CollectA: New for 2023

[austrosaurus]

I can almost guarantee that the Koolasuchus "leak" is false. As for the currently revealed lineup, the Triceratops is a bit samey but if they're retiring the one that's been around since 2006 that's a net positive. I would have preferred a Suchomimus  to Ceratosuchops but CollectA loves their new discoveries and it's a really neat little model so that's fine. The neck on the Hadrosaurus looks a little short to me but otherwise it's lovely and the one I'm most excited about. Can't wait to see what the rest of next year's lineup looks like!

[suspsy]

Honestly, of all the names in these purported leaks, Koolasuchus is one of the two most appealing to me. We've never had a prehistoric amphibian from CollectA, Safari, Schleich, or any of the other popular countries. But as I said before, there's really no point in speculating until the next batch of reveals either confirms or debunks the rumour.

[GojiraGuy1954]

I can almost guarantee that the Koolasuchus "leak" is false.

How, exactly

[Mattyonyx]

In the past these leaks have come from Greek retailers, although I don't know where Paleo-Nerd got them this time. I think in the quest for Internet clout, Paleo-Nerd sometimes jumps the gun, but previous CollectA product list leaks have been accurate to my recollection.

Anyway, I like the Hadrosaurus. That will replace my DeAgostini one. I'll probably end up getting the Ceratosuchops eventually, but I am pretty bored of spinosaurs.

I'm sorry for jumping in. But I think you're mistaking Paleo-Nerd for Paleofiguras. We don't share many leaks, and when we do we quote the sources.

[Flaffy]

The neck on the Hadrosaurus looks a little short to me but otherwise it's lovely and the one I'm most excited about. Can't wait to see what the rest of next year's lineup looks like!

The neck is fine. Nuchal ligaments exist.

[Flaffy]

I'd like to add that I've seen a surprising amount of negative opinions for CollectA's two newer Baryonyx and I can't work out why.  They are excellent, definitely among the best Baryonyx figures and better than this new Ceratosuchops... and the new Safari Baryonyx.  Although these last two figures are better in not having a base, in my opinion.

I don't like it primarily because it's basically a direct copy of Dan Folkes's old 2017 Baryonyx skeletal, which has very weird anatomy. And secondarily, I am not convinced by the integument, especially the rows of spikes. I certainly wouldn't consider it an excellent Baryonyx figure, but definitely far from the worst.

Attached below is the 2019 CollectA Baryonyx, Folke's 2017 skeletal and updated 2019 skeletal respectively.

Issues:
- Highly compressed torso
- Unlikely neural spine arrangement, height and shape
- Various other minor proportional and anatomical issues, but the first two are the most obvious

[Flaffy]

Notice how Ceratosuchops has teeth in the premaxilla that emerge backwards while on the CollectA figure they come straight down from the socket.  Also notice how the teeth of Ceratosuchops's premaxilla vary greatly in size while on the CollectA figure they are the same size.  If lips were covering the hook part of the jaw you'd see a gap in the tooth row due to the small size of the fourth, fifth and sixth tooth which would be hidden under the lip.

I also doubt the curve of the upper jaw would be hidden under lip while the curve of the lower jaw isn't since in spinosaurids the jaws come together to create a "fish trap".

It's disappointing as I would've bought an accurate Ceratosuchops as I love baryonichines, but this one doesn't look like any spinosaurid I've seen.

I agree the dentition was certainly executed better and more defined on the Baryonyx. But the promo pics are rather blurry and I can't inspect the premaxilla on the figure in great detail. Will wait for better close-ups before judging.

I feel that the sculptor was trying to replicate this smoothened look in regards to the notch. It's been an increasingly common trend to have soft tissue "cover" most of the notch, so I commend the effort in CollectA's Ceratosuchops. Would've preferred if the soft tissue covered more of the teeth though, and I don't imagine the sloppy bleeding teeth paint doing it any favours.

I'm still happy to acquire this figure as it has far superior post-cranial anatomy when compared to the Baryonyx. (assuming Ceratosuchops follows Baryonyx's body plan)
The crest and postorbital keratin extensions are a nice touch and reflect the fossil material well.



