Concavenator’s Collection

[thomasw100]

That's a lovely figure, @Concavenator, and I'm so glad it finally got to you. I considered ordering it, but I'm a little wary of making expensive purchases from small studios or individual artists (a concern that's not unfounded in this case, I guess). I'm still debating on the Haolonggood. You're right about the premaxilla, and it bugs me for the reasons you mentioned.

I got the Haolonggood Tlatolophus and I was disappointed. One thing are the inaccuracies. But there is more. The surface is extremely flat and rather featureless, not much of a texture. Yes there are some skin wrinkles, but other than that very flat with virtually no scales or anything. Much different from the promo images. Then the eyes are just black dots and this looks not great either. Now I have ordered the VFB Paleoart model through Dinosauria Creatures as a resin 3D print.

[Halichoeres]

Glad you got your Tlatolophus after all! It's definitely a pretty figure. The detailed breakdown is interesting, too.

[Concavenator]

Thank you everyone!

@Sim About the skull shape of the HLG Tlatolophus not maching the fossil being attributed to external keratin, I don't think that's correct. Generally speaking, what you mention could be a possibility, but for that to be true, the whole structure (the crest in this case) should be bigger than what it'd be if we ignore any keratinization. And that doesn't seem to be true in this particular case. In HLG's Tlatolophus, the crest doesn't appear to be particularly big. Considering both the forehead's curvature being absent and the premaxilla being too short, to me it looks like they simply focused in the crest, with the rest of the skull being a generic hadrosaurid's.

Interesting about extant animal figures having inaccuracies here and there!  That's certainly not what I would expect! That's quite odd. Scientific accuracy should be pretty easy to get spot-on on the vast majority of cases. As to why extant animal figure collectors don't care that much about accuracy, perhaps it could be due to the fact that those figures, even if are not totally anatomically correct, are in no doubt a fairly good approximation of the real animals, since those are alive today and we know how they look like. With extant animal figures, at best, you could basically get a copy of the living animal, and at the very worst, you could get a figure that resembles the real animal enough for you to identify it.

With prehistoric animal figures, that's not the case. Can an extant animal figure mess it so much as, for instance, Wing Crown did with their Anchisaurus? A priori, I don't think so. Instead, with prehistoric animal figures, at best, you get a representation that could be an approximation of the real animal (but is still surely wrong in many aspects) and at worst, you would get a representation that doesn't even remotely look like the real animal, as the aforementioned Anchisaurus. So I'm not surprised scientific accuracy is important for figures intended as being scientifically accurate (I've said it before that discussing about that in some figures like Mattel's, or JP-inspired ones doesn't make sense). Even if a figure has no known inaccuracies, it will still have unknown inaccuracies. But if in addition, there are also known inaccuracies, then as a representation of the real animal, it won't be so good. Of course, not all inaccuracies are equally bad. And I can also see why collectors of extant animal figures may be annoyed by inaccuracies, it makes sense that those figures shouldn't have those, or at least not how commonly as you claim they are.

Did you recently start collecting extant animal figures?

@Dusty Wren Thank you!  I see where you're coming from. I wouldn't buy anything from anyone I don't have a reference of, either. But I'd seen some reviews of Ancestors' figures on YouTube (by @Carnoking , D @Dino Scream3232 , A @Andysdinosaurreviews , etc), and I had also seen pics and reviews taken by other people (on Etsy, etc), so I gave it a go. I try to show my support for emerging companies (when possible), because if they are ignored, the market will be less and less diverse over time in terms of companies. But at the same time I can also see why someone could hesitate making a purchase like this.

About HLG's Tlatolophus, if you're not particularly interested in the species, skipping it would be an option. But you could also get it and replace it with a superior version in case one is released. Don't think there will be many more figures of Tlatolophus, but who knows! 

T @thomasw100 Based on the reviews I've seen, to me it looks like HLG's Tlatolophus has very fine scaling. Really small scales, yes, but they're still there. That means the skin texture is as accurate as possible, and on that sense, I consider it an improvement over the Ouranosaurus. For instance, PNSO's Tsintaosaurus isn't very textured, either.

