Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[dinofelid]

I literally said that. Sparse fuzz would be similar in size to scales, but the scales get sized up to diner-plates so that they're visible while the fuzz is just omitted.

Sorry, missed that when I responded. But I think sizing up skin texture is a stylistic choice, so there's nothing about it that necessarily implies one "should" scale up fuzz as well, or that oversized fuzz + oversized scales would be more accurate than oversized scales alone. I'd bet if you looked at a nice elephant model covered in wrinkles, like this one from CollectA, you'd see some portions of the skin where the wrinkles are proportionally larger than they should be--to me this kind of thing makes sense stylistically if from a distance you would see the skin but not the hair/fuzz.

[SidB]

I don't doubt she's strange, but, for me, thus why this is an OPINIONS thread, I was really looking to get the figure, but was severely put off after what people said. The same goes for many other figures, like the Schleich Gallimimus and the Papo Concavenator I really loved when they were revealed, but thanks to overwhelming negativity, was put off.

I find this type of post divisive and I fail to see how this sort of talk benefits this community.

This is the reason why, once again, I am talking about this in THIS THREAD and not some other one that is supposed to be beneficial. I don't see how this is hostile at all, just saying there's a good chance the general negativity may have put others off from buying the figure.

I do admit the post seems a bit accusing, however, things did go a little overboard in response to Andrea in my opinion.

Respectfully, I have dove into similar topics far too many times, so I won't go much farther in-depth than this.

Me too, I'll stay away from this thread going forward.  Don't let what anyone says about a figure dissuade you from getting it, I bought Andrea because I want to support efforts to make these types of unconventional figures.  And at the time I didn't have much to say about her one way or another.  But my initial reaction to it has not change one bit, I just felt that PNSO missed the mark on that one.  I do believe a lot of folks on here that talk bad about figures almost by default, they end up buying a lot of them anyways.  I like to read what people have to say either way, I find it entertaining at times but I ultimately decide what to add my collection regardless of how positive or negatively the figure was received by folks here.

To me, it's interesting and indeed enlightening to weigh the recent discussions of the last few days (as well as past dialogues) on this thread over against the wider perceptions of 'Winter Wilson' and Andrea. Reading the immediate criticisms, the newcomer would likely dismiss the notion of acquiring either of these figures.
But expanding the circle of awareness changes this perception, IMO. I just finished looking at the recent DTB ratings of these two. Both, with 30ish fresh votes under the new voting regimen, are sitting at 4.9/5.0 stars. Despite the arguable areas for future improvement, it's apparent that there is a worthwhile sense of approval of the quality of Wilson and Andrea. It's good to move one's glance from the trees to the forest periodically.
 I'm always amazed at how some folk are really put off by a few negative comments (though these can have real merit) and jettison their expensive purchases because of an unjustified disillusionment (obviously I'm not referring here to collectors of one of each taxon). A certain tolerance of imperfection goes a long way in enjoying the hobby and continuing to do so as the months and years go by. It's a secret to taking pleasure not only with collectibles, but, more importantly, people too.

[Leyster]

@stargatedalek we're talking about a paleoartist, which I'd say pretty much requires knowledge on comparative anatomy. And since he won a Lanzendorf, I'd say the jury recognized this, too, no?

@CARN0TAURUS had you simply wrote you don't like a figure, I wouldn't have commented further, but since you provider a list of things explaining why the figure was NOT "not your cup of tea" (opinions, and I respect your if you think so) but scientifically wrong (which is not an opinion), I felt compelled to answer, and I continue to do so if I see somebody saying the anatomy of a figure is wrong when it is not, and vice versa.

L @Leyster

Understood, and I stand corrected on Wilson's feet.  If you say the science proved that they are accurately sized then that's good enough for me.  Why would anyone lie about something like that?  I guess the photos I've seen aren't good angles or something because the feet looked really really big to me.  Did T-rex have bigger feet in proportion to other theropods?  That would make some sense since I've read that they tended to be on the robust and heavy side of things.

Where do you stand on Wilson's scales and his upper teeth?

Sorry for the late answer, busy days. Apparently, yes, Tyrannosaurus has proportionally sightly bigger feet than other large theropods like Acrocanthosaurus.
About the scales, well, I would have preferred them to be smoother like Andrea's, but I appreciate the intention of showing the real shape of Tyrannosaurus scales, they aren't just the grain-like scales other figures (like their Qianzhousaurus) have. So basically you have a 1:32 Tyrannosaurus with 1:1 Tyrannosaurus scales.

