HAOLONGGOOD - New For 2023

[ceratopsian]

My red Kosmoceratops isn't sticky @Sim. Though the feel is slightly different from its dark sibling. Slicker perhaps is the right word.

[Sim]

Thanks for your replies @TlatolophusJuanorum and @ceratopsian!  I'm happy to hear your Kosmoceratops aren't sticky.  I've left my Kosmoceratops on furniture for a few days and I'll see if it's still sticky.  If it is I think I'll order another one and hope to have better luck with it.

[thomasw100]

Thanks for your replies @TlatolophusJuanorum and @ceratopsian!  I'm happy to hear your Kosmoceratops aren't sticky.  I've left my Kosmoceratops on furniture for a few days and I'll see if it's still sticky.  If it is I think I'll order another one and hope to have better luck with it.

Maybe you could try and clean the Kosmoceratops in water first and see if this removes whatever causes it to feel sticky. If this does not work, maybe you could try to gently wipe it with a cloth soaked with ethanol to clean it. I would perhaps try this first very carefully at the underside of the feet. You will see right away if the ethanol dissolves some of the paint.

[Sim]

I'm pleased to say that after a few days now my Kosmoceratops is no longer sticky.  Maybe there was some gas lingering on the figure which is now gone.  I'm happy to have added it to my collection, it's an excellent figure.

[SidB]

I'm pleased to say that after a few days now my Kosmoceratops is no longer sticky.  Maybe there was some gas lingering on the figure which is now gone.  I'm happy to have added it to my collection, it's an excellent figure.

Glad that you didn't have to go through the ordeal of ordering another one, @Sim .

[thomasw100]

I'm pleased to say that after a few days now my Kosmoceratops is no longer sticky.  Maybe there was some gas lingering on the figure which is now gone.  I'm happy to have added it to my collection, it's an excellent figure.

Glad that you didn't have to go through the ordeal of ordering another one, @Sim .

I could imagine that this came from the packing materials. I noticed several times that some Haolonggood models had a strange chemical smell when I first took them out of the box. After a few days on the shelf, the smell was completely gone.

[Concavenator]

In case you hadn't seen it:



Udanoceratops confirmed! That will be interesting to see!

[thomasw100]

In case you hadn't seen it:
Udanoceratops confirmed! That will be interesting to see!

This is a rather small species, estimated at about 4 meters, so even smaller than the recently released Kosmoceratops. If this is now technically possible for Haolonggood, then Kentrosaurus should in principle be possible as well. I have a feeling that they are gradually testing how much smaller they can go and yet achieve sufficiently crisp and detailed skin texture and fine paint application. Kosmoceratops was the first test and that worked well. Ceratopsians have however the advantage that while some are short they are still quite bulky. Kentrosaurus may still be a bit more challenging because the body is so thin and particularly the tail and the spikes are quite thin structures.

[Concavenator]

This is a rather small species, estimated at about 4 meters, so even smaller than the recently released Kosmoceratops. If this is now technically possible for Haolonggood, then Kentrosaurus should in principle be possible as well. I have a feeling that they are gradually testing how much smaller they can go and yet achieve sufficiently crisp and detailed skin texture and fine paint application. Kosmoceratops was the first test and that worked well. Ceratopsians have however the advantage that while some are short they are still quite bulky. Kentrosaurus may still be a bit more challenging because the body is so thin and particularly the tail and the spikes are quite thin structures.

Yeah, Kentrosaurus should be feasible after all. Stegosaurians may not be as bulky as ceratopsians, but if CollectA was able to release a 1:35 Kentrosaurus back in 2010, I don't see how Haolonggood couldn't do it in the current times as well, especially after all the improvements they've demonstrated so far.

[thomasw100]

Today the Haolonggood Kosmoceratops (red version) has arrived. Really nice little model with great sculpt and paint application. Very natural look and subtle color transitions and a color palette that is in my view much better than what they used for the first ceratopsians that came out in the second half of last year.

[ceratopsian]

And my blue (sunset coloured?) Sinoceratops has arrived and has joined some of its Haolonggood brethren on a study shelf.

[cryolophosaurus]

This is a rather small species, estimated at about 4 meters, so even smaller than the recently released Kosmoceratops. If this is now technically possible for Haolonggood, then Kentrosaurus should in principle be possible as well. I have a feeling that they are gradually testing how much smaller they can go and yet achieve sufficiently crisp and detailed skin texture and fine paint application. Kosmoceratops was the first test and that worked well. Ceratopsians have however the advantage that while some are short they are still quite bulky. Kentrosaurus may still be a bit more challenging because the body is so thin and particularly the tail and the spikes are quite thin structures.

Yeah, Kentrosaurus should be feasible after all. Stegosaurians may not be as bulky as ceratopsians, but if CollectA was able to release a 1:35 Kentrosaurus back in 2010, I don't see how Haolonggood couldn't do it in the current times as well, especially after all the improvements they've demonstrated so far.