That is one very nice Tlatolophus too! In that case, I feel like one could attribute the absent curvature to external keratin being present as @Sim suggested, as its crest looks a bit on the big side.

@Halichoeres Thank you! I guess you will be getting HLG's?

[Sim]

Did you recently start collecting extant animal figures?

Yes, I think it's been for less than a year!  I'm enjoying it as much as collecting prehistoric animal figures!  I haven't collected any extant mammals or invertebrates as I'm not interested in having figures of them, although I have an Arsinoitherium in my prehistoric collection and would be interested in a realistic Basilosaurus.

[Halichoeres]

Well-spotted on the curvature on the forehead being absend on the Haolonggood Tlatolophus!  However I think it might be due to the crest's keratin increasing the size of the crest and making it flow smoothly with the rest of the head.

But with something like a premaxilla being shorter than in the fossil itself, there's no excuse.

You might be surprised how often inaccuracies are present in figures of animal species that are still alive today!  It's quite frequent!  And members on the Animal Toy Forum are quite tolerant of inaccuracies on extant animal figures!  It's been a surprise to me, and I find it interesting people tend to care more about accuracy in the prehistoric animal model community than in the extant animal model community.  I'm not sure what to think of this!

I think there are some personality types that are more common among dinosaur enthusiasts than among animal enthusiasts. There's obviously overlap, but I think paleo enthusiasts are likelier to be younger, more male, and more likely to be predisposed to hyperfocus, all of which might contribute to being a bit more exacting. And if I'm being honest, the 'younger, more male' part of that might also contribute to a stronger impulse toward demonstrating how much one knows about _____saurus.

[Stegotyranno420]

I wouldn't say that exactly, but an interesting observation.
I think the tolerance comes from the idea that animals of today can be seen in pure accuracy in a myriad of ways.
With extincts, to compensate for the loss there is an extreme focus on accuracy, furthermore the field of making (non pop-culture inspired) dinosaur models is inherently more likely to be scientific based than animal figurines, which to my knowledge are more often made and marketed for kids.

[Halichoeres]

I don't know about that, with the possible exception of brands like PNSO and Sideshow, I would bet that both dinosaur toys and modern animal toys are sold more to/for kids than adults, but that the imbalance is probably even greater for dinosaur toys.

[triceratops83]

I don't know about that, with the possible exception of brands like PNSO and Sideshow, I would bet that both dinosaur toys and modern animal toys are sold more to/for kids than adults, but that the imbalance is probably even greater for dinosaur toys.

I agree, but I think our generation and younger seem to hold onto their toys as adults the way previous generations don't. When I buy Birthday/Xmas presents for my friends in their 40's, it's nearly always action figures and collectibles, and they get me toy dinosaurs. So while marketed at children I guess companies know a lot of adults buy their products too.

[Hermisaurus]

I generally agree with your rules. I would like to complete my Toyway walking with Dinosaurs collection and am only one figure away but otherwise I would go for best looking/most scientifically accurate figures without consideration of who makes them. As per that there are better spinosaurs out there - Papo, PNSO, with the more accurate tail.

[Concavenator]

Did you recently start collecting extant animal figures?

Yes, I think it's been for less than a year!  I'm enjoying it as much as collecting prehistoric animal figures!  I haven't collected any extant mammals or invertebrates as I'm not interested in having figures of them, although I have an Arsinoitherium in my prehistoric collection and would be interested in a realistic Basilosaurus.

Neat that you also enjoy collecting extant animals! I kind of did the opposite thing, I started collecting extant animals and then switched to prehistorics. I had both collections coexisting for a while, until I realized I'd lost interest in collecting extant animals, so I figured it'd be best to dedicate that space to my prehistoric collection. I also did the same with some McFarlane dragons I had, which I also lost interest in. Space is valuable indeed! And if you're running low on space, I would recommend getting rid of figures of fragmentary species that don't add much value to your collection, like the Zhuchengtyrannus you mentioned. That way, you can get some space back which you could eventually use to display figures of valuable species like Amargasaurus, Herrerasaurus, Austroraptor, Gallimimus, etc.

