CollectA: New for 2023

[suspsy]

Considering that the review for CollectA Anomalocaris currently has a 4.8/5 star rating with 91 votes, I don't think very many people really care that much about the inaccuracies. I suspected that would be the case.

I'm sure people would care if let's say a Velociraptor model had no nostrils, missing digits, featherless and no lips. And particularly so if it's being passed off as a scientifically accurate reconstruction.

It's all a matter of perspective.

That analogy doesn't really work for the simple reason that Velociraptor has never been depicted in the scientific literature without nostrils or with the wrong number of digits. By contrast, the CollectA Anomalocaris absolutely reflects outdated reconstructions of the animal. Obviously it would have been preferable to have a toy based on current science, but criticizing this one is somewhat like criticizing the paleoart of Charles R. Knight or Zdenek Burian. It's not a movie monster, it's vintage. And it definitely has charm.

[Halichoeres]

Everybody is an armchair expert on theropods, when being an armchair expert on stem-arthropods is such low-hanging fruit!

[Halichoeres]

I requested a 2023 CollectA catalog with my most recent MiniZoo order, and at the beginning they had a tribute to Anthony Beeson and a reassurance about the future of the line:

Sadly, our dear friend and colleague Anthony Beeson passed away last year. Anthony's unbounded enthusiasm, energy and inspirational ideas have been instrumental in the development of the award-winning CollectA Prehistoric World range. CollectA will continue to develop innovative and beautifully designed prehistoric animal figures. Anthony's dedication and passion for creating accurate replicas will permit his legacy to live on reflected in CollectA's continuing mission to educate, inform and to provide the greatest amount of creative play through the provision of highly accurate models.

A total of ten new prehistoric figures are being introduced this year. The CollectA Prehistoric World range highlights the amazing variety of creatures that once existed on planet Earth and this year's introductions maintains [sic] the trend of providing figures that represent animals from the breadth and depth of geological deep time.

It sounds like it's still going to be Matthias Geiger doing the sculpting, just with one fewer consultant. I'm comforted by the "breadth and depth of geological deep time." One of my favorite things about CollectA is that they sample lots of periods and lots of different kinds of organisms, rather than just Cretaceous (true) dinosaurs like so many companies.

[ceratopsian]

Thanks for copying that out @Halichoeres. I hadn't seen it.  A nicely expressed tribute. And I'm comforted for their future plans.

[Sim]

to provide the greatest amount of creative play through the provision of highly accurate models.

How can CollectA do that when they make many nearly identical ornithopods while ignoring their lack of good models of dromaeosaurids, ankylosaurids, stegosaurians...

[Dusty Wren]

I, for one, am a big fan of CollectA's ornithopods, and I hope they continue making them.

[Flaffy]

to provide the greatest amount of creative play through the provision of highly accurate models.

How can CollectA do that when they make many nearly identical ornithopods while ignoring their lack of good models of dromaeosaurids, ankylosaurids, stegosaurians...

I disagree. I'm very happy with the diversity of Ornithopods and other non-dinosaurians CollectA regularly includes in their line year after year.

CollectA's done some lovely Ankylosaurs and Stegosaurs; e.g. Gigantspinosaurus, Borealopelta, Stegouros, Gastonia. And their total Thyreophoran diversity across the years is among the highest on the market (though most could desperately use a new sculpt).

[Sim]

There's nothing wrong with liking CollectA's ornithopods, but mine was a serious question.  Put another way, how can CollectA provide the greatest amount of creative play by making lots of very similar species and not representing well other types of animals?  I think the responses to my post miss that.  I also find suspsy's reply presumptuous.

As for CollectA's thyreophorans, @Flaffy I said ankylosaurids, which Borealopelta, Stegouros and Gastonia aren't.  Regarding the Gastonia though, I think it's mostly good but its head isn't the right shape, so I don't find it lovely.  I didn't keep the one I acquired as the head was just awful to me.  I noticed you put stegosaurs in plural, but the Gigantspinosaurus is the only one I could see being considered "lovely".  Are you aware of any more stegosaurians by CollectA you find lovely?  Personally, I think the CollectA Gigantspinosaurus is good but I'm nearly certain the shoulder spikes are upside-down as their position seems detrimental.  That brings the figure down for me, but I accept the position of the spikes isn't known for certain and accept the CollectA Gigantspinosaurus as good.  That's just one stegosaurian figure though.