[CARN0TAURUS]

@stargatedalek we're talking about a paleoartist, which I'd say pretty much requires knowledge on comparative anatomy. And since he won a Lanzendorf, I'd say the jury recognized this, too, no?

@CARN0TAURUS had you simply wrote you don't like a figure, I wouldn't have commented further, but since you provider a list of things explaining why the figure was NOT "not your cup of tea" (opinions, and I respect your if you think so) but scientifically wrong (which is not an opinion), I felt compelled to answer, and I continue to do so if I see somebody saying the anatomy of a figure is wrong when it is not, and vice versa.

L @Leyster

Understood, and I stand corrected on Wilson's feet.  If you say the science proved that they are accurately sized then that's good enough for me.  Why would anyone lie about something like that?  I guess the photos I've seen aren't good angles or something because the feet looked really really big to me.  Did T-rex have bigger feet in proportion to other theropods?  That would make some sense since I've read that they tended to be on the robust and heavy side of things.

Where do you stand on Wilson's scales and his upper teeth?

So basically you have a 1:32 Tyrannosaurus with 1:1 Tyrannosaurus scales.

LOL!

[CARN0TAURUS]

I don't doubt she's strange, but, for me, thus why this is an OPINIONS thread, I was really looking to get the figure, but was severely put off after what people said. The same goes for many other figures, like the Schleich Gallimimus and the Papo Concavenator I really loved when they were revealed, but thanks to overwhelming negativity, was put off.

I find this type of post divisive and I fail to see how this sort of talk benefits this community.

This is the reason why, once again, I am talking about this in THIS THREAD and not some other one that is supposed to be beneficial. I don't see how this is hostile at all, just saying there's a good chance the general negativity may have put others off from buying the figure.

I do admit the post seems a bit accusing, however, things did go a little overboard in response to Andrea in my opinion.

Respectfully, I have dove into similar topics far too many times, so I won't go much farther in-depth than this.

Me too, I'll stay away from this thread going forward.  Don't let what anyone says about a figure dissuade you from getting it, I bought Andrea because I want to support efforts to make these types of unconventional figures.  And at the time I didn't have much to say about her one way or another.  But my initial reaction to it has not change one bit, I just felt that PNSO missed the mark on that one.  I do believe a lot of folks on here that talk bad about figures almost by default, they end up buying a lot of them anyways.  I like to read what people have to say either way, I find it entertaining at times but I ultimately decide what to add my collection regardless of how positive or negatively the figure was received by folks here.

To me, it's interesting and indeed enlightening to weigh the recent discussions of the last few days (as well as past dialogues) on this thread over against the wider perceptions of 'Winter Wilson' and Andrea. Reading the immediate criticisms, the newcomer would likely dismiss the notion of acquiring either of these figures.
But expanding the circle of awareness changes this perception, IMO. I just finished looking at the recent DTB ratings of these two. Both, with 30ish fresh votes under the new voting regimen, are sitting at 4.9/5.0 stars. Despite the arguable areas for future improvement, it's apparent that there is a worthwhile sense of approval of the quality of Wilson and Andrea. It's good to move one's glance from the trees to the forest periodically.
 I'm always amazed at how some folk are really put off by a few negative comments (though these can have real merit) and jettison their expensive purchases because of an unjustified disillusionment (obviously I'm not referring here to collectors of one of each taxon). A certain tolerance of imperfection goes a long way in enjoying the hobby and continuing to do so as the months and years go by. It's a secret to taking pleasure not only with collectibles, but, more importantly, people too.

It's undeniable that winter wilson has a lot of quality.  And if you bought him and someone else slams it you should still be happy with the choice YOU made, regardless of what others think.  Even from photos I can tell that a lot of work and effort went into making Wilson the best figure that PNSO could make at that time.  I also like the colors on Wilson and the paintwork looks very nice from photos.  I've just recently learned that the feet are proportional and accurate but I'm still not a fan of his pose, the teeth, or the scales. 

