidated books with the pretty artwork, but without the “Looking Back” section, my old books are more valuable to me than the new ones. I want the My Journey with books. I really would’ve appreciated books focusing on WWII and the American Revolution-two of America’s most important events, but I’m still getting those My Journey with books. I still do like some outfits, but many of them are not amazing enough for me to rush out and buy them. Many outfits would look really nice on some of my dolls, but sadly, many outfits fit well with a modern setting rather than a historical one. And I like only a few of their modern dolls’ outfits, so that doesn’t help a fan like me. Maybe that’s what American Girl wants. Maybe they want girls to see that historical girls didn’t dress much different? Not sure how they want to work that. I am a stickler for story-character-accuracy, perhaps even more than historical accuracy, and that has depleted.

I did get the chance to visit American Girl Place. Everything that I thought was bad was pretty bad, but things that I thought were “meh” turned out better. See everything for yourself. 😦 Too disappointed in Kit. The only thing that caught my attention was the My Journey with Kit book, and that’s sad, because I usually come into the store excited with all of the items. The prices were also scary, too.

Click Me to see what this Beforever line is all about so you can form your own opinion. has them set to be released August 28, 2014.

Read Other articles about American Girl:

American Girl Videos

Samantha is NOT Edwardian

The “Real” American Girl models who brought the dolls to life!

American Girl dolls: Do blondes sell better?

Grace Thomas, the New American Girl + My Qualms with American Girl

Meet Cecile and Marie-Grace!

Meet Caroline!

Kit Kittredge: American Girl’s “bad girl”

Farewell Molly

Black History Month Honors Addy and Cecile

Meet Saige Girl of the Year 2013

American Girl Isabelle 2014

Felicity’s Archival and Part 2

Kirsten’s Archival

McKenna 2012’s American Girl

American Girl and my obsession

American Girl at McDonalds

American’s Girl’s first EVER American BOY?


39 Responses to “American Girl’s Beforever”

  1. generationnext 2014/05/20 at 19:21 #

    Reblogged this on Generation Next.


    • Alex 2014/06/23 at 22:01 #

      You’re completely correct aside from one thing. Julie’s meet outfit looks like actual 1970s teenage clothing. My mother and her siblings wore stuff like that all the time.


      • generationnext 2014/06/23 at 22:11 #

        I never said it’s not accurate, but not as authentic or detailed as the original wardrobe.

        Yea, teen clothing may have been like that, but the first outfit was more like what my mother wore as a child. Even though some people did look similar to the “new Julie”, the stripes and embroidery on Julie’s first outfit with the tunic was more common in Fashion magazines than headbands, sweater-vests, decal t-shirts, and decal patterns on jeans.

        In fashion mags, I absolutely never see decals on the tops. I really don’t see many tank tops…especially on girls.

        Most kids wore lots of stripes. Look at any show in the 1970’s, and it usually shows kids wearing stripes. Fashion watchers show children sporting stripes mostly in the 1970’s.

        Stripes were more common than tank tops with floral decals, and tunics were more common than tank tops. Therefore, it is more authentic, meaning more verified and realistic.

        When I say it looks like a costume, I mean a kid today can throw the look together and call themselves a 1970’s girl. I had shirts like that as a child in the 1990’s. I had pants like that, and I have a sweater vest like that now. It looks designed for “costume-ready” appeal.

        But I appreciate your comment. Every comment helps me improve my writing so that I can be understood clearly.


  2. Yram 2014/08/02 at 18:50 #

    Isn’t Julie a tomboy? Maybe that’s why she is wearing a tank top.


    • generationnext 2014/08/02 at 19:04 #

      Yes, but it’s not very period accurate, even for a tomboy in the 1970’s. Decal-printed tank tops didn’t really even exist in that time. Did you follow my google links? Where do you see DECAL-PRINTED tank tops as even a product? Not even for men. They had tank tops, but not with decal-prints.

      To add, in Julie Tells Her Story and in Happy New Year Julie, she has shown herself to actually be girly and love pretty clothes and is fashionable. She likes getting dressed up and doing dainty things, unlike Felicity and Kit. The only thing tomboyish about Julie is the fact that she plays basketball. Everything else about her is girlish.


      • Maggie 2014/09/26 at 18:20 #

        I’m in my late 40’s. I never wore an outfit like Julie’s new meet outfit. None of my friends did either. We would have thought anyone wearing something like that was poor or trying too hard to be foxy. When I saw it for the first time, just recently, it seemed to me like the type of outfit that modern 8 to 10 year old girls imagine that people wore back then. It is NOT what we actually wore. It’s an imaginary conglomeration of what it seems like girls might have worn. It lets girls focus on flower power and peace signs, which are modern symbols of what life was like back then. It has nothing to do with historical accuracy and everything to do with profit. Her original meet outfit was something I actually wore as a child. This weird new outfit is symbolic of something that an 8 or 10 year old girl /thinks/ she knows about the 70’s.