[suspsy]

@Sim, you're unfortunately conflating the setting of a goal with the full reaching of a goal. You might as well be complaining about the intro for Star Trek: The Next Generation because the Enterprise never actually succeeded in seeking out every single new civilization in the galaxy. Or chastising an aspiring young paleontologist because she hasn't named and described as many species as Edward Cope did. It's both unrealistic and ungenerous on your part.

[Sim]

I have no interest in Star Wars, so I have no idea what you mean with regards to that part.  However, I disagree with your comparison with a palaeontologist.  Since when is naming species something to chastise about?  Also, questioning an apparent incompatability isn't "chastising".  I think what's ungenerous is your responses.

[Gwangi]

I feel like all of these companies have their own specialties. They all make a range of species but we get excited when they offer certain groups. Safari has ceratopsians, dromaeosaurus, and tyrannosaurs for example. And CollectA has ornithopods and Paleozoic stuff. And I'll never get tired of them. We went far too long with this group being neglected. That said, I do skip on a lot of them for one reason or another.

Even if CollectA hasn't delivered on some groups there are others making up for it. Haolonggood gave us an ankylosaurid this year, Safari gave us one last year, and PNSO gave us some in years prior. The group is not hurting for representation in the broad scheme of things and it's almost a given that some company will give us an ankylosaur in any given year, or at least some member of Ankylosauria. I don't care if CollectA makes a certain thing, I'm just happy if any of the companies I collect do.

[Sim]

You're right @Gwangi, about companies specialising in certain things.  CollectA has also specialised in ceratopsians, and allosauroids, even though the only allosauroid that came out well by them is the Metriacanthosaurus IMO.  In addition to ornithopods, I think another group CollectA is very good at making is sauropods.  If it's okay for me to ask, why do you skip lots of CollectA's ornithopods if you like them?

Going back to my original question, I thought companies would like to offer good figures for all very relevant animal groups.  That's why I don't understand CollectA wanting to provide the maximum amount of creative play with accurate models while making lots of one group and nothing good for other popular groups.

[Lynx]

You're right @Gwangi, about companies specialising in certain things.  CollectA has also specialised in ceratopsians, and allosauroids, even though the only allosauroid that came out well by them is the Metriacanthosaurus IMO.  In addition to ornithopods, I think another group CollectA is very good at making is sauropods.  If it's okay for me to ask, why do you skip lots of CollectA's ornithopods if you like them?

Going back to my original question, I thought companies would like to offer good figures for all very relevant animal groups.  That's why I don't understand CollectA wanting to provide the maximum amount of creative play with accurate models while making lots of one group and nothing good for other popular groups.

ill be honest, besides the rather specific groups you stated (with stegosaurids already being rather available on the market), CollectA seems to do good at making a very diverse range almost every year, usually including a Sauropod, Ornithopod, Ceratopsian, and Theropod. That's huge, and I really think its going beyond nitpicky to complain about that. Ornithopods get complained about not being made much frequently here, yet when a company releases ornithopods regularly it becomes a problem? CollectA holds up very well to the creative play, just because they don't make other groups very frequently doesn't mean that claim is any more fragile.

[Sim]

Ornithopods have been made frequently for some time now, comments to the contrary are incorrect.  You saying it's "beyond nitpicky" is uncalled for.  I have the right to complain without getting chastised for it.  Although in this case I'm not complaining, I'm expressing what to me looks like an incompatibility.  I'm not sure why some people respond so defensively and basically try to punish me for what I said.

[Gwangi]

You're right @Gwangi, about companies specialising in certain things.  CollectA has also specialised in ceratopsians, and allosauroids, even though the only allosauroid that came out well by them is the Metriacanthosaurus IMO.  In addition to ornithopods, I think another group CollectA is very good at making is sauropods.  If it's okay for me to ask, why do you skip lots of CollectA's ornithopods if you like them?

Going back to my original question, I thought companies would like to offer good figures for all very relevant animal groups.  That's why I don't understand CollectA wanting to provide the maximum amount of creative play with accurate models while making lots of one group and nothing good for other popular groups.

