Haolonggood - New for 2025

[SidB]

Nice, but I already have the Favorite (fairly rare), the classic Carnegie Safari (by Forest Rogers) and Safari versions, so I think that they will suffice.

[bmathison1972]

Yeah; I am more than content with the newest Safari, so these are a pass for me, but they are lovely nonetheless!

[ceratopsian]

What I have too will suffice. I'm not focused on theropods, so I will skip this one. I like the grey one though.

[Joliezac]

Not crazy about the colors but the sculpt looks great. I don't have concavenator in my collection but this one will probably wait awhile. I'm behind on releases but I simply can't buy everything I like when it comes to Haolonggood or PNSO... Especially when extant animals is my main collecting hobby. I'll have to wait.

[Ajax88]

I'm the only one who's not very enthusiastic? I find that their theropods are never really successful. The sculpture lacks finesse, the pose is rather static, and I find it more toy-like than accurate. I've had the same impression with allosaurus, carnotaurus, dilophosaurus and so on. However, their ceratopsians and sauropods are much better.

Same, I'm not sure what it is, but their theropods just never look as good as their herbivorous species. The sculpts are cruder, and lack the same level of detail. Maybe their model-maker just has nore experience with non-theropods.

[bmathison1972]

What I have too will suffice. I'm not focused on theropods, so I will skip this one. I like the grey one though.

Same, theropods are not a focus, so I rarely get them if not made by Safari.

I'm the only one who's not very enthusiastic? I find that their theropods are never really successful. The sculpture lacks finesse, the pose is rather static, and I find it more toy-like than accurate. I've had the same impression with allosaurus, carnotaurus, dilophosaurus and so on. However, their ceratopsians and sauropods are much better.

Same, I'm not sure what it is, but their theropods just never look as good as their herbivorous species. The sculpts are cruder, and lack the same level of detail. Maybe their model-maker just has nore experience with non-theropods.

Funny that's how I feel about CollectA's theropods. They just don't appeal to me. I have a couple but it's one reason the 2025 Maip is still a 'maybe'.

[Carnoking]

I'm the only one who's not very enthusiastic? I find that their theropods are never really successful. The sculpture lacks finesse, the pose is rather static, and I find it more toy-like than accurate. I've had the same impression with allosaurus, carnotaurus, dilophosaurus and so on. However, their ceratopsians and sauropods are much better.

I wasn't too taken by it initially myself. Even if it has grown on me a little since first seeing it, it certainly won't be a priority figure on my list (I'll probably wait until there's a decent Aliexpress sale)
That being said, whenever I see a HLG that isn't firing on all cylinders for me, I just remind myself how relatively affordable these models are and through that lens I tend to be more forgiving.

[Flaffy]

I'm liking what I'm seeing. While I also have the Carnegie and Favorite Concavenators, they are very rare and no longer readily available. Thus HLG's take is greatly appreciated especially for new collectors.

It also helps that it's the best version currently available on the market imo!

P @paleochris I agree that HLG's theropods aren't at the same level as their herbivores yet. But I also think the recent Majungasaurus and Concavenator are improvements over their previous batch.

[Gwangi]

Interesting to see so much love for the Carnegie Concavenator lately. I remember when it came out and by then a large portion of the community was getting tired of Carnegie's theropods always standing in a tripod pose and roaring off to the side. I recall the paint application being criticized too. It was not initially well received but time has been kind to it.

I have the CollectA Concavenator and have been itching for a better model for ages. Safari's didn't do it for me either so I welcome HLG's with open arms. Can't wait to get it. Not thrilled by either paintjob but they're serviceable enough.

[Pliosaurking]

This figure looks quite nice, definitely will grab one, probably the blue.

[Duna]

@RobinGoodfellow was right about the saturation of the colours. They look much better in real light.


Pics from Aliexpress seller My Online Toy Store.

The green one looks better now. Look at that head sculpt, the legs, the arms ... there is no better Concavenator figure and ... yes, it is a good figure. I wouldn't say HLG is not strong at theropods because their last two figures are very good, Majungasaurus and Concavenator, along with the Megaraptor are top.


In fact, I have changed my mind about the colour, and I have changed my order for the green version. Because all the other Concavenator figures that I like (and I have), the Carnegie and the Favorite are clearly inspired in the colours of "Pepito", the Concavenator sculpture of the Museo Paleontológico de Cuenca.
And I think the HLG green would go nicely with them. I love that they used the red for the hump. I couldn't see now Concavenator without red in the hump, it's an icon.

