Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[Duna]

Anyone know if CollectA does digital or hand sculpts? This page says they have a sculptor named Mathias Geiger but I don't know if the word "sculptor" could refer to digital sculpts nowadays as well.

They look hand sculpted. You can see that the circular scales on some parts of the body are made by punching a "straw" to the clay. Like in this gecko

[BlueKrono]

"Anyone know if CollectA does digital or hand sculpts? This page says they have a sculptor named Mathias Geiger but I don't know if the word "sculptor" could refer to digital sculpts nowadays as well."

I wonder how up to date that page is... It mentions him collaborating with Anthony Beeson, who died years ago.

[dinofelid]

"Anyone know if CollectA does digital or hand sculpts? This page says they have a sculptor named Mathias Geiger but I don't know if the word "sculptor" could refer to digital sculpts nowadays as well."

I wonder how up to date that page is... It mentions him collaborating with Anthony Beeson, who died years ago.

That page may be out of date but I see that on this thread @Concavenator says that the 2023 Mosasaurus was sculpted by Matthias Geiger.

[Turkeysaurus]

Promo pics look worse than regular pics.   

[Halichoeres]

The style of CollectA's figures definitely doesn't seem to have changed since the last year where they confirmed that Geiger was their sculptor.

[Concavenator]

Some thoughts I have:

- PNSO is overrated.

- Eofauna and Haolonggood are underrated.

- Safari is extremely underrated.

- Even though I think PNSO is overrated, I feel like their (2021) Mamenchisaurus and Alamosaurus are underrated. I know a lot of people weren't happy with them because of their sizes, but scale (and exposed teeth) aside, they're both fantastic sauropod figures. Same goes for Eofauna's sauropods. IMO, no company does sauropod figures that are as good as Eofauna's.

- I consider HLG's current theropods to be as good as their current herbivores. HLG's theropods have gotten really good, their Megaraptor, Majungasaurus and Concavenator are all brilliant (paint aside, which some people are gonna like and others dislike), as is their Carcharodontosaurus. HLG's theropods are underrated IMO.

[Sim]

I agree Eofauna's sauropods are top-tier, but they have yet to convince me with their other dinosaurs.  Their ornithischians are in bellowing poses which I find off-putting and I think their theropods have looked like caricatures.  So, I have to say I find Eofauna overrated.  How rarely they make figures too adds to that in my opinion, as does how disproprtionately they make proboscideans compared to anything else.

I too find Haolonggood theropods to be as good as their herbivores, with the exception of their Allosaurus and Therizinosaurus.  I find it tiring to see people keep complaining about Haolonggood's theropods, although I'm not suggesting people stop that, just that I find it tiring..


I don't understand the love for Dimorphodon, and I say this as someone from the same country as it (UK).  It wasn't good at flying and it had a weak bite.  I've tried reading about it and it just comes accross as an underwhelming animal.  I find it frustrating that it gets almost all the attention among pterosaurs, after Pteranodon and Quetzalcoatlus, especially after Jurassic World featured it.  I would have preferred if JW had used Scaphognathus instead, it was built for power and is a more interesting animal than Dimorphodon (first pterosaur to be found with feathers), or Sericipterus the pterosaur with cutting teeth.  Still, I would like to have a mini Dimorphodon from CollectA.. their large one is very good.

[Concavenator]

@Sim It's OK if you don't care for Eofauna's ornithischian's poses, but that's subjective, I don't get how that would make the figures overrated.

As for their theropods, I don't get why they would look like caricatures in any way...

I have to say I find it boring that they release that many proboscideans too, but that's because the group doesn't interest me. If I were interested in proboscideans (which some people are), I'd be over the moon.

I'm also annoyed by comments saying "HLG theropods are still weak" and similar. I don't know if they say that because they genuinely think so or because they're repeating what other people claim. The HLG theropods I previously mentioned are excellent depictions of the real animals, and on top of them being accurate depictions, as figures they look very nice too (to me anyways). I think the Dilophosaurus looks good too, if I'm assessing it as merely a figure, as a depiction of the real animal it's got its problems.

