Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[Concavenator]

I prefer 1:40 for sauropods over 1:35. At 1:40 they're plenty big already.

[jc_4130]

I dismissed 1/35 vs 1/40 scale... until I did the math.  The visual impact, to me at least, is significant.  I love Eofauna but I don't think they quite drive home how big a "medium" sauropod could be compared to a big proboscidian.

[Stegotyranno420]

I actually used to be a 1:40 person. But due to how size can fluctuate between adult specimens(which is especially true in reptiles, like dinosaurs) I just catergorized all my 1:35 dinosaurs as "trophy specimen" 1:40s. In my observation, it is usually not too different.

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

Given that the main museum lines were marketed as 1:40 (Carnegie and Battat in particular), I'll always consider 1:40 to be the standard scale for dinosaur toys. Though many of their models listed as 1:40 were closer to 1:35 and sometimes larger. But once again, I'm not particular about scale in my collection so it doesn't really matter too much to me for the most part.

[Stegotyranno420]

It is also somewhat convenient that 1 inch is equal to 1 meter in 1:40 scale. Since I like to use meters but live in America, it is a win win.

[Halichoeres]

Given that the main museum lines were marketed as 1:40 (Carnegie and Battat in particular), I'll always consider 1:40 to be the standard scale for dinosaur toys. Though many of their models listed as 1:40 were closer to 1:35 and sometimes larger. But once again, I'm not particular about scale in my collection so it doesn't really matter too much to me for the most part.

Yeah, I like 1:40 best for large animals. I generally keep my true 1:35s (most stated 1:35s are closer to 1:30) with my 1:40s, which I wouldn't do if these were trains or something like that. But extinct animals are more variable than we'll ever know, so I can rationalize that level of mixing.

[TheImmortalEye]

Given that the main museum lines were marketed as 1:40 (Carnegie and Battat in particular), I'll always consider 1:40 to be the standard scale for dinosaur toys. Though many of their models listed as 1:40 were closer to 1:35 and sometimes larger. But once again, I'm not particular about scale in my collection so it doesn't really matter too much to me for the most part.

Yeah, I like 1:40 best for large animals. I generally keep my true 1:35s (most stated 1:35s are closer to 1:30) with my 1:40s, which I wouldn't do if these were trains or something like that. But extinct animals are more variable than we'll ever know, so I can rationalize that level of mixing.

also many are so fragmentary size estimates are never fully accurate-
example charcharodontosaur can be betweem 10.9 or up to 13m , making both pnsos (31cm) and Gr toys (36cm) a 1 :35. and this is not accounting for individual variation which can be a lot.

[JimoAi]

not a controversial take but I only collect Maastrichtian dinosaurs in the 1:32 scale right now due to space and monetary reasons

[Sim]

Given that the main museum lines were marketed as 1:40 (Carnegie and Battat in particular), I'll always consider 1:40 to be the standard scale for dinosaur toys. Though many of their models listed as 1:40 were closer to 1:35 and sometimes larger. But once again, I'm not particular about scale in my collection so it doesn't really matter too much to me for the most part.

The new standard for dinosaur toys is 1:35.  1:40 only tends to be used for sauropods nowadays as, I imagine, they would be too expensive in 1:35 scale.

[Bread]

I am usually a 1:30 to 1:40 collector. Some models/figures I let slide due to if they're appealing or an important genus in a collection. So really I don't see the issue to prefer 1:40 sauropods. A majority of us are still waiting on Haolonggood's Apatosaurus reveal and it is marked to be 1:35 scale. Fingers crossed it won't be expensive ($100+).

To differ from scales, I recently had a change of heart for a certain brand. Some may recall my dislike for Battat, which is controversial. Well after acquiring probably one of their most controversial pieces, the Pachyrhinosaurus, I can see appreciate the appeal for this brand; followed by their sculpt technique.

Some of their models I will soon to be acquiring include the Dilophosaurus, Triceratops, Styracosaurus, Utahraptor, Cryolophosaurus, and Euoplocephalus.