[oscars_dinos]

I'm the only one who's not very enthusiastic? I find that their theropods are never really successful. The sculpture lacks finesse, the pose is rather static, and I find it more toy-like than accurate. I've had the same impression with allosaurus, carnotaurus, dilophosaurus and so on. However, their ceratopsians and sauropods are much better.

Its a lack of refined scale detail, however they are getting better at capturing the anatomy and gesture of these therapods, the silhouette is giving pnso, but again the detail is not there yet

[Duna]

Its a lack of refined scale detail, however they are getting better at capturing the anatomy and gesture of these therapods, the silhouette is giving pnso, but again the detail is not there yet

I think I 100% prefer less visible scales (which are there and still can be seen like in the very good Majungasaurus and Megaraptor) that are in scale with the size than corn-cobing such small figures.

[oscars_dinos]

i

Its a lack of refined scale detail, however they are getting better at capturing the anatomy and gesture of these therapods, the silhouette is giving pnso, but again the detail is not there yet

I think I 100% prefer less visible scales (which are there and still can be seen like in the very good Majungasaurus and Megaraptor) that are in scale with the size than corn-cobing such small figures.

I agree but sharp details like veins, wrinkles, and the occasional larger feature scale help to make a small figure look realistic, I think there is a refinement in pnso figures that is crisp enough to see but isn't corn cobish,

[Samrukia]

Interesting thing is that Majungasaurus are HLG-139 and HLG-140, and Styracosaurus HLG-155 and HLG-156. Now Concavenator is HLG-152 and if I see this correctly HLG-151. I wonder what is in between these known numbers.

did some quick sorting,
starting from Nasutoceratops:

010-011    Nasutoceratops
012-013    Ouranosaurus
014-015    Tianzhenosaurus
016-017    Pentaceratops
018-019    Apatosaurus
020-021    Wuerhosaurus
022-023    Pachyrhinosaurus
024-025    Edmontonia
026-027    Allosaurus
028-029        Dacentrurus
030        Otodus
031-032    Carnotaurus
033-034    Daspletosaurus
035-036    Ampelosaurus
037-038    Dilophosaurus
039-040    Megaraptor

072-073    Baryonyx

075-076    Tlatolophus

078-079    Kosmoceratops
080-081    Chasmosaurus
082-083        Sinoceratops

085-086-?    Alamosaurus

089-090    Edmontosaurus
091-092-093    Stegosaurus
094-095-096    Mamenchisaurus
097-098        Euoplocephalus
099-100        Gastonia
101-102        Maiasaura

105-106        Diabloceratops

109, 118    Camarasaurus - strange numbering

121-122        Saichania
123-124        Amargasaurus

127-128        Triceratops
129-130-131    Argentinosaurus
132        Huayangosaurus (green)

135-136        Xenoceratops
137-138        Utahceratops
139-140        Majungasaurus

151-152        Concavenator

155-156        Styracosaurus
157-158-159    Brachiosaurus

not sure if designer editions get any code, probably no - even purple Argentinosaurus didn't get HLG code

[thomasw100]

I agree but sharp details like veins, wrinkles, and the occasional larger feature scale help to make a small figure look realistic, I think there is a refinement in pnso figures that is crisp enough to see but isn't corn cobish,

Haolonggood is definitely getting better with their theropods. The Majungasaurus is really nice. While not yet at the level of PNSO theropods (compare for example with their Yangchuanosaurus shangyouensis which is splendid in every detail), the Majungasaurus is fairly close.

I like that they opted to use static jaws on these small theropods as it greatly improves the overall appearance, but hope they would not sculpt each and every of them with open mouth and exposed teeth.

Still I am a bit confused about the lips in the Majungasaurus and Concavenator. If I compare again with the PNSO Yangchuanosaurus shangyouensis, the two Haolonggood figures appear like half lipped. Like there are some sort of lips, but the teeth are protruding more than in the PNSO figures.

[Turkeysaurus]

Haolonggood is a budget PNSO. I think that makes attractive for many. You can skip or wait for PNSO to do one if you have faith, patience and budget for it.

I usually buy species from Haolonggood that i don't want to spend PNSO money on it. Like gastonia, sinoceratops, utahceratops etc. I'm not willing to pay 40 plus dollars for each.