I don't get the appeal for Dimorphodon either. And I personally don't see why would I like a certain prehistoric animal just because it was found in the country I'm from. Where a prehistoric animal comes from is mostly irrelevant to me, although I admit that's one of the reasons why I like Cryolophosaurus so much.

For instance, I do find Concavenator and Turiasaurus interesting, but that's due to their own merits. Had they been found in another country, I'd like them too.

And conversely, I don't care for Europelta. Yes I know it's known from very good material, but I still don't care for it. Likewise, I think Baryonyx remains have been found in Spain too? That doesn't make me like Baryonyx any more, I still don't care for it. I find Suchomimus to be a lot more interesting.

[Sim]

@Sim It's OK if you don't care for Eofauna's ornithischian's poses, but that's subjective, I don't get how that would make the figures overrated.

I don't think Eofauna's figures are overrated, except for the Giganotosaurus, but the ornithischians being posed the way they are looks over-the-top to me, so I feel the company is somewhat overrated because of that.  But also and more so because...

As for their theropods, I don't get why they would look like caricatures in any way...

...The Eofauna theropods have heads that look cartoony to me.  I just feel Eofauna hasn't succeeded in making their theropods look natural.  Haolonggood gets a lot of criticism for this, but I feel it's Eofauna that struggles with their theropods.

I don't get the appeal for Dimorphodon either. And I personally don't see why would I like a certain prehistoric animal just because it was found in the country I'm from. Where a prehistoric animal comes from is mostly irrelevant to me, although I admit that's one of the reasons why I like Cryolophosaurus so much.

I guess with prehistoric animals from the country I'm from, it gives me something I can relate to them with.  But with some I like them for other reasons too, e.g. Baryonyx, Plesiosaurus, being from my country is something that gives more to the bond I have with them.  Ones which I only really like because of where they're from would be fragmentary species such as Polacanthus and Eotyrannus.  As for Cryolophosaurus, being from Antarctica is genuinely cool (pun not intended!), but it has other qualities that make it interesting too, where it's from adds to its package.

And conversely, I don't care for Europelta. Yes I know it's known from very good material, but I still don't care for it. Likewise, I think Baryonyx remains have been found in Spain too? That doesn't make me like Baryonyx any more, I still don't care for it. I find Suchomimus to be a lot more interesting.

Haha, you really don't like some ankylosaurians!  I remember another forum member said to you, whatever did Pinacosaurus do to you?

[Concavenator]

@Sim I used to have Eofauna's Giganotosaurus and back then I was super happy with it, it arguably was my collection's favorite figure just like currently it's their Diplodocus.  In retrospective, though... I would agree that particular figure was kind of overrated, but simply due to the inaccurate skull. It lacks lips too, but lipped theropod figures weren't common by the time it released (unlike now, yet PNSO went ahead with their lipless Tyrannotitan). Inaccurate skull and lack of lips aside, it's a very good figure, albeit the fact that they got the skull wrong is an important inaccuracy (same goes for PNSO's Carcharodontosaurus).

Personally, neither the Giganotosaurus nor the Tyrannosaurus feel cartoony to me. I think they look just as good as PNSO's, Safari's, or Haolonggood's (current) theropods (that is to say, really good) and I don't think they look unnatural in any way.

By contrast, I think some of Haolonggood's theropods came a bit cartoony (not sure I'd necessarily call them "unnatural"). If I think about it, most of them, actually: like their Tyrannosaurus, Therizinosaurus, Allosaurus, Baryonyx and Daspletosaurus. I say "most of them", yet at the same time I acknowledge I don't think that looking cartoony is representative of Haolonggood's theropods, as, as said before, I consider their Megaraptor, Majungasaurus and Concavenator to be great, which also happen to be among their most recent theropods. The others are older figures (save for the Baryonyx), but they've improved since then.

I don't think I'd say Eofauna's ornithischian's poses are "over the top", although they're certainly in dynamic poses. In the Triceratops' case, it would make sense, because that pose could lead to having a pair of figures fighting against each other, which was further promoted because it's their only figure that came in two color variants. And the Ankylosaurus simply appears to be in a defensive pose. Since their poses are physically possible and not technically inaccurate (unlike some Papo/Schleich figures), I wouldn't consider them to be "over the top", but are still dynamic, so if one prefers more neutral poses (FWIW, I do), I get why some collectors may prefer other versions of the species.