Again, they're are still some sculpts that I find of theirs to be overrated or just a dislike for me, which includes their Tyrannosaurus (all 3 versions). But maybe down the line I can warm up to it just like I did with their brand in general.

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

Given that the main museum lines were marketed as 1:40 (Carnegie and Battat in particular), I'll always consider 1:40 to be the standard scale for dinosaur toys. Though many of their models listed as 1:40 were closer to 1:35 and sometimes larger. But once again, I'm not particular about scale in my collection so it doesn't really matter too much to me for the most part.

The new standard for dinosaur toys is 1:35.  1:40 only tends to be used for sauropods nowadays as, I imagine, they would be too expensive in 1:35 scale.

I meant that as a reply to the discussion about scale, but I guess it can also work as a controversial opinion on it's own.

I care more about collecting older figures I haven't gotten yet instead of picking up the latest releases, so I'm not as concerned with recent trends. I don't even have (or want, really) any PNSO dinosaurs. Battat and Carnegie are still my favorites.

[Lynx]

Given that the main museum lines were marketed as 1:40 (Carnegie and Battat in particular), I'll always consider 1:40 to be the standard scale for dinosaur toys. Though many of their models listed as 1:40 were closer to 1:35 and sometimes larger. But once again, I'm not particular about scale in my collection so it doesn't really matter too much to me for the most part.

The new standard for dinosaur toys is 1:35.  1:40 only tends to be used for sauropods nowadays as, I imagine, they would be too expensive in 1:35 scale.

I meant that as a reply to the discussion about scale, but I guess it can also work as a controversial opinion on it's own.

I care more about collecting older figures I haven't gotten yet instead of picking up the latest releases, so I'm  not as concerned with recent trends. I don't even have (or want, really) any PNSO dinosaurs. Battat and Carnegie are still my favorites.

Although I wasn't around to feel any nostalgia for Carnegie and Battat, I have to say they spark my interest far more frequently than any PNSO release currently, though I pick up the occasional model.

I really have no clue what it is about Carnegie specifically that I feel more encouraged to purchase, but it remains my favorite company despite the more accurate and better quality releases from companies.

[Sim]

Well, it sounds like you spend time with older figures which did have 1:40 as the standard scale.  I don't think it's an opinion that the standard scale has shifted to 1:35 though, it can be seen in various brands now.

[Dinoguy2]

Given that the main museum lines were marketed as 1:40 (Carnegie and Battat in particular), I'll always consider 1:40 to be the standard scale for dinosaur toys. Though many of their models listed as 1:40 were closer to 1:35 and sometimes larger. But once again, I'm not particular about scale in my collection so it doesn't really matter too much to me for the most part.

The new standard for dinosaur toys is 1:35.  1:40 only tends to be used for sauropods nowadays as, I imagine, they would be too expensive in 1:35 scale.

I meant that as a reply to the discussion about scale, but I guess it can also work as a controversial opinion on it's own.

I care more about collecting older figures I haven't gotten yet instead of picking up the latest releases, so I'm  not as concerned with recent trends. I don't even have (or want, really) any PNSO dinosaurs. Battat and Carnegie are still my favorites.

Although I wasn't around to feel any nostalgia for Carnegie and Battat, I have to say they spark my interest far more frequently than any PNSO release currently, though I pick up the occasional model.

I really have no clue what it is about Carnegie specifically that I feel more encouraged to purchase, but it remains my favorite company despite the more accurate and better quality releases from companies.

This shift from 1:40 to 1:35 isn't really anything new when you remember Invicta was 1:45, so what Carnegie did was make them just a little bigger to make them a little more impressive looking. 1:35 has now done that with 1:40, and many companies like PNSO err on the bigger side even more and many are actually closer to 1:25.