I prefered Haolonggood large sauropods and Styracosaurus for scaling reasons even though PNSO had better sculpt. Also stegosaurus but i don't know if that's fair because PNSO is older model. 

I spent more on PNSO Edmontosaurus , Camarasaurus etc. despite it cost more. So it's a choice , i think Concavenator is a species PNSO might want to try.

Speculative PNSO design if they do proper one instead of mini:

[GnastyGnorc]

Haolonggood is a budget PNSO. I think that makes attractive for many. You can skip or wait for PNSO to do one if you have faith, patience and budget for it.

I usually buy species from Haolonggood that i don't want to spend PNSO money on it. Like gastonia, sinoceratops, utahceratops etc. I'm not willing to pay 40 plus dollars for each.

I prefered Haolonggood large sauropods and Styracosaurus for scaling reasons even though PNSO had better sculpt. Also stegosaurus but i don't know if that's fair because PNSO is older model. 

I spent more on PNSO Edmontosaurus , Camarasaurus etc. despite it cost more. So it's a choice , i think Concavenator is a species PNSO might want to try.

Speculative PNSO design if they do proper one instead of mini:

Oh that feathers like really nice on that reconstruction and for some reason make the hump look more natural.

Hopefully we get more feathered theropods soon.

[Sim]

I would love more feathered theropods from Haolonggood.  Utahraptor and Austroraptor would be lovely in 1:35 scale!

[dinofelid]

Haolonggood is a budget PNSO. I think that makes attractive for many. You can skip or wait for PNSO to do one if you have faith, patience and budget for it.

I usually buy species from Haolonggood that i don't want to spend PNSO money on it. Like gastonia, sinoceratops, utahceratops etc. I'm not willing to pay 40 plus dollars for each.

I prefered Haolonggood large sauropods and Styracosaurus for scaling reasons even though PNSO had better sculpt. Also stegosaurus but i don't know if that's fair because PNSO is older model. 

I spent more on PNSO Edmontosaurus , Camarasaurus etc. despite it cost more. So it's a choice , i think Concavenator is a species PNSO might want to try.

Speculative PNSO design if they do proper one instead of mini:

I like the idea of at least putting dinofuzz on more of the smaller theropods, but I'd think that in terms of phylogenetic bracketing Concavenator probably wouldn't have elongated wing-like feathers on its arms like that, since according to the cladogram here Compsognathidae was more closely related to birds than Carcharodontosauridae, but the compsognathid Sinosauropteryx had well preserved dinofuzz impressions which didn't show long arm feathers (also see the cladogram focused on feather evolution here and another in fig. 3 of this paper).

edit: Googling a little more I just came across this article which explains why Concavenator is sometimes reconstructed with elongated arm feathers:

One of the lower arm bones of Concavenator, the ulna, shows a line of little raised bumps. In birds, as well as other dinosaurs like Velociraptor, the bumps have been classified as quill knobs where ligaments help anchor feathers. Not all experts agree with this interpretation. Some have questioned whether the bumps might be from tendon attachments or some other tissue. To date, though, the feather interpretation has not been ruled out. Concavenator may have had long feathers along its arms, at the very least. More than that, Concavenator was more closely related to dinosaurs like Allosaurus than fuzzy theropod species, so the dinosaur's feathers would indicate that the features were more ancient and widespread among predatory dinosaurs than previously thought.

There was also some discussion of these bumps and whether or not they represent quill knobs on p. 10 of this thread, stargatedalek mentioned that in modern animals these sort of bumps are specifically associated with pennaceous feathers and not other sorts of quills, and it seems unlikely pennaceous feathers evolved that early (given other dinosaurs more closely related to birds that lacked them), so if they were feather attachment points at all it might have been some sort of convergent evolution. Sim also mentioned that the paleontologist Andrea Cau had a post here in Italian, with google translate version here, giving some arguments against interpreting them as quill knobs, like the fact that they are located at a different region of the ulna than avian quill knobs, and the fact that "these papillae are connected to each other by a thin bony crest, while the ulnar paravian papillae are separated from each other. Finally, the papillae of Concavenator are arranged at irregular distances from each other, while the ulnar paravian papillae are spaced uniformly from each other (since they are the anchor of a regular plumage)." But if they were a kind of convergent evolution of long arm feathers rather than directly on the lineage to flight feathers, maybe that could explain such differences, I dunno.