I've gotten rid of many figures during the last few years and I'm glad I did.  I now have plenty of space to use for figures of taxa I'm actually interested in.

I'd also love to get a really good Basilosaurus. Truly a spectacular creature.

I think the tolerance comes from the idea that animals of today can be seen in pure accuracy in a myriad of ways.
With extincts, to compensate for the loss there is an extreme focus on accuracy, furthermore the field of making (non pop-culture inspired) dinosaur models is inherently more likely to be scientific based than animal figurines, which to my knowledge are more often made and marketed for kids.

I agree. This approach makes sense, a greater focus on accuracy makes up for the (in most cases) uncertainty about an extinct creature's appearance.

@triceratops83 Those are some good friends you have! I wish my friends giften me dinosaur figures too.   

H @Hermisaurus I saw you're missing the Ophthalmosaurus. I think @TooOldForDinosaurs could give you a few tips on how to track it, he has an army of them after all!

[Sim]

Interesting that you started by collecting extant animals!  It's good to hear that you were able to adapt your collection to your preference.  My extant animal collection has taken up a lot of room, although not as much as my prehistoric collection!  I still have some room left, especially for smaller figures, but if companies keep up releasing figures that I want to have, I think I will run out of space.  But I'll decide what to do about it if it happens.
One option is to get rid of fragmentary species that don't add much, as you advised, and yes Zhuchengtyrannus is one of those.  Mapusaurus too.  I already think I will let go of my Fukuiraptor, although that one is a very small figure.  I'd also like to get rid of my Baryonyx by Favorite as I prefer Haolonggood's Baryonyx, and I have both colour versions of Haolonggood's.  At this point I'm only keeping the Baryonyx by Favorite because it scales better with the Neovenator by Favorite.  The ideal for me would be a company making a nice Neovenator in 1:35 scale so I can part with the larger Neovenator and Baryonyx by Favorite, and that would free some space!  Even though Neovenator and Megalosaurus are fragmentary, they are important discoveries of animals that lived where I live, I can relate to them due to that and consequently I'd like to have figures of them.
After my previous post in this thread, I reconsidered mammal figures and realised there are a few extant mammals I would like figures of.  I've ordered them!
By the way, I was wondering why you got rid of your Vitae Jinyunpelta?

[Concavenator]

@Sim Well, if in a year time span your extant animal collection is already taking up a lot of room, then I can clearly see you're enjoying your new hobby! If you ever feel like you've officially ran out of space (which is also kind of relative), then there are some tips to free some space, like limiting yourself to 1 variant/figure, 1 figure/species, 1 figure/genus, only collecting figures of the animals you're interested in... etc. Criteria can be very diverse, and just by following one of those, even the least harsh, you could already save a good amount of space. So doing something like @Halichoeres and I would be a solution. But I recall seeing you comment you replace figures, so it seems you already do something similar. In any case, I understand that self-imposed limitations are not for everyone, but they could be a solution in case they're needed. Of course, a simpler solution would be to simply dedicate more room for your collection, if that's possible for you.

Taxa like Zhuchengtyrannus I think don't add much value. IIRC, you already have PNSO's Cameron and Tarbosaurus, so you already have good figures of the Tyrannosaurini members known from good material. Similarly, you have PNSO's Giganotosaurus, so that's already a great figure of a more complete Giganotosaurini. And yes, something like Megalosaurus is also fragmentary, but, needless to say, it's a totally different situation as with the other 2 taxa. It's very historically important, and it's a valuable species for a collection. The Zhuchengtyrannus and Mapusaurus are large, so even if you get rid of just 1, that's some space you're freeing up!

Another tip I can give is using display risers (in case you don't use them already), as they can extend the space by giving you the possibility to display some figures beneath the others.