        As for the new holiday outfit. No one wore pastels like that back then. Pastels were not in the least bit popular, and didn’t regain popularity until the early 80’s. Orange was a popular color, as popular as pink is now. Primary colors were popular–Blue, Yellow & Red. Girl Scout Green was popular as was the combination of red, white and blue. No one would have been caught dead in a pastel outfit like that. Maybe if it were solid sky blue, that would have been the only pastel anyone wore. It’s just pandering to the idea of flower power again. It’s a blatant lie about what we wore back then. Changing history so that it’s more glamorous for a modern tween girl may make Mattel more money in the short run, but in the log run it’s another hit to their integrity and damages their long term reputation. I am so disappointed in what they’ve done to the Pleasant company. I just stand back and watch the train wreck. They are determined to turn AG into another Barbie and will not be satisfied until they have done so. Meanwhile they are killing the goose that laid the golden egg.


      • generationnext 2014/09/27 at 08:42 #

        You said everything on point and in an eloquent fashion.

        Nothing about Julie’s outfit screams 1970’s. It looks like a costume.

        The funny part is, American Girl has decided to re-sell all of the old outfits. I guess they are starting to hear the complaints. lol They are now called “Classic Outfits”. I still find the outfits they are promoting a form of “false” advertising. They are taking the weaknesses of their competitors (other 18″ doll companies who also make generic historical costumes) and implementing them on their own dolls.

        I doubt this will make kids like American Girl more. After awhile, it will die down. They will be back to square one.

        Pastels were very unrealistic for girls like Caroline who worked on farms and in gardens. Darker colors made them easier to keep clean. Some of the other pastels seemed thrown in there. It’s not my favorite launch of the brand.


  3. Angelica 2014/08/09 at 14:48 #

    I have to agree with you on all of this. American girl just isn’t… American Girl anymore. What happened to the American girl I had when I was a kid in the 90’s?


    • generationnext 2014/08/11 at 20:59 #

      Sometimes, change is good. I am all for some of American Girl’s changes, like the consolidated books and the return of Samantha.

      However, the way they went about this “transformation” was not fair (they retired four dolls without considering consumers, they made the books look more challenging without considering children with reading disabilities), nor accurate in it’s delivery (many of the outfits look like modern-day depictions, rather than actual authentic historical wardrobes). Some of the outfits also just look ugly, like Kit’s birthday outfit.

      I’m not fond of “Beforever” as this makes this seem like a cheap Disney Princess brand.

      Thanks for your comment. I also miss my ’90s American Girl, and I’m happy I still have my collection to relive the memories. I’m not making a big deal about it though lol, it just means more money in my pockets this year. 😛


  4. Molly 2014/08/14 at 02:47 #

    I was in love with the American Girl brand as a kid. I loved the history and all the cool historical clothes. I have a huge connection to the 40s in part because of my Molly doll. I was so excited for my little girl to pick out her own historical doll when she gets old enough, but now it looks like by the time she gets there (she’s two now), there’s not going to be anything of quality to pick from. It seems to me the line is getting dumbed down and pinkwashed. Make it pretty and pink because “that’s what girls want.” Forget historical accuracy, that stuff’s for boys – girls just want to look frilly and play dress up because that’s what girls are supposed to do, right? They likely made the meet outfits look modern so they can sell them in girl sizes. Next they’ll start making the dolls skinnier and putting makeup on them. Now that they retired my doll and did this to the historical line, American Girl’s lost another fan.


    • generationnext 2014/08/15 at 19:49 #

      In the 90s, American Girl had costumes for girls and the outfits were still authentic. There are ways to make girl-sized clothing without taking away the authenticity.

      Education is a last priority for companies. They think girls don’t deserve to “think” and only deserve to “dream”. At this rate, American Girl loses respect as a feminist doll line that women and men can respect. Most of the men and women I know respected American Girl out of all the other doll lines because they stuck to education and had quality items that reflected the time period. Fathers and Mothers weren’t ashamed to buy these dolls because they just didn’t give kids a “fantasy” and unrealistic expectations, but real events that affected real people. The clothing taught about the lives of girls from long ago. The clothing itself was history. This…right now…it’s just pathetic.

      These dolls are comparable to the Disney Princess lines if you ask me: modern, fantasy-oriented, and full of frills and PINK. American Girl has lost two fans, and two fans worth of money, too, until they get their acts together.