Well I should say that I like that they make them more so than I like the figures themselves. CollectA dinosaurs in general don't always appeal to me. I collect on a budget so it's the non-dinosaurs that I prioritize first, that's CollectA's best offerings for me. In the case of the ornithopods they are all pretty similar. I don't like the paint apps on some of them, others I have better represented by other companies, some I just haven't gotten yet. The Hadrosaurus is a top priority this year though.

I still think that when it comes to overall diversity CollectA is unmatched. So the statements that they "provide the greatest amount of creative play" and "represent animals from the breadth and depth of geological deep time" still hold true. They are favoring ornithopods right now but I don't think it comes at the sacrifice of other groups. They're the only company offering a decent assortment of non-dinosaurs and dinosaurs alike. They're giving us the first prehistoric amphibian toy made in something like 20 years.

[Bread]

Ornithopods have been made frequently for some time now, comments to the contrary are incorrect.  You saying it's "beyond nitpicky" is uncalled for.  I have the right to complain without getting chastised for it.  Although in this case I'm not complaining, I'm expressing what to me looks like an incompatibility.  I'm not sure why some people respond so defensively and basically try to punish me for what I said.

Maybe I'll try to add what I see to your opinion?

Are you trying to say instead of CollectA producing, lets say, 4 ornithopods out of their 9 prehistoric figure lineups, you would like more diversity such as lets say less than 4?

I don't think wanting less ornithopods for the sake of other groups getting more attention that rarely do is wrong. I think others would agree. But maybe it is the way you worded it or came about it?

Maybe I am reading this wrong... 

[suspsy]

I have no interest in Star Wars, so I have no idea what you mean with regards to that part.

Star Wars? Go back and reread the post again. And if you still don't comprehend the analogy, watch the short clip below. A stated goal is not the same thing as a fully achieved goal.

https://youtu.be/HnDtvZXYHgE

However, I disagree with your comparison with a palaeontologist.  Since when is naming species something to chastise about?

Yeeeeah, that was precisely my point. It's unreasonable. Just as unreasonable as complaining about CollectA's stated goal simply because they haven't yet met your specific criteria.

Also, questioning an apparent incompatability

It's really not an incompatibility, though. As @Gwangi already pointed out, CollectA's range of prehistoric fauna is still greater than any other company's in spite of the fact that they have yet to tackle certain families.

[Lynx]

Ornithopods have been made frequently for some time now, comments to the contrary are incorrect.  You saying it's "beyond nitpicky" is uncalled for.  I have the right to complain without getting chastised for it.  Although in this case I'm not complaining, I'm expressing what to me looks like an incompatibility.  I'm not sure why some people respond so defensively and basically try to punish me for what I said.

I don't see how I am trying to 'punish' you? Beyond nitpicky means beyond just picking off tiny things, I am unsure how that is uncalled for either.

Further, my statement as a whole was relatively unaggressive, you seem to be the only one getting defensive. It's even a little bit silly, and do not take this in the wrong way, that you believe others are harassing you when they disagree with your opinion.

[Halichoeres]

Generally speaking, I think ornithopods are not made often and not made well, although hadrosaurs in particular are an important exception. They actually have quite good coverage, although there are notable gaps like Brachylophosaurus. In that respect they're similar to ceratopsids, which are also really well represented, although until recently important taxa like Centrosaurus were oddly overlooked.

With respect to CollectA in particular, I think they do a better job covering a wide variety of organisms than any other company. Only early 2000s era Kaiyodo or Yowie really come close, if we were to actually put numbers on it. But sure, there are things they haven't gotten to yet. They also tend to have one- to three-year spans where they put out a lot of figures from one clade; maybe Geiger sculpts them in a batch while their anatomy is fresh in his mind. For example, they had four ornithomimosaurs in two years (2016 and 2017), but none since. I think in time just about every dinosaur group will get its turn. Unfortunately, some groups got their turn while CollectA's figures were still a little rough. Abelisaurs spring to mind--the only really good one is their recent Carnotaurus, although they made several others a decade ago. Anyway, sure, what they're saying in this catalog copy is aspirational, but I do think they're closer to realizing that aspiration than anyone else.

[ceratopsian]

I think that is a fair and balanced assessment @Halichoeres.