HAOLONGGOOD - New For 2023

[Lynx]

This is one of the few times I prefer the PNSO version of a figure

[Concavenator]

@Flaffy I agree with @Sim , I'd say the CollectA Daspletosaurus represents that unnamed Daspletosaurus species from the Dinosaur Park Formation. The CollectA figure seems to be based on FMNH PR308:




Pic by @suspsy

Notice the front-facing lacrimals. Actually, FMNH PR308 was once classified as Albertosaurus libratus (=Gorgosaurus), it wasn't until 1999 that Carr reassignated said specimen to Daspletosaurus. On another hand, Warshaw & Fowler (2022) mentioned FMNH PR308 is thought to represent a yet unnamed taxon. Based on Carr 1999, it could represent a new species of Daspletosaurus, though. So in conclusion, I'd say the CollectA figure represents said unnamed taxon.

Onto Haolonggood's take, it's true that its lacrimals could've been a bit more noticeable, but nonetheless I think it makes for a good D. horneri. Perhaps V @vampiredesign could change the ID name to Daspletosaurus horneri or at least just Daspletosaurus, if possible, that would be better than leaving it as Daspletosaurus torosus.

@Fembrogon So true! Well, actually 4 if you count BotM's gorgeous take too.  Daspletosaurus has always been my favorite tyrannosaurid, and I'm very pleased it's receiving more attention in recent years. Always thought it was quite overlooked within tyrannosaurids. And now we have really good figures of each species, and then there's also the CollectA one, which may pale in comparison to Safari's, BotM's, PNSO's and Haolonggood's versions, but still represents a taxon which probably represents another species of Daspletosaurus.

Onto titanosaurs, personally I find them overrated and so I currently have none. I like some titanosaur figures, such as Safari's Malawisaurus or CollectA's Ruyangosaurus, but I have no connection to either genera and so I've passed on them (though going off by remains, Malawisaurus would clearly be the good choice). If I got one, I figured I'd get one of the smaller genera too, instead of behemoths like Patagotitan or Puertasaurus. I've always liked Ampelosaurus though, it's my personal favorite titanosaur taxon, so this new Haolonggood is clearly right up my alley.

[Bread]

Just to put this out there, I am curious to see what an updated Tyrannosaurus would look like from Haolonggood now that there is a Daspletosaurus with lips.

[Fembrogon]

It would probably look a little better, but I think the T.rex had more issues to its design that would need addressing, too.
If Haolonggood does more tyrants I'd rather see Gorgosaurus or Tarbosaurus anyway. Or Nanuqsaurus, for something a little different.

[oscars_dinos]

something about haolonggod's theropod's that turns me off is how stiff they look. there seems to be no grace or movement. and this has nothing to do with pose and everything to do with how you do detail, the scales and folds just seem so strict. I think pnso surpasses them in that department. Interestingly I don't feel this applies to the sauropods they release

[Sim]

I'm guessing the Daspletosaurus was the figure hiding in the first image of the Haolonggood Pachyrhinosaurus.  It looks like it has been made now, the remaining teased species being the Megaraptor that's coming, the Dilophosaurus that we've seen prototype images of, the Alamosaurus we saw a photo of, and the Chasmosaurus whose skeleton has been shown in images of new figures.  I'm very ready for a Haolonggood Chasmosaurus, I hope it gets made soon!

[thomasw100]

Not sure if Ampelosaurus is a good choice for a figure tbh. While the genus has tons of bones assigned to it, the whole thing is an absolute mess to my knowledge, so no reliable reconstruction exists atm. Moreover, we now know that the infamous "armour" on Ampelosaurus is not in fact unique to the genus. Multiple titanosaurs have evidence of osteoderms, so I wish something more well studied was chosen instead. If HLG wanted an armoured Titanosaur, Saltasaurus is prime for the picking and desperate for an updated figure.



That said, I don't tend to skip Titanosaur figures, so this will most likely be added to my collection at some point Probably would work as a generic saltasaurid and fit many a diorama.