[Concavenator]

@Sim Oh sorry, I realized I didn't answer your question about the Jinyunpelta! Yes, I sold it, but just because I realized I wasn't really interested in the species. The figure itself is great. For each group there are usually specific genera that I'm interested in collecting. And for ankylosaurians, all I need are Borealopelta, Zuul (both of which I already have) and Stegouros. So I sold the Jinyunpelta as I didn't feel the need to have it, regardless of the figure being very nice and not taking up a lot of room. I bought it, basically, because, by the time I ordered it, I had no ankylosaurid in my collection (I had sold the only one I'd had by then, Schleich's 2009 Saichania), and Vitae's Jinyunpelta was my favorite ankylosaurid figure back then. But my collecting criteria have changed ever since, and no matter how pretty a figure is, or if it's a species I don't have (I'm not a completist), if it's a species I don't feel the need to have, I either skip it or sell it (in case I lose interest in a particular species already present in my collection). The Jinyunpelta is one of the latter group. These are the figures I've sold since my last setup update (will show another update later in the year):

Spoiler

Atlasaurus (Eofauna)
Brachiosaurus (Carnegie)
Coelophysis (Safari)
Dicraeosaurus (Haolonggood)
Jinyunpelta (Vitae)
Lambeosaurus (Qualia)
Megalosaurus (CollectA)
"Tiantaiosaurus" (Vitae)
Triceratops (Eofauna)

All are great figures which I really like, but I'm not too interested in these genera, so I've sold them and this way I get space and money back. I intend to dedicate 100 % of my space to figures of creatures I'm interested in.

On the other hand, I also sold Safari's Ichthyosaurus, Papo's Megaloceros, and Carnegie's Miragaia, but these don't really count as I'm replacing these genera.

[close]

But yeah, Vitae's Jinyunpelta is fantastic if you're into that species, and I highly recommend it.

Another tip I can give is using display risers (in case you don't use them already), as they can extend the space by giving you the possibility to display some figures beneath the others.

Here's a quick demo to show my point:





If the risers weren't there, the figures would be crowded in the display (if I had that many figures  ) and would compete with each other for space as they'd be displayed in the same level. That's not the case when using these stands.

Hope this helps.

[Concavenator]

*deleted*

[Halichoeres]

A suitably imposing figure for such a magnificent animal!

[Concavenator]

*deleted*

[Concavenator]

Binomial name: Chasmosaurus belli (Lambe, 1914)
Etymology: "[Walter] Bell's opening lizard" (Greek)
Classified as: Dinosauria -> Ornithischia -> Neornithischia -> Cerapoda -> Marginocephalia -> Ceratopsia -> Ceratopsidae -> Chasmosaurinae
Period: Late Cretaceous (Campanian)
Fossils found in: Dinosaur Park Formation, present-day Canada (North America)

Company: HAOLONGGOOD
Sculptor: @zeroes_zee (Instagram)?
Variant: Zou Yuan
Year of release: 2024

Review:

Spoiler

A famous long-frilled ceratopsid from the Dinosaur Park Formation (Acorn 2023). Despite its frill's great size, this structure was lighter than what could be expected, due to the presence of large fenestrae (after which the genus is named) on it (Dixon 2010). Many specimens have been attributed to the genus (Campbell et al. 2016). Up to seven species have been proposed, but only two are generally accepted as valid: C. belli and C. russelli (Campbell et al. 2016). Skin impressions were found in a juvenile specimen of C. belli (Currie et al. 2016).

Replaces the BotM version. That figure was a sight to behold, but this replacement allows me to save space (and a fair amount at that!), which is always appreciated. And of course, this is a nice Chasmosaurus too!

I also really liked Wild Past's, but: 1) who knows when (or if) will it come out, 2) it includes a baby, which I don't need and 3) it will probably be more expensive. And if PNSO makes a Chasmosaurus, it will surely be a really good depiction of the animal as well, but assuming it will be the same price as their Styracosaurus/Centrosaurus, it will be 3 times more expensive than HLG's. And it will probably be brown, which will look similar to their Styracosaurus I already have. So I'm happy to get HLG's. And about time somebody made a good figure of this particular ceratopsid genus in the 1:35(ish) range, so hats off to them!

Speaking of HLG's, its coloration reminds me a bit of Dinosaur King's, and that's certainly a plus in my book.



I have a fondness for Dinosaur King, and while I'm not a big fan of some of their designs (also, some just happen to have become outdated), there are others that I like, and their Chasmosaurus is among them.