Dan Folkes 2021 Ripravenator, which I suspect CollectA used to sculpt their Ceratosuchops.

[Mattyonyx]

I'd like to add that I've seen a surprising amount of negative opinions for CollectA's two newer Baryonyx and I can't work out why.  They are excellent, definitely among the best Baryonyx figures and better than this new Ceratosuchops... and the new Safari Baryonyx.  Although these last two figures are better in not having a base, in my opinion.

I don't like it primarily because it's basically a direct copy of Dan Folkes's old 2017 Baryonyx skeletal, which has very weird anatomy. And secondarily, I am not convinced by the integument, especially the rows of spikes. I certainly wouldn't consider it an excellent Baryonyx figure, but definitely far from the worst.

Attached below is the 2019 CollectA Baryonyx, Folke's 2017 skeletal and updated 2019 skeletal respectively.

Issues:
- Highly compressed torso
- Unlikely neural spine arrangement, height and shape
- Various other minor proportional and anatomical issues, but the first two are the most obvious

It's understandable: CollectA presumably started working on the sculpt around 2017/2018, so Folke's 2017 skeletal was the main reference. I personally love the standard version, even though I think the "perfect" Baryonyx figure has yet to come: it's a peculiar interpretation of my favorite dinosaur, based on the work of a renowned skeletal artist, and the head of the standard version, without the articulation, is to me a little gem.

Speaking of the head, I understand why some people seem to have concerns about the rostrum on Ceratosuchops: judging by the first images, there's no fish trap, the teeth look too uniform, and I feel like the articulation won't be so effective. That said, it doesn't ruin the overall appearance, and maybe this view from another angle will help.

[Pliosaurking]

Just saw these and wow!
The Hadrosaurus is a must have and looks great!
The ceratosuchops is my most anticipated, as I'm a sucker for Spinosaurs and this is one I'll definitely be getting!
The triceratops looks good, but I still haven't picked up the deluxe one, might wait and see on this one.

[Halichoeres]

In the past these leaks have come from Greek retailers, although I don't know where Paleo-Nerd got them this time. I think in the quest for Internet clout, Paleo-Nerd sometimes jumps the gun, but previous CollectA product list leaks have been accurate to my recollection.

Anyway, I like the Hadrosaurus. That will replace my DeAgostini one. I'll probably end up getting the Ceratosuchops eventually, but I am pretty bored of spinosaurs.

I'm sorry for jumping in. But I think you're mistaking Paleo-Nerd for Paleofiguras. We don't share many leaks, and when we do we quote the sources.

You're right, I apologize. I know the difference of course, I just had a brain fart. I've corrected the post.

[Concavenator]

I'm most looking forward to the ones that are yet to be revealed (if that comes to happen). Mosasaurus, Stegouros, Koolasuchus, Anomalocaris and maybe Shastasaurus (I've done some quick research and apparently the only species with proper remains is S.liangae... @dinotoyforum do you know more about this?). But nothing that interests me out of today's batch...

The Ceratosuchops is too fragmentary for me to consider. It's essentially a Suchomimus figure with a different name. And the colour scheme is copy pasted from their 2021 Megalosaurus (did nobody notice this?). On such a fragmentary creature, there really is little to complaint about accuracy, but the thing that strikes me the most is the lack of the subnarial gap typically present in spinosaurids. Overall it's okay, just not what I'm looking for. Depressing to see fragmentary spinosaurids like this getting made recently whereas the most completely known one (Suchomimus) gets ignored again and again.

The Hadrosaurus looks very nice, but again, too fragmentary for me to consider. Still relevant for historical reasons, but there are plenty of other hadrosaurids known from good material that either lack good figures (like Maiasaura) or lack any figures at all (like the amazingly preserved Brachylophosaurus). Myself, the only creature that's really fragmentary currently in my collection is Megalosaurus (the CollectA one) and I only have it because it's literally the first dinosaur to be scientifically described. If it didn't have such a status, I certainly wouldn't have picked up a figure of it.

And I'm simply not interested in the Triceratops, I already have Eofauna's and that's all I need.