From what I have read, the original finds were indeed rather loose bones belonging to several individuals and everything rather incomplete. But then later a much more complete skeleton was found, although the head was still disarticulated and incomplete. This specimen has been even named as Eva. So I would not call that a mess really. The situation is certainly much worse than that for many sauropod species described in recent years. There is even a skeleton restoration of Ampelosaurus on display in the Musée des dinosaures, Esperaza, France:

[Concavenator]

I'm guessing the Daspletosaurus was the figure hiding in the first image of the Haolonggood Pachyrhinosaurus.  It looks like it has been made now, the remaining teased species being the Megaraptor that's coming, the Dilophosaurus that we've seen prototype images of, the Alamosaurus we saw a photo of, and the Chasmosaurus whose skeleton has been shown in images of new figures.  I'm very ready for a Haolonggood Chasmosaurus, I hope it gets made soon!

There's also an Edmontosaurus.

[Sim]

Oh yes, I had forgotten about the Edmontosaurus!

[Pliosaurking]

The Ampleosaurus looks great, definitely got to get this figure at some point!
The Daspletosaurus looks pretty good, although I'm not too fussy on the face wrinkles. I may get it due to it being a different species from Safari's, though.

[Flaffy]

Not sure if Ampelosaurus is a good choice for a figure tbh. While the genus has tons of bones assigned to it, the whole thing is an absolute mess to my knowledge, so no reliable reconstruction exists atm. Moreover, we now know that the infamous "armour" on Ampelosaurus is not in fact unique to the genus. Multiple titanosaurs have evidence of osteoderms, so I wish something more well studied was chosen instead. If HLG wanted an armoured Titanosaur, Saltasaurus is prime for the picking and desperate for an updated figure.

From what I have read, the original finds were indeed rather loose bones belonging to several individuals and everything rather incomplete. But then later a much more complete skeleton was found, although the head was still disarticulated and incomplete. This specimen has been even named as Eva. So I would not call that a mess really. The situation is certainly much worse than that for many sauropod species described in recent years. There is even a skeleton restoration of Ampelosaurus on display in the Musée des dinosaures, Esperaza, France:

Issue is, Eva has yet to be described. Nor am I aware of any measurments and figures of the specimen being documented in a useable format either (namely in the creation of skeletals by artists). Until someone gets to describing the specimen in question, all Ampelosaurus reconstructions remain speculative at best. The HLG one is no exception unless they had some insider info.

[SidB]

Now that's a cool surprise! Should be smaller and more affordable than the Apatosaurus was.
Is this the first toy of the genus besides the Collecta?

As far as I remember, there is also a PNSO mini figure of it.
It sure is another pleasant surprise.

Here's a snap shot of the CollectA and the PNSO mini:

[SidB]

Not sure if Ampelosaurus is a good choice for a figure tbh. While the genus has tons of bones assigned to it, the whole thing is an absolute mess to my knowledge, so no reliable reconstruction exists atm. Moreover, we now know that the infamous "armour" on Ampelosaurus is not in fact unique to the genus. Multiple titanosaurs have evidence of osteoderms, so I wish something more well studied was chosen instead. If HLG wanted an armoured Titanosaur, Saltasaurus is prime for the picking and desperate for an updated figure.

From what I have read, the original finds were indeed rather loose bones belonging to several individuals and everything rather incomplete. But then later a much more complete skeleton was found, although the head was still disarticulated and incomplete. This specimen has been even named as Eva. So I would not call that a mess really. The situation is certainly much worse than that for many sauropod species described in recent years. There is even a skeleton restoration of Ampelosaurus on display in the Musée des dinosaures, Esperaza, France:

Issue is, Eva has yet to be described. Nor am I aware of any measurments and figures of the specimen being documented in a useable format either (namely in the creation of skeletals by artists). Until someone gets to describing the specimen in question, all Ampelosaurus reconstructions remain speculative at best. The HLG one is no exception unless they had some insider info.

I'll be glad to get the Ampelosaurus, but it does seem that the Saltasaurus would have been a safer bet.

[ItsTwentyBelow]

Ok, wow! These are two really impressive figures back to back! They look well researched and well proportioned overall.