Chasmosaurus itself has always been among my favorite ceratopsids too. It is a beautiful animal, and when you couple that to its taxonomic relevance (for naming the Chasmosaurinae clade, and also for the good quality of the available material), you get a ceratopsid that's far more interesting than the overrated Tr*cerat*ps.

[close]

[Halichoeres]

You got yours quick! I'll probably go for the same version once a more local seller carries it. Out of curiosity, do they specify C. belli on the box?

[Concavenator]

You got yours quick! I'll probably go for the same version once a more local seller carries it. Out of curiosity, do they specify C. belli on the box?

If it wasn't apparent, I was eager to replace the BotM Chasmosaurus. 

And I think the green one is the flashier of the 2. And that's coming from someone who's traditionally not that big a fan of green dinosaurs, but we've had enough brown dinos for a while.

The box simply says Chasmosaurus, no mention of the species. As others have pointed out, I also think it's identifiable as C. belli because of the frill embayment's angle. When it comes to the brown horns, @Sim mentioned a potential C. belli specimen (NMC/CMN 2245) which has C. russelli-like brown horns. I doubt Haolonggood literally based their model on that individual, but that goes to show that some C. belli specimens might have looked like Haolonggood's model. The figure also displays skin texture consistent with UALVP 52613 (a juvenile that was found with skin impressions), which is recovered as C. belli (Currie et al. 2016).

I've seen HLG's Kosmoceratops box says Kosmoceratops richardsoni, which is redundant because Kosmoceratops is a monotypic genus. It would be more useful for the species name to be included in polytypic genera. But with accurate IDs, because HLG's Daspletosaurus was named D. torosus even though it looked more like D. horneri!

[Concavenator]

Binomial name: Concavenator corcovatus (Ortega, Escaso & Sanz, 2010)
Etymology: "Hump-backed hunter from Cuenca" (Latin)
Classified as: Dinosauria -> Saurischia -> Theropoda -> Neotheropoda -> Averostra -> Tetanurae -> Carnosauria -> Allosauroidea -> Allosauria -> Carcharodontosauria -> Carcharodontosauridae
Period: Early Cretaceous (Barremian)
Fossils found in: Calizas de La Huérguina Formation, present-day Spain (Europe)

Company: Safari Ltd.
Line: Wild Safari Prehistoric World
Sculptor: Doug Watson
Based on: MCCM-LH 6666/"Pepito"
Year of release: 2020

Review:

Spoiler

A primitive carcharodontosaurid that had a hump-like structure on its back. It also possessed a series of small bumps on its ulna, which might have been homologous to quill knobs present on some extant birds. Concavenator is known from a single, almost complete and very well-preserved specimen (MCCM-LH 6666) (Ortega, Escaso & Sanz 2010).

Replaces Carnegie's version. Not a drastic improvement, IMO. I mostly replaced it for scale reasons:

Spoiler

Safari's being at around 1:35, whereas Carnegie's is about 1:25. Not that I'm particularly strict about scales, but if there's a good version of a certain species in 1:35 scale, then I'd rather have it than another good version in a larger scale (though I can also get a mini here and there which will also enable me to save further space  ).

[close]

This Safari version also has lips (also, nice to get a theropod figure with its mouth shut!), which the Carnegie lacks. It's also bipedal, in contrast to Carnegie's, which is a tripod. However, it's not all advantages in the accuracy department for the newer Safari, as it seems to lack those scutes in the underside of the tail that the Carnegie had. In any case, having had both Carnegie's and this one, this new Safari one is my favorite of the 2.

My copy came with some severe warping out of the bag:



Somehow, it is still able to stand on its own!  I hope it won't have stability issues (though seeing its current state, won't be surprised if it does) and I won't have to resort to the hot-cold water treatment, because every single time I've tried it, it hasn't worked. Well, I guess I could always place a small coin under one of its feet, because, in my experience, that does work...

A proper, feathered, Concavenator would be appreciated, but in the meantime, I'm happy to have this one. A pity to see it retired so soon, too. That's another reason I picked it up, it's not everyday that a good Concavenator is released, let alone a 1:35 one.

[close]