The lack of Certain Dinosaurs in the Toy Market is disappointing

[Syndicate Bias]

we need Plateosaurus from Papo ASAP and herrerasaurus why is no high end line focusing on these? the dimetrodon is one such example that it doesn't have to be a dinosaur to be profitable. Then again to the general audience a dimetrodon is a dinosaur and would think it lived alongside dinosaurs

[Patrx]

The Safari figures listed by popularity on Everything Dinosaur is interesting.  I'm happy to see the 2017 Velociraptor, Microraptor and Coelophysis are so high.  I hope their popularity will allow the Wild Safari line to have more nice dromaeosaurid representation, and interesting Triassic stuff like Plateosaurus and Herrerasaurus.

Agreed - I had never encountered that list before, I think portrays an overall promising situation 

[Halichoeres]

Again, I stress that the situation is better now than it has ever been, but hey, if we all buy fewer Tyrannosaurus figures, maybe it will make some space for something new and interesting. I believe CollectA has made six versions of Tyrannosaurus in the last three years; to my mind those are all slots that would have been better filled with...almost anything.

Or it could backfire and they all take that as "Okay people are sick of dinosaurs since sales are down.Axe the prehistoric stuff and onto the next thing!"

NOOOOOO


I think the distinction between an affordable line aimed primarily at children and a high end collector's line is interesting. I'm not claiming I'm at all representative, but of the big vinyl PNSO figures I bought all the sauropodomorphs, ornithopods, and the Chungkingosaurus but I skipped the Triceratops and Tyrannosaurus. I did eventually cave on Wilson, but I was much less excited for it than for the Mamenchisaurus, and I skipped Doyle. I think a high end line could sustain itself without resorting to the most well-known species. In any event, their business troubles seem to have had nothing to do with poor sales ensuing from choosing obscure species, but from creative conflicts between Mr. Zhao and others at PNSO (correct me if I'm wrong). Anyway, it's hard to test whether such a line requires a Tyrannosaurus because not many companies have tried it. Vitae so far seems to be doing okay, but it's early yet.

Anyway, I think ED's PNSO ranking is at least circumstantial evidence that a collector's line could potentially make do without Tyrannosaurus, Triceratops, and Velociraptor. It's hard to really test that, though, because no company is willing to undertake the experiment.

Separately, I wouldn't gripe if companies carried one or two Tyrannosaurus figures and then produced a good variety of other creatures. I'm really just irked when we get lots and lots of T. rex figures because then it starts to feel a little more zero-sum, like some of that effort could have been directed toward something novel. I had an idea a while back to quantify the most underrepresented dinosaur groups, which I might now have a little time to actually do (and potentially non-dinosaur groups too). Make your predictions!

[Gwangi]

I have nothing against common genera being produced as long as they bring something new to the table, and aren't halfhearted. The Safari Tyrannosaurus is a great example of what I want to see. CollectA's newest effort? Not so much. CollectA doesn't need to make a new Tyrannosaurus for every paper that's released. Although complaining about CollectA making a new T. rex every year is petty when you consider the number of obscure genera they've produced.

We still don't have any Alvarezsauridae. 

[Sim]

Anyway, I think ED's PNSO ranking is at least circumstantial evidence that a collector's line could potentially make do without Tyrannosaurus, Triceratops, and Velociraptor. It's hard to really test that, though, because no company is willing to undertake the experiment.

Velociraptor was never made by PNSO, or by Battat.  Additionally, in the Battat Terra line there's no Velociraptor or Triceratops.  And the Australian Age of Dinosaurs line is an Australian species only line that currently only has an Australovenator which you mentioned had been selling well, here: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=3409.msg193845#msg193845

[Syndicate Bias]

tbh at least collecta does more obscure dinos like Mapusaurus for example.

as for PNSO not having the audience to charge so much for their T Rex and Trike honestly at least they had some time before they did that. Vitae for example i mean i have their giganotosaurus and i love it but for what material it is i don't think its worth 100+ dollars

[Brontozaurus]

Shoot, even Southlands Replicas decided to include a family of horses in their line, despite them obviously not being native to Australia. They probably would eventually include a T. rex if there was some way to get around the whole geography thing.

In Southland's defense, they're intended to represent brumbies, aka feral horses, which while not native have an iconic place in Australian culture. Plus Southland and Minizoo are owned by the same people, they don't need to make their own T. rex cause they're already selling like 20 different ones aha.

I don't really have any new sentiments to bring to this thread. Am I annoyed that I can't go out and buy cheap models of obscure Triassic genera? Yes. Do I totally get why CollectA isn't releasing every carcharadontosaurid ever? Also yes.

