Which Mesozoic dinosaurs have good figures and which don't, according to Sim

[Gwangi]

I dunno, a list that includes the Schleich Tarbosaurus with all its inaccuracies but omits the Safari Acrocanthosaurus and Baryonyx because of their inaccuracies seems inconsistent. But it's not my list. Carry on.

[Sim]

@Gwangi: I looked at the Schleich Tarbosaurus again and I overlooked its inaccuracy.  I've removed it from the list, thanks for mentioning it.

@Faelrin: Thanks!  I've added the CBS Dilong and Favorite Guanlong to the list.  The Favorite Guanlong is actually a impressive figure, I'm surprised I forgot about it, same as for the Favorite Coelophysis which Gwangi reminded me of.  The list of good Mattel figures is helpful, I've added some of them to the list.  Tyrannosauroidea is now almost as well-represented as Allosauroidea.  I haven't finished Compsognathidae yet.

[Sim]

what's wrong with the collecta xiongguanlong and ceratosuchops?

The Xiongguanlong is one of CollectA's theropods with overly wide hips.  The Ceratosuchops I thought had inaccurate dentition, but looking at the remains of Ceratosuchops again it looks okay to me.  I've changed it in the list so it now shows it has a good version.  I also plan on getting the CollectA Ceratosuchops now.  Thanks

[Halichoeres]

A list like this is hard because it depends on a several subjective judgments. I'd thought about doing one once upon a time but I found it too daunting. The first thing is, what counts as good remains? To me, for example, Ceratosuchops, Cristatusaurus, and Riparovenator all seem extremely fragmentary, unless there is unpublished material I don't know about. And then, of course, deciding what is a good figure tends to boil down to "which inaccuracies do you find to be deal breakers, and which do you not?"

Anyway, allosauroids and tyrannosaurs are quite thoroughly covered. Even though there are individual genera that haven't been made, or made well, they are so similar to ones that have been that their morphology is contained within the range of what has already been made. I would argue the same is true for megalosauroids; most of the ones on the list that haven't been made I would consider quite scrappy. Among ornithischians, I'd wager that ceratopsids and stegosaurs will be the most thoroughly covered, followed by hadrosaurs.

Anyway, any plans to expand to non-dinosaurs? Those are all clearly much more poorly represented, to the point where I wouldn't petition a company to make any more true dinosaurs. They're going to get to everything worth making sooner or later.

[Sim]

I've removed the purple as it would be a lot of work to keep putting planned figures in purple and then remove the purple once they are released.  I'll still include upcoming figures though.

I've also added the missing figures that were mentioned plus some REBOR figures which adds another species of Allosaurus to the list.

I've also completed Compsognathidae.  Interestingly while there have been nice figures of Compsognathus and Sinosauropteryx they aren't accurate enough for the list, so there is no good compsognathid figure!

[SRF]

@Sim how about figures of juvenile animals? Both Safari and PNSO made figures of Nanotyrannus, which is of course just a juvenile T. Rex. Both Collecta and BOTM did a juvenile T. Rex as well, I see you have included that last one.

[Dinoguy2]

I've removed the purple as it would be a lot of work to keep putting planned figures in purple and then remove the purple once they are released.  I'll still include upcoming figures though.

I've also added the missing figures that were mentioned plus some REBOR figures which adds another species of Allosaurus to the list.

I've also completed Compsognathidae.  Interestingly while there have been nice figures of Compsognathus and Sinosauropteryx they aren't accurate enough for the list, so there is no good compsognathid figure!

What's wrong with the PNSO Sinosauropteryx? I guess the head is a little big, is that kind of thing disqualifying? Because slight proportion problems like that would disqualify the vast majority on the list

[Sim]

I've now added the missing juvenile Tyrannosaurus, including Aaron.

D @Dinoguy2: I hadn't included the PNSO Sinosauropteryx because I thought it was missing the bandit mask, but I looked at the figure again after your comment and I saw it does have black around the eyes so it can work as an accurate figure I think.  I've updated Sinosauropteryx in the list to now show it has a good figure, the only one of a compsognathid.