I'm not one of these guys that criticizes every figure just for the sake of criticizing.  Perhaps some folks that carry on that way are either upset they can't afford many of these figures or are the type of people that are happiest knee deep in a bucket of blood.  I don't need to draw that type of attention to myself, I'm happy with my life

Plus, I'D be a hypocrite if I came on here and criticized figures and then turned around purchased them anyways.  Mostly I prefer taking time to look at a figure in reviews from guys like Andy, dino screams, and dinodragons...  there are a few others I watch too but some haven't been posting as much as they used too.  Once I see more in hand images and videos of the figures at that point I feel okay saying something or perhaps reserve judgment until I have it in hand myself.  90% of my input here has been on the positive side.  I regularly find myself pointing out the positives when folks seem to all jump on the negative train.

That approach has kept me from slamming figures only to change my mind about them later and then having posts on here that I regret posting.  But I'm still learning how to post as fairly as possible about these things just as much as I'm still learning about the dinosaurs themselves, AND I'm still learning how to best determine which figures to spend my money on.  If the way I expressed myself about Winter Wilson offended someone for that I apologize. 

[stargatedalek]

I literally said that. Sparse fuzz would be similar in size to scales, but the scales get sized up to diner-plates so that they're visible while the fuzz is just omitted.

Sorry, missed that when I responded. But I think sizing up skin texture is a stylistic choice, so there's nothing about it that necessarily implies one "should" scale up fuzz as well, or that oversized fuzz + oversized scales would be more accurate than oversized scales alone. I'd bet if you looked at a nice elephant model covered in wrinkles, like this one from CollectA, you'd see some portions of the skin where the wrinkles are proportionally larger than they should be--to me this kind of thing makes sense stylistically if from a distance you would see the skin but not the hair/fuzz.

Not equivalent though. From a distance you'd also probably see what look like rolls of skin on the rex, and definitely wouldn't be able to pick out individual scales. Tyrannosaurus scales are less than a centimetre across, a rex is going to look as soft and smooth skinned as a leopard gecko right up until you lean your face on it.

[dinofelid]

Not equivalent though. From a distance you'd also probably see what look like rolls of skin on the rex, and definitely wouldn't be able to pick out individual scales. Tyrannosaurus scales are less than a centimetre across, a rex is going to look as soft and smooth skinned as a leopard gecko right up until you lean your face on it.

The elephant/t-rex models aren't equivalent in terms of the degree to which they're magnifying a skin texture, but equivalent in that they're taking a skin texture that is visible in the real animal at some intermediate distance and blowing it up to be visible on the model. And 1 cm scales could be seen at a decent distance, this page mentions that a person with 20/20 vision can read 1 cm letters at a distance of 10 meters (33 feet), and the letters would probably be visible as distinct blobs up to a significantly further distance even if the person could no longer read which letters they were.

[Newt]

This conversation is making think back to my childhood days, when my Imperials were the "good" dino toys. Any offering from any of the major brands around today would have blown my little mind. I'm not suggesting people shouldn't nitpick, just that we should also remember how spoiled we are these days.

[Duna]

This conversation is making think back to my childhood days, when my Imperials were the "good" dino toys. Any offering from any of the major brands around today would have blown my little mind. I'm not suggesting people shouldn't nitpick, just that we should also remember how spoiled we are these days.

Yeah, but that's the same with everything: cars, mobile phones, cameras, videogames, computers ... So in today's world, it's perfectly normal. By the way, I collect vintage figures because they remind me of that days.

[Sim]

I was looking at video reviews of PNSO's most recent Wilson, and I came close to wanting to get it, the teeth didn't seem too bad compared to Scott Hartman's skeletal of the Tyrannosaurus specimen this Wilson was based on.  But what stopped me from wanting it is the uneven jaw line of the upper jaw of Wilson.  I can see the sculptor based it on crocodilians, but Tyrannosaurus's jaw doesn't have such uneveness.   I'm surprised making a good, featherless Tyrannosaurus seems difficult for companies.  Safari and CollectA's recent Tyrannosaurus are feathered and look unrealistic, REBOR's recent Tyrannosaurus look evil, Haolonggood's looks crude, PNSO's recent Wilson has a crocodile mouth...  Is the most accurate Tyrannosaurus currently available... Andrea?!?  Eofauna's Tyrannosaurus looks to be the best, perhaps tied with Andrea, once it's released.  But I don't like the feathering and mouth on Eofauna's so I have to continue waiting for a Tyrannosaurus that satisfies me...