      Thanks for your comment. I appreciate your input. 😉


      • Sarah 2014/09/11 at 06:02 #

        The new Beforever line is a joke! I can’t believe this is happening. It just makes me so sad. Goodbye American Girl, you’ve lost another fan.

        Great article, you’ve said everything I would have said.


      • generationnext 2014/09/11 at 16:50 #

        There are just too many problems with this line. They need a re-do.

        Thanks for commenting. 🙂


      • Ron 2014/09/28 at 09:26 #

        When they retire a doll, why are they bringing it back?!? Now it’s false advertising and you cannot believe a word they sell, say…


      • generationnext 2014/09/28 at 21:47 #

        Yes. Everything they say is false. Like they told everyone they weren’t archiving dolls this year, and two months before Beforever we get word that four dolls are being retired.

        They are cheats.

        Thanks for commenting.


    • Lauren 2014/12/07 at 07:44 #

      I know Molly and Emily are the cutest couple and they get rid of them. I was so sad my daughter saw her sitters doll Molly and Emily and showed them to me and said she wanted them. So the next day I type Molly and Emily no dolls appear so DISAPPOINTED. Now we are ordering Emily off eBay. THERE OUTFITS DONT EVEN MATCH THE TIME PERIOD. I Rebecca is way off her new “Holiday dress” is nothing close to 1914. Kit is so Modern her cute thirties thing has vanished💨. Now Julie so not Seventies. Her new outfit is cheesy. Her accessories the sun glasses are so cheap. ALSO THEY GOT RID OF ALL THE FRIEND DOLLS! SUPID! I LOVED IVY BRING HER BACK. And be forever is dumb just be plain and simple and use the brains you were born with stick with HISTORICAL.


      • generationnext 2014/12/08 at 08:57 #

        Honestly, the best friend dolls weren’t fair. The other girls didn’t get best friend dolls, and the dolls made it impossible for new times to be considered.

        However, I do think it was a lost since Ivy was the ONLY Asian, and Emily had such an interesting back story. I think they should’ve at least continued making best friends books, even if there were no dolls…

        The new outfits reflect stereotypical versions of the time periods, like Julie’s flower power outfit, which went out in the 1960’s.

        I also hate the fact that children will see some of the Archived dolls and want one for themselves. It’s really not smart to Archive any historicals. I think the My American Girls should be reduced, but that’s my opinion.

        And I agree. Beforever? Just ridiculous.

        Thanks for commenting and sharing your opinion. 🙂


  5. Flo 2014/08/20 at 14:54 #

    I grew up in the 70’s and you are absolutely correct about Julie’s outfits. I don’t remember anyone wearing anything like Julie is wearing in the new and “improved” version, but the original is very accurate. I had a top very similar to that when I was in 6th or 7th grade. Decals did not become a big thing until the late 70’s, and “flower power” type stuff died out in the very early 1970’s as it was a carry over from the Woodstock era of the late 60’s. The first outfit I remember having decals on it was one that I got in 6th grade, that would have been 1976, and it was owls as flowers were not fashionable in any way, shape or form! Stripes, loose/flowing tunics, jeans, granny dresses-those were the in things. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised, they referred to Samantha as Victorian era for years when in fact she would have been growing up in the Edwardian era. I am starting to question some of the research they do.


    • generationnext 2014/08/20 at 16:28 #

      Well, Samantha is “Victorian”. We don’t go by England’s idea of “Victorian” but the era that was most impressed by Victoria, and that was before and a little after her death. American Victorianism is different, and mostly, actually, influenced by France. Samantha lived a Victorian lifestyle, even though Victoria had died, her customs still thrived. We did not have an “Edwardian Period” in America. We lost all social touch with England after Queen Victoria’s death, and began developing a new culture. Just like the Renaissance that happened in Italy was at a different time than the Renaissance in England, though they were inspired from one another. But they have their own events and historical definitions of “era”.

      Just like the 1940s was WWII in AMERICA but the war had been going on much sooner than the 1940s in other parts of the world, and so many countries consider the WWII era as the 1930s…

      But there were many inaccurate details before, like Samantha and Kirsten having bangs.

      Julie’s story takes place in 1975 to 1976, so decals were around, but not that big of a trend like tunics and striped shirts. Everyone I know from the 70s wore clothing like that. This new outfit looks like a costume.

      I recognize that American Girl has never always been on target with accuracy sometimes, but I was hoping for an improvement. Perhaps, I was hoping too much. I certainly didn’t expect a down-grade.