[Faelrin]

D @Dinoguy2 The coloration/marking on the Sinosauropteryx head is slightly off, maybe porportions too. Like PNSO's other theropods it also lacks lips. I don't think it is a huge deal (though as I was about to post this I see @Sim has changed his mind about including it). I mean beggar's can't be choosers for a genus like this. I think the size of the figure is good too, since it was a tiny animal, but the figure is just large enough to have enough (tactile) detail, like the feathers or filaments.

Comapre the figure:



To this artwork from Gabriel Ugueto:

[Faelrin]

@Sim Will you be including Yi in this list? Not sure if you got to that group yet, but worth mentioning both Kaiyodo and PNSO have figures of it. I think Kaiyodo's is the more preferred of two, but is also the harder to come by (Japan only expo figure).

[Sim]

A list like this is hard because it depends on a several subjective judgments. I'd thought about doing one once upon a time but I found it too daunting. The first thing is, what counts as good remains? To me, for example, Ceratosuchops, Cristatusaurus, and Riparovenator all seem extremely fragmentary, unless there is unpublished material I don't know about.

Those spinosaurids are very fragmentary, but I had been thinking that where Early Cretaceous spinosaurids tend to differ is in the premaxilla and all three have that preserved.  I thought the rest could be safely restored from relatives.  However I looked at them again and realised the sail shape is unpredictable and none have that preserved.  So I've removed Cristatusaurus and Riparovenator from the list and put Ceratosuchops in green (= has a good figure but isn't well-known from fossils).

And then, of course, deciding what is a good figure tends to boil down to "which inaccuracies do you find to be deal breakers, and which do you not?"

Yes, I'm trying to only include figures without obvious inaccuracies.

Anyway, allosauroids and tyrannosaurs are quite thoroughly covered. Even though there are individual genera that haven't been made, or made well, they are so similar to ones that have been that their morphology is contained within the range of what has already been made. I would argue the same is true for megalosauroids; most of the ones on the list that haven't been made I would consider quite scrappy.

Now that I've removed / re-coloured the fragmentary spinosaurids, what do you think about the megalosauroids in the list that lack a good figure?  Personally I think they are quite an interesting bunch, one from Africa, one from France, one from England and one from the Morrison Formation.  Although maybe they would look quite generic if made into a figure?

Among ornithischians, I'd wager that ceratopsids and stegosaurs will be the most thoroughly covered, followed by hadrosaurs.

It will be interesting to see the ornithischian representation!

Anyway, any plans to expand to non-dinosaurs? Those are all clearly much more poorly represented, to the point where I wouldn't petition a company to make any more true dinosaurs. They're going to get to everything worth making sooner or later.

I might do non-dinosaurs after I finish the dinosaurs.  I would like to get all Mesozoic theropods done before doing non-dinosaurs, so that does include birds.

[Dinoguy2]

D @Dinoguy2 The coloration/marking on the Sinosauropteryx head is slightly off, maybe porportions too. Like PNSO's other theropods it also lacks lips.

Looks like it has lips to me... mouth is closed and I don't see any teeth, or are they just unpainted?

[Faelrin]

D @Dinoguy2 The teeth are unpainted unfortunately. I have the figure in hand.

[Sim]

@Faelrin: Yes, I will be including Yi in the list.  I haven't got to its group yet.  I hadn't been including the Kaiyodo mini figures because I thought they aren't toys.  Is that incorrect?  I had been thinking they were made of hard plastic/resin?

[Faelrin]

@Sim I'm not really sure if they are or not. Perhaps other members can chime in. I think they are plastic, but perhaps on the harder, delicate side? They also have to be assembled. In the case of Yi, it might not hurt to include it, since there are only two options for it, and Kaiyodo's is probably the more accurate of the two (the head seems to be more correct on it, then on PNSO's figure). I have both in hand. Maybe tomorrow I could get some comparisons of them, and double check the material. Likewise I think that is also the case for Anchiornis, as there is the rare Takara Tomy figure, and also the PNSO one. If I remember right @Halichoeres recently reacquired the Takara Tomy one, and explained why it was the more accurate of the two in his collection thread.