[Halichoeres]

Anyway, I think ED's PNSO ranking is at least circumstantial evidence that a collector's line could potentially make do without Tyrannosaurus, Triceratops, and Velociraptor. It's hard to really test that, though, because no company is willing to undertake the experiment.

Velociraptor was never made by PNSO, or by Battat.  Additionally, in the Battat Terra line there's no Velociraptor or Triceratops.  And the Australian Age of Dinosaurs line is an Australian species only line that currently only has an Australovenator which you mentioned had been selling well, here: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=3409.msg193845#msg193845

OK, so I should have used "or" rather than "and." Each of those lines has a Tyrannosaurus or Triceratops, except the AAoD line. And the other big collector's line getting press these days is BotM, which has a Velociraptor coming this month, and a Triceratops and Tyrannosaurus ostensibly in the works. Yes, the AAoD representative says that Banjo is selling well, but I don't know what the point of comparison is! I'll be watching them and EoFauna closely to see whether these lines can grow without the old standards.

Related, on Safari's site, if you sort by best selling, the feathered Tyrannosaurus is number 5, and neither Triceratops nor Velociraptor is even on the first page. Granted, I don't know whether that's all time, or over the past year, or the last week, or what, but I'm not sure it leads to the ineluctable conclusion that the line would be dead without a rex.

[Sim]

The link you provided isn't working.  I've gone on Safari's site, and when sorted by best selling, the Wild Safari 2017 Velociraptor is on the first page.  Triceratops isn't on the first page though, interestingly.  And out of the 2018 Wild Safari figures, the Anzu and Ankylosaurus appear to be listed as better sellers than the Triceratops on the websites of both Safari and Everything Dinosaur.  What's especially interesting is that I'd got the impression Triceratops is the second-most famous and popular dinosaur, and yet it seems like it might not be selling as well as the obscure Anzu.

[Halichoeres]

Sorry, mixed up my html tags with my bbcode tags, forgetting that the latter don't require quotation marks. Fixed now. I wonder, if Safari had only one Triceratops figure available, whether it would be on the first page. Right now sales might be split between the old JP style one and the new one. Einiosaurus is in the top 5, and Coelophysis is in the top 10, which I find satisfying. I don't know if I missed the Velociraptor before, or if it has since ascended to the top page, but anyway there's a lot of variety among the top sellers, suggesting to me that plenty of buyers are looking for taxa outside of the triumvirate.

[Syndicate Bias]

i wonder if Vitaes Giganotosaurus's success is luck.due to the fact that papo failed to deliver one this year and Rebor doesn't seem interested in making one either, providing an easy route without any competition as a Papo or rebor would be cheaper to obtain than a Vitae

[mgaguilar]

@SyndicateBias I think it includes that, and a myriad of things. That Giga looked absolutely amazing when photos had first been released for it. Detailed and gorgeous sculpt. A believable and gentle pose. Wonderfully natural and complimentary aesthetic on the paint job. The kit base looked so brilliant and beautifully sculpted.

In addition, most figures of Giga around the 1:35 to 1:40 range had been Schleich mishaps. Absolutely terrible and inaccurate representations of the massive theropod said to rival the "Tyrant King of Dinosaurs." So would the fact that figures currently available but undesirable create more of a demand for the dinosaur in the first place? The hype was rightly there. And Vitae capitalized. I think the figure is gorgeous.

Sure, if Papo released one this year, there would probably be a decline in sales of the Vitae Giga, due to having a more cost-effective alternative and (most likely) being much cheaper with an insane and comparable detail level.

I really just want the price of shipping to go down. There's no way it actually costs $40 to send a package like that without it being the Expedited or First Class option.

[Sim]

I don't agree with singling out Tyrannosaurus, Triceratops and Velociraptor, or considering them a triumvirate, and respectfully I think these are oversimplifications.  If a line didn't include these three genera, there's quite a number of other genera that are also popular and made often, e.g. Stegosaurus, Parasaurolophus, Spinosaurus, Brachiosaurus, Styracosaurus.  I'd add Acrocanthosaurus to this list too, having been made for e.g. Battat, Wild Safari, Papo, CollectA, Schleich, Rebor, the Carnegie Collection.  Excluding Tyrannosaurus, Triceratops and Velociraptor from a line doesn't mean there aren't other often made genera that could be included in the line, like the ones I listed.  This seems to be what's happened with Velociraptor, it wasn't used to help start a line without Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops prior to BotM.  This isn't the same as the higher number of times lines have been started with Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops, or just Tyrannosaurus.  For that matter, Vitae is a collector's line that has started without Tyrannosaurus, Triceratops and Velociraptor, with the only one of these in their plans being Tyrannosaurus.  Vitae's line, including planned figures, doesn't even include one dromaeosaurid, or any feathered dinosaur (except for fossils of Archaeopteryx and Sinosauropteryx).