It's totally possible.

[thomasw100]

When it comes to really small species like Kentrosaurus or Kosmoceratops, we need to look at the economy of such models as well. They will probably have a rather low retail price well below 20 USD, but certain costs like the research, the development of the digital model, producing the molds, the costs for the usage of the molding machines and the costs for the paint work are more or less the same for smaller and slightly larger (mid-size) models. The same goes for designing the package and the molds for the foam inlays of the package. For very large models like Alamosaurus, the costs for the oversized molds and the material costs will be very high and the sales figures of such very large figures are expected to be lower than for smaller figures. The sales figures for very small figures and more mid-sized figures that cost 20-30 USD will probably be in the same ball park. So I would believe that the mid-sized figures would bring the best profit per investment, whereas both very large and very small figures would bring less profit per unit sold. Hence, the mid-sized figures are the ones that really keep the company going, whereas the very large and very small ones bring some profit but also serve for Haolonggood to demonstrate what they can do and to round up their portfolio and attract potential buyers also to their mid-sized figures. Having this said, I would guess that Haolonggood cannot afford to produce too many very large and very small figures relative to the mid-sized figures. If we look from that perspective at the releases of 2023, we see exactly this distribution. About 70-80 % of the figures are mid-size and the remaining 20-30 % are very large and very small.

[SidB]

These size arguments are persuasive, I find. However, I'd suggest another line of thought in favor of smaller figures - the loss leader. If a limited number of small figures will encourage enough sales of the more profitable mid - sized ones from people trying to collect a wider size range overall, then that's potentially a point in their favor.

[Prehistory Resurrection]

[Sim]

"The crocodilian scales on Pentaceratops could lack bone cores and be possible for the animal, after all Triceratops has been found to have "crocodilian" belly scales."
Scale impressions of other ceratopsids show otherwise. Scale impressions around the hip/pelvic region are consistent with the rest of the body: round scales with the occasional large feature scale.

The only dorsal scales from a ceratopsid are from Triceratops as far as I'm aware, and its scales aren't even the same as other ceratopsid scales.  There is the resemblance in feature scale surrounded by other scales, but the lack of skin impressions on other ceratopsids leaves the particular scale pattern on the Haolonggood Pentaceratops possible.

"The Apatosaurus's head shape could be due to lips changing the outline of the head?"
It's not just the lips. The eye placement is not consistent with fossil material, and either the preorbital crania is too narrow, or the back of the skull is too wide, it almost looks pinched.

I don't see it.

"The lack of cheek plates in Edmontonia is considered a feature that makes the two Edmontonia species different."
As discussed here: https://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=10571.msg355035#msg355035

What you linked to is just your opinion?  So the lack of the cheek plate is not an inaccuracy, based on what we know.

"Lacking lips is not known to be inaccurate for theropods, it's being actively debated at present."
Given the default state of tetrapods being lipped, along with Cullen et al 2023, the burden of proof is now on lipless supporters. I don't recall any theropod outside of Spinosauridae (+ a few other odd balls) having adaptations for prolonged teeth exposure.

As far as I'm aware, adaptations for prolonged tooth exposure are not necessary for an animal to have exposed teeth.  The latest paper saying one thing is not necessarily the final say.  I've already read opposition to it.  That being lipped is the default state for tetrapods is not something I'm sure about, as some ancient amphibians have heavily pitted skulls that suggest a covering like crocodilians.  I personally do think tetrapods were normally lipped, but I recognise these other possibilities too.

"The shape of the Wuerhosaurus's plates is possible, what just one palaeontologist thinks is not the only way to think about it.  It could be just the edges of the plates are worn making them look broken.  I stand by that it would be weird if they were all broken into the specific shapes they were found as."
Only two dorsal plates were recovered (strictly one and a half). It is presumptuous to assume that all plates would look the exact same as the existing fragments. Moreover, I've discussed in a previous post that HLG could've kept to the short plate aesthetic, while also acknowledging that the plates were indeed broken by reconstructing them like JWE did. Distinctly different from Stegosaurus, yet still uniquely recognisable as Wuerhosaurus.

No-one is thinking the plates of Wuerhosaurus all looked the same as the recovered fossil ones.  It's just been popular to reconstruct them in the style of what is preserved, and there's nothing wrong with that, I think.  I would be surprised if the plates had another bone core shape considering how the ones that were preserved "match".

"There's nothing wrong with megalodon looking like a great white shark."
Yes there is plenty wrong with just scaling up a white shark 1:1 and calling it an O. megalodon. For one the skull of megalodon would've been far more robust, with a blunter snout and lower set eyes. And this was before we recovered the articulate fossil of a juvenile megalodon. The rest of megalodon's proposed body proportions compared to white sharks have been discussed elsewhere, starting here: https://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=10571.msg351786#msg351786

What is differences in megalodon's skull compared to a great white shark's based on?  I'm not aware of any megalodon skull remains being known?  I also had never heard of a juvenile megalodon fossil, what does it contribute?
As for what you linked to, as far as I remember the conclusion was that megalodon's appearance is still unknown and you were going at it too hard for the situation.  Which I think is what you're doing now too.