[Concavenator]

A list like this is hard because it depends on a several subjective judgments. I'd thought about doing one once upon a time but I found it too daunting. The first thing is, what counts as good remains? To me, for example, Ceratosuchops, Cristatusaurus, and Riparovenator all seem extremely fragmentary, unless there is unpublished material I don't know about. And then, of course, deciding what is a good figure tends to boil down to "which inaccuracies do you find to be deal breakers, and which do you not?"

My thoughts exactly, too.

For example, including the Papo Giganotosaurus as a good figure of the animal but not Eofauna's is... ummm... let's say odd. I imagine @Sim didn't include it because of the skull shape, but then again how can the Papo be considered a "good" (as in accuracy, I guess) representation of a Giganotosaurus? The pose alone kills it in that department. Plus if the skull shape apparently disqualifies Eofauna's version, then the Wild Safari version shouldn't be there either (same old elongated Giga skull), same sitatuon as with the PNSO Carcharodontosaurus. Another example, as @Gwangi said it's quite surprising the Safari Baryonyx wasn't included, yet the Schleich is. In my opinion, the difference in quality is such that I have trouble explaining why the Safari is the superior figure of the two.

Some other observations, the Vitae Giganotosaurus should be included too, actually, it was the first Giganotosaurus figure to represent the updated skull reconstruction. And PNSO's Sinraptor probably shouldn't be considered a Sinraptor (for context, read Paleo-Nerd's review). And the Vitae Sinraptor should be included too. And I think Eotyrannus has complete enough remains to consider it has "good remains" (while relatively fragmentary, we have a decent idea of what it looked like, at least more so than Appalachiosaurus, I'd say).

It's also strange so many Dilophosaurus figures are included, the only ones we know are based on the 2020 reconstruction are CollectA's 2021 (big feet aside), and Haolonggood's and Creative Beast's upcoming versions. The rest are all outdated.

They're going to get to everything worth making sooner or later.

Interesting point. I see where you're coming from, but not sure it will get to that point. Unsurprisingly, companies tend to release figures of, mostly, a few dinosaur groups, and some other dinosaur groups are largely, or wholy ignored. There are indeed particular dinosaur taxa worth making into figures (=known from good remains) that haven't been made yet. However, the chances of that changing depends on how mainstream the group of dinosaur it belongs to is. Just to give an example, as of late, hadrosaurids have received a pretty good amount of attention, despite being ornithischians and those being less abundant than theropods in general. Dromaeosaurids, generally speaking, are largely ignored, despite being theropods. So I'd say it's more likely that we get a good figure of overdue hadrosaurids like Maiasaura, Brachylophosaurus, or Saurolophus than we do of overdue dromaeosaurids like Austroraptor, Zhenyuanlong, or Halszkaraptor.

There are also certain dinosaur groups that don't seem likely to receive many/any attention anytime soon (basal sauropodomorphs, basal ornithopods, Anchiornithidae, Troodontidae, Noasauridae, Scansoriopterygidae...). But your comment about non-dinosaurs having inferior representation is obviously impossible to argue against! So I can see why that could influence your perspective on non-avian dinosaurs in general, as some particular groups (like the aforementioned ones) are clearly overlooked.

[Sim]

For example, including the Papo Giganotosaurus as a good figure of the animal but not Eofauna's is... ummm... let's say odd. I imagine @Sim didn't include it because of the skull shape, but then again how can the Papo be considered a "good" (as in accuracy, I guess) representation of a Giganotosaurus? The pose alone kills it in that department. Plus if the skull shape apparently disqualifies Eofauna's version, then the Wild Safari version shouldn't be there either (same old elongated Giga skull), same sitatuon as with the PNSO Carcharodontosaurus.