      Thanks for your comment, I appreciate your response.


      • Kelly 2015/01/14 at 20:21 #

        During the Edwardian Era, no fewer than 200 American “Princesses” of wealthy families married men from England. Winston Churchill’s mother was an American. The Prince of Wales loved Americans. There was much more social contact and influence between the UK and the US than the Victorian Era.


      • generationnext 2015/01/14 at 21:12 #

        But as a nation, regardless of winston’s mother’s affiliation with America, our nation was no longer influenced by Europe. Even the English that married into American families were trying to find their own identity as either Americans or British, but the nations were no longer so tightly linked. We had slowly developed our own identity. This is where people get confused about eras. Have you ever heard of the Age of Judges? you probably haven’t. It was an era in Ethiopia during the 1800’s…During that time, America was in the Victorian era. Their era didn’t influence ours. Even though the English era influenced etiquette (which was really all England did for America) other nations influenced American Victorianism. People ate French foods, drank French wines, and even spoke French. That had nothing to do with the Victorian era in England, which was marked by an era of peace. America didn’t experience any peace. American Victorianism was actually a clash between “new wealth” and “old wealth”, and was really nothing like the Victorian era in England. It was a bogus version, that only coined the title but didn’t completely embrace the actual era.

        As a nation, we never were STRONGLY influenced by Edwardian values enough to consider it an Era in America. We had moved into the Progressive Era in America. The Victorian era (which in America, was completely different from the Victorian era in England), was marked by more than English manners. It was actually more French and Asian. The term was coined in America because Americans adopted the rules of etiquette from England and a few English fashion statements. But Victorian American, the Victorian Era in England, and Queen Victoria’s literal rule are three different things. American Victorianism was related loosely, which is why America’s Victorian era did not end officially until 1914.

        Let me take you over to this article that explains why the U.S. never had an Edwardian Period, but conveniently had a Victorian period.

        Let’s look at the Victorian Era:

        Do you see America involved in there? We do. We see Victorian America:

        Do we see the Edwardian Era representing or affiliating with America in ANY way?

        No, we don’t. Anyone can be fascinated with a country at the time, but it doesn’t mean it was the driving focus of the nation’s culture any longer. There were far too many immigrants that had come into the nation who resented English and Colonial rule. America had become a melting pot. After the civil war, Americans had grown weary of the “poshness” of English society and monarchies. America was trying to advance as a nation. Further, WWI disconnected all ties with England and other nations that influenced victorian america, including France, India, and Japan.


      • Emilie 2015/07/14 at 17:56 #

        Hi! This was a great article, however I was a bit confused at times. What did you mean by Elisabeth being brunette, and Samantha and Kirsten’s bangs being historically inaccurate? I’m a newer fan, but I love the dolls all the same and REALLY loved the historical emphasis the company put on the line. Thank you for articulating all the things WRONG with Beforever in one article. 🙂 – A 14 year old Fan


      • generationnext 2015/07/20 at 22:11 #

        I’m sorry. I will clarify. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I will clarify in the article. 🙂

        I was moreso talking about the rumors from other American Girl fans who question the accuracy of American Girl. Many historians don’t quite thing “fringe” bangs were that popular in the 1800s and 1900s and that the bangs on the dolls coincided more with the era they were released in (1980s). Of course, bangs have existed for years. But you would probably hardly see Swedish girls with bangs in the 1850s.


      • generationnext 2015/07/20 at 22:11 #

        Were there any other times you were confused? Please let me know so I can make it more clear for future readers.


      • generationnext 2015/07/20 at 22:16 #

        Also, about Elizabeth….I was assuming fans knew about Elizabeth prior to 2005. Before 2005, Elizabeth’s hair color was brunette like her sister’s. In the original books prior to Felicity’s first retirement in 2001, Elizabeth’s hair and eyes were brown.


  6. Abigail 2015/02/12 at 19:03 #

    Thank you for this post. You have written everything I’ve wanted to say. I’m so disappointed in BeForever and I had such high hopes that they were ACTUALLY going to put some effort back into the historicals. Sigh. Everything is too expensive, low quality, and PINK. Ugh. It all looks garish. I know they say that the historicals don’t sell as well as the moderns, but when I was a kid we had six choices (Felicity, Kirsten, Addy, Samantha, Molly, Josefina) and everyone I knew had one of those six and collected. So… how did they screw it up so badly?! Yes, kids have more ‘technology’ now, but I honestly can’t remember a time when I didn’t use the internet and play video games… so I don’t think kids have changed THAT much. Plus, if they still sold the mainstays–or if they’d put ACTUAL EFFORT into a new doll’s collection (with the old formula of six outfits, accessories, a bed, a table, etc.)–I have many friends that would buy a historical for their children. So would I, if I had any. But with such crappy collections, what’s the point?!