To add a controversial opinion, I agree with Lynx and I think I know why. Modern figures tend to be highly technically accurate but often lack in some hard to quantify lifelike quality. Battat and Carneige, IMO, had better sculptors. Modern sculptors can be very good at reproducing accuracy but somebody like Forest Rogers who was a classically trained artist, while sometimes lacking accuracy, made up for it in "realism" which is a different metric. The OG Carnegie sauropods remain some of the most believable looking dinosaur figures ever made even if they're no longer scientifically accurate. The way their muscles are flexed, the degree of bending of necks and tails and creasing in the skin all subtly clue you in on exactly how the animal is moving, how much force is behind the movement (like the upraised Brachio neck), and what range of motion they had (you can tell just by how it is sculpted that Rogers thinks the arc in the Apato neck is a pretty "extreme" motion). Rogers was no paleoartist and she struggled with accuracy until Matt Lamanna took over as consultant. But you can tell even these early figures are excellent as art, if not paleoart.

Many of the Battats had these qualities too, especially the original version of their T. rex which IMO is still the best T.rex figure ever made. Modern figures have better accuracy, mostly because they are newer but also because they are often made by paleoartists (but so was Battat). But even when posed they can feel too schematic. I also have to wonder how much of this is due to being sculpted digitally.

[ceratopsian]

I'm no artist - but I strongly suspect that digital sculpting might have the influence you suggest, D @Dinoguy2.  The tactile quality of a physical maquette is lost and I don't think a seeing a sculpt on a screen, and rotating the digital creation, is any substitute.

[Remko]

I'm no artist - but I strongly suspect that digital sculpting might have the influence you suggest, D @Dinoguy2.  The tactile quality of a physical maquette is lost and I don't think a seeing a sculpt on a screen, and rotating the digital creation, is any substitute.

I disagree.

I have several 3D printed figures from Shapeways from various designers, which are all digitally designed. Without a doubt they are superior in every way to the standard CollectA, Safari etc. figures available 
The level of detail is far better, especially for smaller items as scutes, bumps and teeth.

The main difference is that these figures are designed to look interesting and active. Which results in a figure that's pure for display (with support) only. Normal figures are optimised for playing, so with different (wrong) proportions or have bases to support them.

[ceratopsian]

I was thinking more of my resins than the CollectA end of the market, and not whether things balance or have huge feet in order to do so, but fair enough.

[Pliosaurking]

When I first started collecting I only got 1:40 scale figures, however that was only for about a year. Since that point in time i don't really care to much about scale, as I can put different scales away from each other. I will say however having a collection in scale is definitely a nice thing to see!

[Gwangi]

I think a lot of the higher end, more realistic models lack a certain level of charm or character. They almost feel...sterile, I guess. Don't get me wrong though, I still love a lot of them but they just appeal to me in a different way than figures by Safari or CollectA do, and I think I prefer the later. But I'm a toy collector first and foremost. And I like toys for being toys. A lot of the stuff on the toy-end have a more authentic feel to them. I guess it's similar to how some people like a minimalistic, sleek, modern, sterile house and other prefer something with a rustic, lived in feel. The old Battat and Carnegie toys and even modern Safari figures look handmade, hand painted, and like they serve a purpose, perhaps a more noble one, than just display. Hope at least some of that makes sense, lol.

[EmperorDinobot]

Yes, you are right. That is why some like me yearn for the past, when we could look at Safari toys personally in edutainment stores, read the catalogues excitedly for upcoming and new stuff, etc. I think part of the reason why I've enjoyed this Jurassic Renaissance thanks to Mattel, is because once again we have the opportunity to look at dinosaur toys that are present, and not behind a screen. You can look at the dinosaur whose personality best reflects yours, and bring it home.

I think that PNSO figures have more personality than the Haolongood figures. I think they're very nice, but something about them says "Let's do what PNSO is doing" that feels...eh...soulless? They kind of showed out of nowhere on my radar. I don't know the history behind them or presume to know much except for what I've seen here, but they seem to exist solely to compete for our attention. That's why Ouranosaurus doesn't have the thumb spikes. PNSO would have given them the thumb spikes.