For the Papo Giganotosaurus, I thought its pose was possible for the animal.  But after reading your post I looked at its DTB review and I've changed my mind, so I've removed it from the list.  I didn't include the Eofauna Giganotosaurus as the inaccurately elongated skull is very apparent, plus its skull was shrunk to an accurate length so the skull bones of the Eofauna Giga are objectively too small compared to other parts of the animal.  Looking at the WS Giganotosaurus again, the inaccurate skull is quite apparent on it so I've removed it from the list too. 
For the PNSO Carcharodontosaurus, I think it's not too bad.  I'm not only including figures with perfect accuracy, as long as any inaccuracies aren't too apparent or too bad a figure is included in the list.

Another example, as @Gwangi said it's quite surprising the Safari Baryonyx wasn't included, yet the Schleich is. In my opinion, the difference in quality is such that I have trouble explaining why the Safari is the superior figure of the two.

I've now added the Wild Safari Baryonyx and removed the Schleich version.  Thanks to you and others for sharing your opinions, together I think we're making something worthwhile.

Some other observations, the Vitae Giganotosaurus should be included too, actually, it was the first Giganotosaurus figure to represent the updated skull reconstruction.

I think I won't include the Vitae Giganotosaurus as it lacks the recognisable chin the animal had.

And PNSO's Sinraptor probably shouldn't be considered a Sinraptor (for context, read Paleo-Nerd's review). And the Vitae Sinraptor should be included too.

I'm aware of the argument in the review for considering S. hepingensis as belonging to a different genus to S. dongi, and I don't agree with it.  The two species are extremely closely related and similar, so I think it's unnecessary to give hepingensis a new genus when the only taxa complicating things are unstable fragmentary species.
The Vitae Sinraptor has highly implausible skin so I'm not including it.

And I think Eotyrannus has complete enough remains to consider it has "good remains" (while relatively fragmentary, we have a decent idea of what it looked like, at least more so than Appalachiosaurus, I'd say).

I agree, I've changed Eotyrannus to reflect this, thanks.

It's also strange so many Dilophosaurus figures are included, the only ones we know are based on the 2020 reconstruction are CollectA's 2021 (big feet aside), and Haolonggood's and Creative Beast's upcoming versions. The rest are all outdated.

The changes to Dilophosaurus's appearance are minor and I wouldn't immediately think there was something wrong with the outdated ones.

They're going to get to everything worth making sooner or later.

Interesting point. I see where you're coming from, but not sure it will get to that point. [...]
There are also certain dinosaur groups that don't seem likely to receive many/any attention anytime soon (basal sauropodomorphs, basal ornithopods, Anchiornithidae, Troodontidae, Noasauridae, Scansoriopterygidae...). [...]

I agree with Concavenator.  I would really like a good adult troodontid figure that is in a standing/walking/running pose.

[Sim]

I've also added Alectrosaurus which I forgot had a Creative Beast figure, and changed the title of this thread to reflect that the list is for Mesozoic dinosaurs.  I intend to cover the ones commonly called birds.  I've removed the related rule.

[Chasmosaurus]

Pelecanimimus have a good figure from favorite.
And Tawa have a quite good figure from schleich except for the toes which are oversized and doesn't have the right number.

[Sim]

I've now added the Favorite Pelecanimimus.  I'm not going to add figures with oversized feet as I think they aren't good enough.

For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, I've added Ornithomimosauria to the list!  Ornithomimosaurs are so nice, I would very much like more good figures of them.  The basal members are particularly interesting, Hexing and Shenzousaurus are from the Yixian Formation, I wonder if in the future specimens of them with feathering preserved will be found?
The Favorite Pelecanimimus is well done but it doesn't appeal to me, so I hope for another good figure of it in the future.  Gallimimus is also one I'd like a good figure of, and Struthiomimus altus too.  The CollectA Struthiomimus actually represents a species that needs a scientific name, that's why it isn't included in the list.