Even though I'm largely indifferent about an animal's geographical origin, I can relate to what you said about a given animal being from the same country as oneself adding points to it.  Similarly, I appreciate Concavenator and Turiasaurus even more because they were found in Spain, but unlike you, I wouldn't care for a fragmentary species just because it was found in the country I'm from. As for Europelta, I don't dislike it, I'm just indifferent to it (Pinacosaurus by contrast I do dislike, and polacanthine nodosaurids as well). I'm not that much into ankylosaurians.

[SidB]

I still really like the Eofauna Giganotosaurus, despite it's possession of the 'outdated' skull. Back in the day, when it first came out, that skull was state of the knowledge - I attended a spectacular exhibition of the southern dinosaurs at the ROM in Toronto and there it was, a Giga replicate on full-sized display, skull and all. Accurate for the time. So, my copy of this figure serves me as a reminder of that time and that event (good memories) and so like virtually every figure that I collect, it has become slightly outdated. But then, I also have the old Carnegie, the later Safari, the Vitae and now the PNSO one. I really don't worry about the gradations and transitions, they all serve as reminders of time, circumstance and progress. I do like to  have the most up-to-date version of anything, but I tend to hold onto anything with personal and sentimental value. It's striking how quickly old -time favorites are superceded, but one advantage of my style of collecting, is that I get to hold onto the old-timers too. I even keep a certain number of my of old Schleichs with their unorthodox stylization, for the same reason. I DO collect for accuracy and I value that for sure, but I collect for several other reasons too, and it really enriches my experience of the collecting adventure.

I'm pretty sure that I apply the same approach to people too - I have friends and acquaintances of all sorts, to say the least, most of them are not like me at all, and I don't like to apply merely one paradym in this context either.

Oh, and I should mention, that I even love the chocolate brown paint job of the Eofauna Giganotosaurus, which a lot of people dislike. I just do! Glad to have held onto it.

[Sim]

Actually, the Eofauna Giganotosaurus had an inaccurate skull from the start.  When it was first revealed members of this forum pointed out it had the outdated elongated skull.  And Eofauna said they had made the skull the correct length... without using the correct proportions, so they simply shrunk the elongated skull down, meaning some of the bones of the Eofauna Giganotosaurus's skull are smaller in proportion to the rest of the animal than they are on the real animal.

[crazy8wizard]

Interestingly, this method of scaling down the skull is pretty common for Giganotosaurus figures at the time. You don't really see improved and proportional skulls until the post-meraxes reconstruction.

[Sim]

(Pinacosaurus by contrast I do dislike, and polacanthine nodosaurids as well). I'm not that much into ankylosaurians.

dang what did pinacosaurus ever do to you

(And polacanthines)

[Crackington]

I can see that, very painful when stood on 

[SidB]

Actually, the Eofauna Giganotosaurus had an inaccurate skull from the start.  When it was first revealed members of this forum pointed out it had the outdated elongated skull.  And Eofauna said they had made the skull the correct length... without using the correct proportions, so they simply shrunk the elongated skull down, meaning some of the bones of the Eofauna Giganotosaurus's skull are smaller in proportion to the rest of the animal than they are on the real animal.

Thanks for that info, @Sim , I must have missed that then. Here's a question to follow up- is there currently a Giganotosaurus with the accurate skull? The PNSO?

[Sim]

Yes, the 2023 PNSO Giganotosaurus has an accurate skull.  So do Mojo's two and the Papo...

[SidB]

Yes, the 2023 PNSO Giganotosaurus has an accurate skull.  So do Mojo's two and the Papo...

Ah, very good, I've got the PNSO. But the Papo ... go figure ... if only the post cranial was up to that standard.

[Mattyonyx]

Yes, the 2023 PNSO Giganotosaurus has an accurate skull.  So do Mojo's two and the Papo...

And Vitae's too.

[Concavenator]

Yes, the 2023 PNSO Giganotosaurus has an accurate skull.  So do Mojo's two and the Papo...

And Vitae's too.

And Favorite's Soft Model, since we're at it.