I think Tyrannosaurus is in a league of its own in figure representation, being the only one that seems to always be included in a normal prehistoric figure line (so not including Australian species-only lines), and being the one that tends to be re-made most often.  Triceratops I think would come in second place.  I don't think Velociraptor forms a triumvirate with these two, instead I think it's similar to Stegosaurus and Parasaurolophus.  Stegosaurus and Parasaurolophus are not usually excluded from a dinosaur figure line, and there's a few modern lines where Velociraptor hasn't been included, but Stegosaurus and Parasaurolophus have been, e.g. Battat, Favorite soft model series 1.

I might not say anything more about this after this post.  Working out why those comments didn't sit well with me literally gave me a headache.

I don't know if I missed the Velociraptor before, or if it has since ascended to the top page

I saw the Wild Safari figures sorted by best selling on Safari's website before your first post about it, and I don't notice any differences between it then and now, including the 2017 Velociraptor being on the first page.  It might be possible that the placement was different when you had looked at it, but that seems unlikely to me due to the short amount of time during which that could have happened, and how the position of a number of figures, including the Velociraptor, looks the same when I looked at it before and after your first post about it.

[Syndicate Bias]

Well im glad Vitae started with their Giganotosaurus first, nice to see it finally get a decent sculpt for once aside from resin kits.

[Sim]

Well im glad Vitae started with their Giganotosaurus first, nice to see it finally get a decent sculpt for once aside from resin kits.

I think the Carnegie Collection Giganotosaurus has a decent sculpt.

[tyrantqueen]

Well im glad Vitae started with their Giganotosaurus first, nice to see it finally get a decent sculpt for once aside from resin kits.

I think the Carnegie Collection Giganotosaurus has a decent sculpt.

It's still a good sculpt to this day, and one that I am very fond of, but those skinny legs have not aged well.

[Halichoeres]

I dunno, Sim, maybe I'm just conflating the most recognizable dinosaurs (or at least, recognizable names) and the most often made ones. I'm not trying to attack you or your favorite dinosaur (I'm spiteful enough to attack someone's favorite dinosaur if I find that person annoying, but I don't find you annoying).

There are 125 entries on the blog tagged "Tyrannosaurus." There are 62 tagged "Triceratops." There are 48 tagged "Velociraptor." Spinosaurus: 36. Stegosaurus: 43. Parasaurolophus: 25. Obviously the blog doesn't exhaustively catalog every version of a given genus out there, and of course some of the tags are erroneous or misleading. Nevertheless, it supports your contention that Tyrannosaurus is in a league of its own, and that Triceratops is number two, and in a league of its own among herbivores (Stegosaurus just slightly edges out Spinosaurus despite a decades-long head start in the toy market).

Moreover, yes, lots of those Velociraptors don't look much like Velociraptor, or roughly do but have some irritating inaccuracy like incomplete primaries, probably more so than with other iconic species. Still, there's an awful lot of Velociraptor. Really all I'm trying to say that it's one of the better-represented prehistoric creatures, though no, not as well represented as Tyrannosaurus. I'm just saying so with the high level of flippancy that I think toys deserve, that's all. (My motto in life is the same as my motto in sports: 'Try, but don't care.') I hope I'm not contributing to any more headaches.

[Syndicate Bias]

I got both Carnegie and Wild Safari Giganotosaurus, they're still nostalgic to me, heres to hoping papo or rebor make one although i have less faith in Rebor considering their big feet problem ATM and their stamped scales, then again i still got their acro and Ceratosaurus anyways

[SidB]

Kinda seems like yesterday when Carnegie Safari brought out the Giganotosaurus. It was stunning, and got  a very high rating on the DTB. But, time and progress move along. Still a good figure though, though, as TQ pointed out, a bit stylized in the lower legs (it was part of the artist's quite distinctive touch).

[Sim]

(I'm spiteful enough to attack someone's favorite dinosaur if I find that person annoying, but I don't find you annoying).

I had thought you might have found me annoying due to things said in this thread.  I'm glad that isn't the case!

There are 125 entries on the blog tagged "Tyrannosaurus." There are 62 tagged "Triceratops." There are 48 tagged "Velociraptor." Spinosaurus: 36. Stegosaurus: 43. Parasaurolophus: 25. Obviously the blog doesn't exhaustively catalog every version of a given genus out there, and of course some of the tags are erroneous or misleading. Nevertheless, it supports your contention that Tyrannosaurus is in a league of its own, and that Triceratops is number two, and in a league of its own among herbivores (Stegosaurus just slightly edges out Spinosaurus despite a decades-long head start in the toy market).

It's interesting to see those numbers and how much difference there is between them.  Like you, I don't think these numbers show representation perfectly, but I think there are things that can be observed based on this quantitative data.  It's interesting that there's a difference of 14 between Triceratops and Velociraptor, but only 5 between Velociraptor and Stegosaurus, and 7 between Stegosaurus and Spinosaurus.  Based on this, the quantity of representation of the genus Velociraptor is closer to that of Stegosaurus than that of Triceratops, which I think supports my thought that there isn't a triumvirate in dinosaur figures.  I agree that those numbers support Tyrannosaurus being in a league of its own, and Triceratops being in a league of its own for herbivorous dinosaurs which I hadn't thought of.

I also found interesting that there are 34 entries on the blog tagged "Brachiosaurus", and 32 tagged "Allosaurus".

Moreover, yes, lots of those Velociraptors don't look much like Velociraptor, or roughly do but have some irritating inaccuracy like incomplete primaries, probably more so than with other iconic species. Still, there's an awful lot of Velociraptor. Really all I'm trying to say that it's one of the better-represented prehistoric creatures, though no, not as well represented as Tyrannosaurus. I'm just saying so with the high level of flippancy that I think toys deserve, that's all.

I'd say Velociraptor is one of the most often represented prehistoric genera.  I think Velociraptor's representation in figures is quite unusual for a prehistoric animal.  It's not unusual for prehistoric animals to have inaccurate/outdated figures, but consider how in the Jurassic Park franchise (which is a very influential dinosaur-related thing) the most prominently featured dinosaur has the name Velociraptor and anatomy based on Deinonychus, with major inaccuracies such as the lack of feathers.  I say this is the most prominently featured dinosaur in the franchise since it has a main role in all four films, while Tyrannosaurus doesn't in the third film.  So there's a lot of official JP/JW Velociraptor toys, and JP/JW toys aren't designed to be highly accurate representations of real animals.  Consequently, I don't think counting JP/JW toys, including the many Velociraptor toys in these lines, has much relevance when considering how often Velociraptor and other animals are represented in toy lines that try to represent prehistoric animals as the real animals they were.  Increasing the extent of this is that there's been quite a number of repaints of JP/JW Velociraptor toys, particularly after Jurassic World had four Velociraptor as main characters each with a different colouration.  And then Rebor seems to have decided to make loads of Jurassic Park-style Velociraptor figures, lots of which are just repaints.  I can't think of any other prehistoric genus which has had so many repaints... and this large amount of repaints is on Jurassic Park-style Velociraptor toys, not toys that try to represent an actual Velociraptor.  Then there's also other companies in addition to Rebor that have copied the JP franchise Velociraptor, and made a number of these either as repaints (Papo) or different all awful models (Schleich).  I guess what I'm trying to say here is that there's a lot of JP-style Velociraptor toys that are useless as representations of Velociraptor, Deinonychus or any other dromaeosaurid as the real animal they were.  And even if the JP franchise does treat their Velociraptor as Velociraptor proper rather than Deinonychus at times, their anatomy is based on an outdated view of Deinonychus so they don't even look much like an unfeathered Velociraptor.

I guess Velociraptor is one of the better-represented prehistoric animals, but not because of the large number of figures with the genus's name.  It's because Velociraptor has been one of the more popular choices for toy companies, and after understanding it would have had bird-like feathering, eventually a highly accurate Velociraptor figure that reflected this was made: the 2017 Wild Safari figure.  The Beasts of the Mesozoic Velociraptor mongoliensis is good too, but I feel action figures like it don't fulfil the same need as non-action figures.  For comparison, I think Parasaurolophus is better-represented in figures than Velociraptor, as even though the number of tags for it on the blog is almost half the number for Velociraptor (I have to say I'm surprised Parasaurolophus didn't have more tags), I think the number of figures which are very good representations of Parasaurolophus is considerably higher than the number for Velociraptor.  So while I think looking at the number of times a genus has been represented has use when considering how genera have been represented, I think it's also important to look at the qualitative side.

(My motto in life is the same as my motto in sports: 'Try, but don't care.')

I'll see to what extent I can apply that in my life.  I've never liked competition in sports, or in general.  The lack of competition in it is one of the things I like about rock climbing.

I hope I'm not contributing to any more headaches.

He he.  No, you aren't.  Thanks for your thoughtful post.