[Faelrin]

@Sim There's also the 1/35 BotM, but I can understand if the cost and articulation is off putting.

[Sim]

Thanks for reminding me of that one, @Faelrin!  I had forgotten about it.  What makes me hesitate to get that one is the tail articulation, it just looks to me like the tail is clearly broken into pieces.  I'm not sure I can get past that.

[Sim]

On the train of thoughts of Tyrannosaurus figures, it struck me that it might be good to make a new version of the top 10 Tyrannosaurus figures poll.  I would be interested to see the results of such a poll.  We just need @DinoToyForum to get round to making Youtube videos for polls again...

[SidB]

On the train of thoughts of Tyrannosaurus figures, it struck me that it might be good to make a new version of the top 10 Tyrannosaurus figures poll.  I would be interested to see the results of such a poll.  We just need @DinoToyForum to get round to making Youtube videos for polls again...

Wasn't there an offer or two to help out?

[Sim]

Yes, I'm going to go to the relevant thread now.

[Avian]

Not to interrupt the ongoing debates but I wanted to hear other's opinions on this. Certain Safari paintjobs have just not cut it for me recently. Most of the time, the general idea is good and so is the execution. However, such as with the 2022 Albertosaurus, it feels like a poor attempt at a BOTM coloration. Im aware of the price difference, and obviously Safari shouldnt be held to the same standards as BoTM in this case. But it really seemed like Safari stepped out of their lane on that figure and it personally did not appeal to me. I say this as someone who absolutely loves the Safari brand and their sculpts, and whose collection is mostly Safari. Has anyone else thought the same thing? Apologies if this has been voiced already and I missed it.

[Jose S.M.]

I have to admit that the coloration of the Albertosaurus is not really my cup of tea but I don't see it as trying to mimic BOTM style.

[Lynx]

Not to interrupt the ongoing debates but I wanted to hear other's opinions on this. Certain Safari paintjobs have just not cut it for me recently. Most of the time, the general idea is good and so is the execution. However, such as with the 2022 Albertosaurus, it feels like a poor attempt at a BOTM coloration. Im aware of the price difference, and obviously Safari shouldnt be held to the same standards as BoTM in this case. But it really seemed like Safari stepped out of their lane on that figure and it personally did not appeal to me. I say this as someone who absolutely loves the Safari brand and their sculpts, and whose collection is mostly Safari. Has anyone else thought the same thing? Apologies if this has been voiced already and I missed it.

I don't really get how a company can 'copy' a coloring style unless it's something super specific. Just because a color scheme is vivid or 'out there' doesn't make it BOTM style. Again, I don't get how a company can make a "poor attempt" at a coloring style.

I completely understand disliking it, but I don't see how it resembles BOTM at all.

[Avian]

Not to interrupt the ongoing debates but I wanted to hear other's opinions on this. Certain Safari paintjobs have just not cut it for me recently. Most of the time, the general idea is good and so is the execution. However, such as with the 2022 Albertosaurus, it feels like a poor attempt at a BOTM coloration. Im aware of the price difference, and obviously Safari shouldnt be held to the same standards as BoTM in this case. But it really seemed like Safari stepped out of their lane on that figure and it personally did not appeal to me. I say this as someone who absolutely loves the Safari brand and their sculpts, and whose collection is mostly Safari. Has anyone else thought the same thing? Apologies if this has been voiced already and I missed it.

I don't really get how a company can 'copy' a coloring style unless it's something super specific. Just because a color scheme is vivid or 'out there' doesn't make it BOTM style. Again, I don't get how a company can make a "poor attempt" at a COLORING style.

I did not mean "copy" per se, but rather that Safari has a pretty consistent track record with conservative and relatively plausible colorations and that the Albertosaurus was a strong break from this trend (and is much more similar to BOTM colorations than their past models have been). I did however, mean to suggest that BOTM may have acted as a trend-setter here, and influenced Safari's paintjob.

[Lynx]

I wouldn't call it less plausible, but I see your point. I do believe companies are getting more confident, mainly with Safari LTD, and expanding from the "safe" options for colors and expanding into more vivid territory. (etc. the cryolophosaurus and albertosaurus). I see the style is the same, but the company is progressing.