    • generationnext 2015/02/12 at 19:08 #

      They got rid of the old outfits so they wouldn’t have to stick to the standard and so they can come up with new ideas. That’s not a bad thing, if executed correctly. But if you’re going to screw it up, you might as well have kept the old outfits.
      Modern dolls are popular because they are cared for and promoted. I see more commercials for the modern girls than I do for the Beforever dolls. I’ve only seen a commercial for Julie and Samantha! What about the other dolls? It’s sad.

      Thank you for your comment. I really appreciated your insight. 🙂


  7. Rachel 2015/09/09 at 20:03 #

    I SO AGREE I hate the be forever series it is very unrealistic.I miss the historic dolls where there was one for each time period .I had gone downhill ever since they have started changing it. Kits outfits are bland.addys should have been a Cecile outfit.Julies doesn’t fit the Time period.I do prefer joseifinas though.and I really miss the pictures in the books.its way to modern.Julies holiday dress is nice but you are right it doesn’t look like a holiday dress.I loved the best friend,but I agree everyone should have had one.for example, kaya should have had speaking rain.what was wrong with the old ways??j especially miss molly and Emily,felicity and Elizabeth.sent the girl of the year auposed to be modern,not the be forever dolls??STICK WITH THE OLD .Samantha’s holiday dress its HIDEOUS .it really is something anything with kit its really bland .really bland.josefinas is OK ,same with kaya.but good lordy the rest goes down hill.there is nobody to represt very important time periods (one thing I loved-the kids could learn about time periods of american history, not about modern day and the 19000’s!!


    • generationnext 2015/09/09 at 20:25 #

      Yes, yes, yes Rachel. I completely agree that the 20th Century is more emphasized than other centuries. There is way more to history than the 20th Century. I also found Kit’s new collection to be absolutely horrifying. After all this time, I still haven’t gravitated to ONE article of clothing AT ALL. I’m sorry. I just can’t bring myself to love it.

      I really appreciate your opinions as they truly reflect my own actually. Thank you for giving your spin on the new re-vamped line. 🙂



  1. American Girl’s “Special Announcement” Coming Next Week | Generation Next - 2014/05/17

    […] Click Me to read my article on Beforever. […]


  2. American Girl is Retiring Four Dolls At Once! | Generation Next - 2014/05/20

    […] My article on American Girl’s Beforever […]


  3. Bye to Marie-Grace, Cécile, Ivy & Ruthie | Darling Dollies with Cate and Lizzie - 2014/06/24

    […] […]


  4. american girl and beforever (which i keep saying as “beef or ever” in my head) | War with the Forces of Oblivion - 2014/08/27

    […] good overview of the frustrating aspects of this update can be found in this blog post.  The points that I think are most salient are […]

    Liked by 1 person

  5. American Girl’s doll, Samantha Parkington, Is NOT an EDWARDIAN doll | Generation Next - 2014/09/07

    […] Just check out my Beforever article. Click Me. […]


  6. American Girl doll Girl of the Year 2015: Grace Thomas, LEAKED! | Generation Next - 2014/12/19

    […] Overall, though, I can’t come to a complete conclusion until the doll is released. All I can honestly say is that so far, I’m not interested. I’m more interested in getting a Beforever doll to tell you the truth, and I’m not even fond of them, so that’s sad. My Beforever article here —>Beforever. […]


  7. American Girl Doll Leaks and Rumors: Two New Beforever Characters 2015 and 2016? Beforever Cut Down 80%? | Generation Next - 2015/01/07

    […] workers don’t always know all of the facts. To add, there have been inconsistencies between store workers and facebook workers before, though the store workers were right about the retirement of the four best friend dolls in 2014. […]


  8. American Girl Beforever 2017, Nanea Mitchell, Japanese-Hawaiian Girl from the 1940s? | Generation Next - 2016/08/10

    […] fact, they basically put the same dress Cecile had on Addy. It looks like everyone else was bored with them, too. They were archived within three years after […]


  9. American Girl Dolls’ New “Boy World” for the Truly Me Line | Generation Next - 2017/11/29

    […] American Girl, I really haven’t said too many positive things about American Girl lately. My praise of American Girl has declined since the transformation of American Girl’s historical…. And it’s then when I began to see all the little flaws that irked me […]


  10. American Girl’s Samantha Parkington Is NOT an EDWARDIAN doll | Generation Next - 2019/05/27

    […] Just check out my Beforever article. Click Me. […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: