Which Mesozoic dinosaurs have good figures and which don't, according to Sim

[Faelrin]

I think the Kaiyodo Ornithomimus is also at least worth a mention (even if you don't include them overall), as it's probably the most accurate ornithomimid figure out there currently. It also scales up rather nicely along other 1/35 figures, give or take (such as seen in my PNSO Deinocheirus review).

[Leyster]

And then, of course, deciding what is a good figure tends to boil down to "which inaccuracies do you find to be deal breakers, and which do you not?"

Yes, I'm trying to only include figures without obvious inaccuracies.

Sorry, not wanting to start a discussion, I admire the purpose of your thread, but I find your rules for chosing or excluding models really questionable. Some examples:
- The Papo Acrocanthosaurus has mangled proportions
- the Battat Dilophosaurus has pronated hands and skull shape that do not refelct the real animal (admittely it was unknown when it was sculpted, but it's not accurate).
- the Wild Safari Carcharodontosaurus (v1) is wrong in almost any aspect, excluding the very basic ones, and could be considered at best a stilized version of this animal.
- same for all Mattels
- the TNG Cryolophosaurus (apart for being goofy) is modeled after a tetanuran and do not represent a "Dilophosaur-grade" theropod. Even if you consider it closer to Sinosaurs, it would not have looked like that.

Seriously, including some of these figures and exluding others (ie. Papo Ceratosaurus, which is at least on par with some of the figures you included) makes no sense. This looks not like a list of obiectively good figures, just the ones you like or exclude based on your personal preferences. Which is acceptable, but again I stress that you shouldn't present this as a list of which models are accurate and which are not, because it's simply not true. These are not "without obvious inaccuracies". Which is also debatable because I might consider something an obvious innacuracies and you might not. Like, to me inluding Mattels and excluding said Papo Ceratosaurus is absurd.
I also find very dangerous (well, sort of) providing a list like this without the reasons why these models are accurate (extensive comparison with papers) and why some are excluded, thus making less knowledgeable users take it as "Word of God". I saw this happening in the past, with some users finding traits they think are wrong in a figure, claiming it's inaccurate, the word spreading only and to find out it's not that inaccurate at all and they misinterpreted it or based their judgement on a single specimen (PNSO Pachyrhinosaurus come to my mind).

Also you included models that are not even out.

PS: trying not to being harsh, English is not my main language.

[Stegotyranno420]

L @Leyster Can you explain how something classifies as "modeled on a tetanuran" vs "dilophosaurus grade". I know tetanurans had stiff tails and included megalosaurs, allosaurs, coelurosaurs, etc. Does that figure have a more flexing tail anyways?
And by Dilophosaurus grade, I think you mean all of those (paraphyletic?) crested Early Mesozoic large theropods, if I am not mistaken

[Leyster]

@Stegotyranno Dilophosaur-grade theropods are a plethora of not better classified Early Jurassic theropods (Dilophosaurus, Dracovenator, Cryolophosaurus, Sinosaurus, Sarcosaurus, some include Norian Zupaysaurus) which are (supposedly) more derived than Coelophysoids (if Coelophysoids are even a clade), but less so than Ceratosaurian and Tetanurans. We don't even know if they for a clade (the seldom-used "Dilophosauridae"), or if they are a grade leading to more derived theropods or if they might fit inside Averostra outside Ceratosauria and Tetanurae or even if they might fit inside Ceratosauria or Tetanurae (or some in Ceratosauria and some in Tetanurae).

Tetanurae are recognized not only in the stiffness of the distal end of the tail (due to interlocking tail vertebrae), but also for the maxillary fenestra and teeth restricted to the front of the jaws.

The only "Dilophosaur-grade" theropod thoroughly studied is Dilophosaurus itself (even if Sinosaurus is finally receiving some attention), and with the 2020 Marsh & Rowe monography we finally began to undestand its anatomy (which might or might not be shared among the other taxa). Here is a restoration based on said paper:

As you can see, it's not a matter of bulking up a Coelophysis or slapping some crests on an Allosaurus to restore these animals, they have their own unique proportions.

[Halichoeres]

And then, of course, deciding what is a good figure tends to boil down to "which inaccuracies do you find to be deal breakers, and which do you not?"

Yes, I'm trying to only include figures without obvious inaccuracies.

As we're seeing from the discussion here, the word 'obvious' is doing a lot of heavy lifting. People are attuned to different things. For me, a head or feet that are a little too large aren't deal-breakers, but the wrong number of toes or teeth is more of a problem (although even then, it depends on the relative size of the teeth--I think it would be unreasonable to expect an accurate tooth count on an Atopodentatus figure, for example). Anyway, nothing wrong with that, but it's just going to be hard to make the list in a consistent way, and people aren't all going to agree (which is also fine).

Anyway, allosauroids and tyrannosaurs are quite thoroughly covered. Even though there are individual genera that haven't been made, or made well, they are so similar to ones that have been that their morphology is contained within the range of what has already been made. I would argue the same is true for megalosauroids; most of the ones on the list that haven't been made I would consider quite scrappy.

Now that I've removed / re-coloured the fragmentary spinosaurids, what do you think about the megalosauroids in the list that lack a good figure?  Personally I think they are quite an interesting bunch, one from Africa, one from France, one from England and one from the Morrison Formation.  Although maybe they would look quite generic if made into a figure?

They're of biogeographic interest, and the truth is I'd probably buy some of them if offered, but there isn't much to distinguish them that would be evident externally. So they're not the sort of thing I would ever ask a company to make, because I would find other things more interesting AND because large-bodied theropods already have a lot of people clamoring for them and don't need my help.

They're going to get to everything worth making sooner or later.

Interesting point. I see where you're coming from, but not sure it will get to that point. Unsurprisingly, companies tend to release figures of, mostly, a few dinosaur groups, and some other dinosaur groups are largely, or wholy ignored. There are indeed particular dinosaur taxa worth making into figures (=known from good remains) that haven't been made yet. However, the chances of that changing depends on how mainstream the group of dinosaur it belongs to is. Just to give an example, as of late, hadrosaurids have received a pretty good amount of attention, despite being ornithischians and those being less abundant than theropods in general. Dromaeosaurids, generally speaking, are largely ignored, despite being theropods. So I'd say it's more likely that we get a good figure of overdue hadrosaurids like Maiasaura, Brachylophosaurus, or Saurolophus than we do of overdue dromaeosaurids like Austroraptor, Zhenyuanlong, or Halszkaraptor.

There are also certain dinosaur groups that don't seem likely to receive many/any attention anytime soon (basal sauropodomorphs, basal ornithopods, Anchiornithidae, Troodontidae, Noasauridae, Scansoriopterygidae...). But your comment about non-dinosaurs having inferior representation is obviously impossible to argue against! So I can see why that could influence your perspective on non-avian dinosaurs in general, as some particular groups (like the aforementioned ones) are clearly overlooked.

Well, it's certainly true that a handful of dinosaur groups get the lion's share of attention, but I really do think that some basal sauropodomorphs, troodontids, etc., are basically inevitable. "Dinosaur" is a magic word that makes anything it pertains to many times more likely to be made than a random member of any other clade. And I'd certainly be more interested in seeing some basal sauropodomorphs or basal neornithischians than many other dinosaur groups, given the large amount of taxonomic and morphological diversity among them relative to their representation as figures. But again, I think with as many players as are on the scene currently, they're going to happen whether I agitate for them or not. I'd be willing to bet a moderate amount of money that in three years' time, there will be a reasonable figure for each of the families you've mentioned (some already have some, in fact!).

@Sim about Kaiyodo: they've made a lot of products, but I think most relevant to this thread are the following:

Dinotales: made of ABS, the same plastic as Lego bricks. They are easier to break than PVC, and require assembly, but they are toys in a broad sense, being distributed either in capsule machines or as prizes with bottled drinks.
CapsuleQ/MiniQ: made of PVC and/or ABS, similar to Dinotales but even less prone to breaking
Dinoland finished models: the same sculpts as some of the Dinoland model kits, but pre-assembled, pre-painted, and made of hollow PVC (which is what people mean when they say 'vinyl' in this context). There are also Dinoland products made of resin, so you'll have to be careful on that. But anyway, I think you'll find most of the Dinoland products unacceptably out of date (I myself only own two).

[Sim]

L @Leyster, I welcome input from members, I think it makes the list better.  I thought it would be clear that the list is based on the judgment of myself and others.  The end product I think can be helpful.  I've clarified that it's based on my opinion (with the opinions of others considered) in the original post.  I've also clarified what I count as good.

As for the more specific points you mentioned:

Could you specify what is wrong with the Papo Acrocanthosaurus's proportions?  It looks okay to me compared to Scott Hartman's skeletal.  Also remember a figure doesn't have to have perfect accuracy to qualify as good, just high enough - which does come down to my opinion which takes into consideration the opinions of others.  I think it's okay to do that though, together I think we can reach a pretty accurate conclusion.

The Battat Dilophosaurus in the list is the newer version, which doesn't have pronated hands and has a better skull shape.  It's this one: https://dinotoyblog.com/dilophosaurus-battat/

I've now removed the original Safari Carcharodontosaurus and the TNG Cryolophosaurus.  I've also added the Papo Ceratosaurus to the list.  Interesting about the Mattel figures.  What obvious inaccuracies do the Mattel HC Metriacanthosaurus, the Genyodectes and the Alioramus have?

Do you think I shouldn't include models that are not yet released?

[Halichoeres]

Oh, I forgot to mention, there's a Sinosaurus by Recur that looks quite good, although it seems to have been available only in China, and I don't know anybody who owns one.

[Sim]

Thanks for the info on Kaiyodo, @Halichoeres!  It's very helpful.  I think I won't include the Kaiyodo figures that require assembly as they seem to not be toys under the definition I'm thinking of.  As for the Kaiyodo Dinoland figures, they seem too old-fashioned for this list.  You mentioned you have two, but when I did ctrl + f for "dinoland" in the first page of your collection thread I only got one result?

Regarding the Sinosaurus, if I'm remembering right it has a peg in its foot to attach it to its base?  Again, it doesn't strike me as a toy in the sense I'm intending for this list.  I would also prefer to know a figure exists or is planned for the near future before including it in the list.  As far as I'm aware it's been over a year since that Sinosaurus was revealed and it's still not known if anyone has one.

[Halichoeres]

I have the vinyl Anchiceratops and the resin Barosaurus, but the latter is a real stretch for "toy."

Apparently Mattyonyx got a copy of the Sinosaurus, which I had forgotten.

[Leyster]

@Sim
Papo Acrocanthosaurus: just to mention two things, feet are too big and forelimbs are too long.

Battat Dilophosaurus: look at the very review you posted, the forelimbs are ponated. Anyway, a minor detail compared with the fact that the skull is not in line with Marsh & Rowe 2020 (no available Dilophosaurus figure has the correct skull)

Mattel figures: let's take the Alioramus: proportiona are all off, feet too big, legs too short, stumpy tail, arms too short. Same for Genyodectes, its feet are as long as the tibia for Christ's sake! And the tail is again stumpy.

Seriously, including these and exluding the like of Vitae Giganotosaurus because of the chin shape (which is one of the very few figures to get the body shape correctly and the first one to have a not-bathtub skull) or the Sinraptor because you don't like the skin (again, a figure with perfect proportions, and you included the Carnegie!) or including the Carnegie Giganotosaurus and excluding the Eofauna (the Carnegie has every defect the Eofauna has, plus some new ones) is very, very opinable.

Also excluding Kaiyodos mean you should exclude like, PNSOs, too, since they're made in an hard plastic quite prone to snapping, too (have a look at Baidu, there are many posts about "PNSO XYZ has fallen and now's broken, how do I repare it?").

[Sim]

L @Leyster:

Papo Acrocanthosaurus: I see what you mean.  I think the figure is still good enough to be on the list.  Also, the Papo Ceratosaurus has forelimbs that are too long too.

Battat Dilophosaurus: Looking at it again, one of its forelimbs is semi-pronated, the other isn't pronated.  I think it's good enough to remain on the list.

Mattel figures: Their proportions are strange, I agree, but I think they are a good enough approximation...

I think we'll have to disagree on the Vitae Sinraptor being better than the Carnegie.  I think the Carnegie Giganotosaurus doesn't have a shrunken skull.

I'm excluding the Kaiyodo mini figures partly due to the assembly required and partly due to the plastic used.  PNSO figures are made of a less rigid plastic.

I've also modified the title of this thread to make it clearer that it is in my opinion.

[Leyster]

Look at it


This is CLEARY the old, deformed skull.
I'm not faulting Forest Rogers, it was the only one available at the time. But it's not how Giganotosaurus skull should be shaped.

About Sinraptor. Look at the head.



Look at the leg and forelimb muscolature:


For the time it was a good model, but the anatomy is not comparable.

Basically goofy, deformed Mattels are "good enough approximation", but these are not? Ok...

[Sim]

You're right about the Mattel figures actually, I've removed the Alioramus and Genyodectes from the list.  What's wrong with the Hammond Collection Metriacanthosaurus though?  It looks like a better reconstruction than the main line figures.  I noticed its hands can be put in a neutral pose so it isn't stuck with pronated hands.

I wasn't disagreeing about the Carnegie Giganotosaurus having the incorrect, elongated head shape, I said it to me doesn't seem to have the skull shrunk down like Eofauna's.

I'm not sure if the Carnegie Sinraptor represents S. dongi or S. hepingensis, I can't tell from looking at the head.  The Vitae does have a more clear head shape, but its skin is not plausible as far as I know.  As for the musculature, it is indeed better on the Vitae Sinraptor, although in the making of their Tyrannosaurus, I think I remember Saurian suggested that the musculature of the arm has been overestimated and they restored it quite thin compared to what we're used to.  I think they said Scott Hartman was consulted on this and the thinner arm is the result.  In any case, the Carnegie Sinraptor looks more like a real animal to me, while the Vitae Sinraptor look like a caricature.  I get the impression that's what most people think.

[Leyster]

S @SidB About the forelimbs: Sinraptor is not Tyrannosaurus. Just to say, about theropod forelimbs, a recent study found Megaraptora forelimbs sturdier than previously supposed (Rolando et al. 2023). So I wouldn't apply what was said for Tyrannosaurus (a taxon with cleary reduced forelimbs) to Sinraptor.

About the perception of Sinraptor: the very own review on DTF has nothing but praise for it. The skin has simply too-deep set wriknles (as noted in the review). It's true that some people complained, but some people complaned (loudly) about the PNSO one's gnarly face, too, and it's still in your list. You're gonna trash nine figures out of ten if you focun on these aesthetic details (which have little to do with accuracy). About skin, let's say that in your list there are the grainy skin Safari Monolophosaurus and Suchomimus.

About Metriacanthosaurus: it's more or less good as long as a Mattel toy could be.

About the Eofauna Giganotosaurus skull, it's skull is not shrunk down. It's simply the bathtub skull resized to the actual proportions.

Also: you should consider removing Wilson v1 from the list, its hip bones are wrong.

[Flaffy]

This is a very highly opinionated list, and I'm not sure how helpful this will be to new members looking for the "best" representation of a given genus. The DTB serves as a good resource for this very purpose.

[Sim]

I've added the Vitae Sinraptor and Giganotosaurus to the list.  I've removed the first version of PNSO's Wilson.

About the Eofauna Giganotosaurus skull, it's skull is not shrunk down. It's simply the bathtub skull resized to the actual proportions.

Isn't that the same thing?

@Flaffy, I think the DTB is great but it too is based on opinions.  For some questionable reviews, there's the Papo Oviraptor getting opinionated praise, the Battat Dacentrurus getting unfairly criticised and the Papo Baryonyx review where the reviewer talks about the head's accuracy, when the shape of the snout and nostril position show it's based on Spinosaurus's skull, not Baryonyx's.  I don't think the list I'm making is "very highly opinionated".  I welcome input from other members and have already made changes based on that.  I think the result can be useful.  If there's anything you think I should change, let me know.

[Leyster]

S @SidB nope, the problem of the bathtub skull is not it being bigger or smaller than it should be.

[Sim]

You've tagged SidB twice now, I'm not SidB...

Regarding the Eofauna Giganotosaurus's head, it was confirmed that the skull is the correct length for an accurate Giganotosaurus skull, yet it has the elongated skull.  So its skull has been shrunk down.


I've modified the first post and title of this thread to hopefully better represent this project.

I've also added Therizinosauria and expanded Misc. Theropoda.

[Chasmosaurus]

I don't know if you want to add the tiantaiosaurus from vitae.
They are beautiful figures. Even if it represents a species that has never been formally described.

[Sim]

Yes, I will add it.  Thanks @Chasmosaurus.  I've changed my mind about including unnamed species, I think it's better to include figures like Eofauna's Triceratops and CollectA's Daspletosaurus and Struthiomimus.  I intend to add the unnamed species tomorrow.