I think that Ampelosaurus is going to be my third Haolonggood figure, maybe followed by the Das...I want the Edmontonia too. I like the Daspletosaurus better than their other theropods so far. The two colorways for the Ampelosaurus are great, initially I liked the green better but that black with orange is so attractive.

[thomasw100]

Lana Time Shop has the Ampelosaurus now for 44.99 USD with shipping included. This is a bargain for a sauropod model of this size and quality I would say.

https://lanatime-shop.com/collections/new-arrial/products/hao018

[thomasw100]

Not sure if Ampelosaurus is a good choice for a figure tbh. While the genus has tons of bones assigned to it, the whole thing is an absolute mess to my knowledge, so no reliable reconstruction exists atm. Moreover, we now know that the infamous "armour" on Ampelosaurus is not in fact unique to the genus. Multiple titanosaurs have evidence of osteoderms, so I wish something more well studied was chosen instead. If HLG wanted an armoured Titanosaur, Saltasaurus is prime for the picking and desperate for an updated figure.

From what I have read, the original finds were indeed rather loose bones belonging to several individuals and everything rather incomplete. But then later a much more complete skeleton was found, although the head was still disarticulated and incomplete. This specimen has been even named as Eva. So I would not call that a mess really. The situation is certainly much worse than that for many sauropod species described in recent years. There is even a skeleton restoration of Ampelosaurus on display in the Musée des dinosaures, Esperaza, France:

Issue is, Eva has yet to be described. Nor am I aware of any measurments and figures of the specimen being documented in a useable format either (namely in the creation of skeletals by artists). Until someone gets to describing the specimen in question, all Ampelosaurus reconstructions remain speculative at best. The HLG one is no exception unless they had some insider info.

I would have appreciated a Saltasaurus as well. My old Schleich Replica Saurus is not too bad, especially considering how old that model is now, but a new model from Haolonggood or PNSO would be great. There was actually a resin model by Zee Studio last year, but unfortunately it was sold out before I became aware of it. But I am happy that Haolonggood made this Ampelosaurus. If the requirements for making a model for any dinosaur species would be something like rather complete skeletal material, all details fully published in peer-reviewed journals, skeletal reconstruction by best experts available, we are unfortunately left with not too many options.

[ceratopsian]

Indeed, it would have been good to have an update of the old Carnegie Saltasaurus. And that's a good point T @thomasw100 makes on the paucity of completely known dinosaurs. 

[Leyster]

but it does seem that the Saltasaurus would have been a safer bet.

Saltasaurus would not have been a safer bet, being yet another bonebed taxon (at least five individuals all mixed up).

[thomasw100]

but it does seem that the Saltasaurus would have been a safer bet.

Saltasaurus would not have been a safer bet, being yet another bonebed taxon (at least five individuals all mixed up).

Interesting point, I was under the impression that the fossil record would be more complete for Saltasaurus. I think it would be worthwhile to reiterate the concept of a model. A model is an approximation of reality that is able to explain the available observational evidence and data as good as possible, ideally without any contradictions. In reality however even the best model will not explain all obervations perfectly, so typically a model is accepted if it explains the main observations. We should not confuse a model with the reality. This applies also to dinosaur models. Nobody knows how they exactly looked like, even for species where fossilized soft-tissue, skin impressions and color pigments were preserved like the famous Borealopelta, still there are gaps in the records. So our dinosaur models will reflect these different levels of observational evidence. Even if rather complete articulated skeletons are preserved, many aspects of the integument are still subject to interpretation. And this interpretation will vary from scientist to scientist. So where do we place the cutoff for making a model? Do we need a complete articulated skeleton, are we happy with a relatively complete set of bones from several partly articulated skeletons, are we happy happy with one partial skeleton or just with a handful of bones? Further to that, when it comes to the scale details and colors, these models are also partly pieces of paleoart. And with art comes some creative freedom.

[ceratopsian]

I'm a classicist by training (though not a philosopher).  I think of dinosaur models as being an expression of Plato's Theory of Forms.  What we see is only the shadow cast by firelight in the cave of the true "form".  I'm happy with knowing they are only ever an approximation of reality, to a greater or lesser extent.  For me the key is being aware that they are only an approximation and having some knowledge as to the closeness of that approximation and the extent of their imperfections.