While a bit fragmentary as shown above, the existence of other Spinosaurids like it allows it to be decently known. Of course, later finds of Ceratosuchops may be vastly different than what we think, but at the moment this figure is a good representation of the genus.

Just a bit fragmentary? Lol. You've already seen what we have of it as @Flaffy shared. We, for a fact, don't know how Ceratosuchops exactly looked. It is recovered as a baryonichine so we believe it may have been similar to other baryonichines (which is the same as saying that we believe it to have been similar to Suchomimus or Baryonyx, since the other baryonichines, and really the other spinosaurids, are too fragmentary to have a clear vision of what they looked like). Sure, the figure looks like a good guess overall, but pretty much all figures of fragmentary taxa are good guesses, as long as they're based on whichever taxa are believed to have been most related to them.

@Sim surprised to see you mention you would be interested in a figure of such a fragmentary creature, we can only speculate about how it looked like.

[GojiraGuy1954]

Just remembered reveals are weekly and not daily 

[suspsy]

Huh? The CollectA Megalosaurus is dull brown with dark brown markings while that Ceratosuchops is clearly grey with either black or dark grey markings, plus red on its head and throat. There is zero copy pasting going on there.

[Faelrin]

@suspsy The stripes and spots are similar, but otherwise I would be inclined to agree.

[Lynx]

I don't think I'm going to be reading all that but yeah, compared to certain species, it can be considered a "bit fragmentary" in that case. That aside, yeah, it definitely could just be a stand-in suchomimus, but a large amount of spinosaurids are quite similar, so you can say that for a lot of species.

I completely disagree with the color scheme being "copy pasted". Besides there being stripes and spots, there's nothing actually similar about it. With this reasoning, I could say the Safari LTD Velociraptor is a copy paste of the coelophysis just coloring is mildly similar.

Is it exaggeration? Yes, heavily, but it sure does feel that way.

I apologize if this comes off as overly aggressive but the statement of the colors being copy pasted is so bewildering to me.

[GojiraGuy1954]

@suspsy The stripes and spots are similar, but otherwise I would be inclined to agree.

Cerato has much better paint

[dinofelid]

I don't think I'm going to be reading all that but yeah, compared to certain species, it can be considered a "bit fragmentary" in that case.

Are you using "a bit fragmentary" to mean a significantly lesser degree than other species which are "more than a bit" fragmentary? I don't think dinosaur species get much more fragmentary than this, according to this image the parts of the skull in white are all that we have of this animal:

[Lynx]

I don't think I'm going to be reading all that but yeah, compared to certain species, it can be considered a "bit fragmentary" in that case.

Are you using "a bit fragmentary" to mean a significantly lesser degree than other species which are "more than a bit" fragmentary? I don't think dinosaur species get much more fragmentary than this, according to this image the parts of the skull in white are all that we have of this animal:

I think some parts of the tail were discovered, but if not, well, yeah, that's very fragmentary

[Concavenator]

Looking at the pictures again, I stand by what I said. They both have stripes on the dorsal part, spots on the sides and grey as the base colour, only differences are the Megalosaurus has a warmer light grey whereas the Ceratosuchops has a cooler, darker grey and the latter only has spots on the neck.

a large amount of spinosaurids are quite similar, so you can say that for a lot of species.

The only spinosaurids we have adequate remains of are Suchomimus and Baryonyx. There's a lot of uncertainty surrounding Spinosaurus itself. And the rest are quite fragmentary. So we can't say they're similar to each other because we don't know.

[suspsy]

Looking at the pictures again, I stand by what I said. They both have stripes on the dorsal part, spots on the sides and grey as the base colour, only differences are the Megalosaurus has a warmer light grey whereas the Ceratosuchops has a cooler, darker grey and the latter only has spots on the neck.

Again, the Megalosaurus is not coloured grey. It is coloured brown. I should know because I actually own the toy and I reviewed it for the blog. Do you happen to own one?

http://dinotoyblog.com/2022/06/15/megalosaurus-2021collecta/

And really, are you going to try and claim that every single dinosaur figure with stripes and spots is guilty of "copy pasting"? Give me a break.