"I don't see anything wrong with the Tlatolophus's head shape. If it's the crest that's being referred to, a keratin covering can make it bigger."
No, the crest is not the main point of contention. While I'm sure you meant no ill intent, please don't assume before concluding. DinosDragons's review clearly states that the premaxilla is too short.

I didn't assume, I clearly expressed that what I said was a possibility.  And I've looked at the Tlatolophus comparison again and I don't think the premaxilla is too short, I think its the lower jaw that is longer than what one might expect, but that could be due to beak keratin extending it, I think.

We ultimately have a relatively small sample size all things considered, but from what we do know of ceratopsian skin so far, there is nothing quite like crocodilian integument found yet, at least as far as what is depicted on the backside of the Pentaceratops figure. The closest analogue might be with some thyreophorans, maybe Ceratosaurus as well.

Well, as I said earlier, Triceratops skin from the underside of the animal looks like crocodilian scales.

[Faelrin]

@Sim I did see you express that, but just because Triceratops might have similar ventral integument, doesn't mean it would also have similar crocodilian dorsal integument, and based on the current evidence, we can clearly see Triceratops did have different dorsal integument. As you also mentioned Triceratops also has vastly different integument then what is known from other ceratopsians. In any case as I stated before nothing like crocodilian dorsal integument has been found in other ceratopsians so far. It's highly speculative, and not reflective of the current (although minimal) evidence in Centrosaurus, Chasmosaurus, Nasutoceratops, Psittacosaurus, Protoceratops (possibly), and Triceratops. I forgot to mention it in my previous post (although it was linked in my Medusaceratops review I shared), but this 2022 paper by Bell et al, has a great breakdown of what has been published on, although most of it does pertain to Psittacosaurus.

And yes I know absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence, but without direct evidence showing otherwise, it remains  highly speculative. It's not a big deal at the end of the day that they added it, but I do think it is worth pointing out where the current evidence stands at this point in time. In any case if you do like it, or don't find fault with it, there's no harm in that either.

[Sim]

Whatever one thinks of the crocodilian-like scales on the Haolonggood Pentaceratops, shouldn't the same also apply to midline raised scales on ceratopsid figures?  On e.g. Haolonggood Kosmoceratops, Safari Pachyrhinosaurus.  There's no evidence for such scales.  Also, the Triceratops-like integument on the Safari Einiosaurus, since centrosaurines are only known to have the large flattened feature scales surrounded by smaller scales.

[Faelrin]

@Sim That is a good point. The closest we have to that is evidence from Edmontosaurus right? But that's a hadrosaur, not a ceratopsian (although both are ornithischians however), so you are totally right to call out those figures having features like that as being highly speculative as well, or the Safari Ltd Einiosaurus having Triceratops like integument, because again there's no current evidence for those features.

This is also why I wish there were more figures of Centrosaurus and Chasmosaurus (and Psittacosaurus) in particular, since they have a good deal of skin material available to reference from (if not skeletal remains as well), outside of Triceratops recently. For Chasmosaurus there's even a juvenile with skin material, which is why I'm really glad to see Wild Past go that route (fingers crossed it releases someday) in including both an adult and juvenile. Mattel is also releasing a figure of Chasmosaurus this year, but I don't expect it to be accurate in this regard.

[thomasw100]

@Sim That is a good point. The closest we have to that is evidence from Edmontosaurus right? But that's a hadrosaur, not a ceratopsian (although both are ornithischians however), so you are totally right to call out those figures having features like that as being highly speculative as well, or the Safari Ltd Einiosaurus having Triceratops like integument, because again there's no current evidence for those features.

This is also why I wish there were more figures of Centrosaurus and Chasmosaurus (and Psittacosaurus) in particular, since they have a good deal of skin material available to reference from (if not skeletal remains as well), outside of Triceratops recently. For Chasmosaurus there's even a juvenile with skin material, which is why I'm really glad to see Wild Past go that route (fingers crossed it releases someday) in including both an adult and juvenile. Mattel is also releasing a figure of Chasmosaurus this year, but I don't expect it to be accurate in this regard.

We really lack a good figure of Chasmosaurus and I would be happy if either Haolonggood or PNSO would make one. I am however not convinced that Wild Past will be able to change their pattern of overpromising and underdelivering. I understand that they have quite limited resources but then they have to adjust their goals accordingly. The entire autumn was filled with announcements about their upcoming Kickstarter campaign, but now it is very quiet again and the Kickstarter has not even started. I will not count on their models to see the light of the day any time soon. They may come but they may as well not come.