HAOLONGGOOD - New for 2024

[Faelrin]

@oscars_dinos I don't disagree with that at all. I just meant towards their Mamenchisaurus specifically compared to this new rendition.

[oscars_dinos]

Ahhh ok ok I thought you meant in general lol. Yes I can't lie I do like this figure more than pnsos attempt and that's coming from someone who only collects pnso, this will be my first hgl and I'm pretty excited for it

[Flaffy]

Video review. Definitely favour the grey version now.

[ceratopsian]

The lighting is very harsh in the video and he's getting a lot of "bounce" off the figures. They are not glossy to look at, but they are quite reflective. You can see this particularly in how the tips of the osteoderms catch the light and look washed out. I think this reflective quality is why his camera sometimes has difficulty focusing. My "orange" one arrived yesterday and in hand it looks a much darker, richer colour than the pale orange it looks on film. More like a "conker" chestnut on the back. (I will be getting the dark version too but later!)

[Carnoking]

Glossy or not, the grey one has won me over.

[ceratopsian]

No, I said it is not glossy - but it bounces back the light.

Glossy or not, the grey one has won me over.

[Sim]

I've just watched that video review and my yellow Scolosaurus looks like the one in the review.  I agree with the review in that the Haolonggood Tianzhenosaurus's paintjob is extremely good.  I would have preferred the Scolosaurus had a similar paintjob.  Well, I still have high hopes that the Haolonggood Saichania and Gastonia will have a good paintjob, a better one than the Scolosaurus's.

[Flaffy]

The lighting is very harsh in the video and he's getting a lot of "bounce" off the figures. They are not glossy to look at, but they are quite reflective. You can see this particularly in how the tips of the osteoderms catch the light and look washed out. I think this reflective quality is why his camera sometimes has difficulty focusing. My "orange" one arrived yesterday and in hand it looks a much darker, richer colour than the pale orange it looks on film. More like a "conker" chestnut on the back. (I will be getting the dark version too but later!)

Will you be posting pics of your copy on your collection thread? Will be interesting to see how less harsh lighting affects the presentation of the figure. Nothing substitutes seeing the real deal in person of course, but as someone who tends to only get one figure per colour scheme, seeking various in-hand photos and reviews are the best method to make a decision.

[bmathison1972]

So, is this a Euplocephalus? Or a Scolosaurus? Haolonggood's Amazon site states the former.

[Sim]

It's a Scolosaurus cutleri, a species that was once considered a syonym of Euoplocephalus.  Because of the S. cutleri holoype's completeness, it's neck, body and tail armour has been used in many ankylosaurid reconstructions, including the Haolonggood "Euoplocephalus".  Additionally, the head of the Haolonggood figure looks more like that of S. cutleri than Euoplocephalus tutus, based on the specimens I've seen.

[bmathison1972]

It's a Scolosaurus cutleri, a species that was once considered a syonym of Euoplocephalus.  Because of the S. cutleri holoype's completeness, it's neck, body and tail armour has been used in many ankylosaurid reconstructions, including the Haolonggood "Euoplocephalus".  Additionally, the head of the Haolonggood figure looks more like that of S. cutleri than Euoplocephalus tutus, based on the specimens I've seen.

I am getting it either way, I just want to be sure LOL

I assume based on the discussions above, the sculptor confirmed that as well?

[Sim]

I'm not aware of the sculptor saying that.  I know what Scolosaurus cutleri's body armour looks like, it's distinctive, and I recognise it on the Haolonggood figure.  Either because other ankylosaurids don't have much of the armour preserved, or because the S. cutleri holotype was a very complete Euoplocephalus specimen when the two were considered the same species, its armour arrangement is the go-to reference for many ankylosaurid reconstructions.  I think the most likely explanation is that Haolonggood based their Euoplocephalus on a Euoplocephalus skeletal that actually was of Scolosaurus and didn't have its name up-to-date.  True Euoplocephalus is fragmentary, the good postcranial specimens of it are now identified as belonging to Scolosaurus.

[ceratopsian]

I'll see if I can get a quick outdoor shot - but it won't be today @Flaffy.

The lighting is very harsh in the video and he's getting a lot of "bounce" off the figures. They are not glossy to look at, but they are quite reflective. You can see this particularly in how the tips of the osteoderms catch the light and look washed out. I think this reflective quality is why his camera sometimes has difficulty focusing. My "orange" one arrived yesterday and in hand it looks a much darker, richer colour than the pale orange it looks on film. More like a "conker" chestnut on the back. (I will be getting the dark version too but later!)

Will you be posting pics of your copy on your collection thread? Will be interesting to see how less harsh lighting affects the presentation of the figure. Nothing substitutes seeing the real deal in person of course, but as someone who tends to only get one figure per colour scheme, seeking various in-hand photos and reviews are the best method to make a decision.

[Flaffy]

DinosDragon's take on the whole Scolosaurus vs Euoplocephalus situation

[Samrukia]

paint application on the tail club of the orange variant is pathetic. that's disappointing

[Bread]

paint application on the tail club of the orange variant is pathetic. that's disappointing

I feel like we're already spoiled enough with these figures for the price point. What's with this negativity...?

[Samrukia]

paint application on the tail club of the orange variant is pathetic. that's disappointing

I feel like we're already spoiled enough with these figures for the price point. What's with this negativity...?

sorry for the negativity, just simple disappointment. i guess you are right

[SidB]

paint application on the tail club of the orange variant is pathetic. that's disappointing

I feel like we're already spoiled enough with these figures for the price point. What's with this negativity...?

sorry for the negativity, just simple disappointment. i guess you are right

The tail club can easily be spruced up with an appropriate paint/wash.

[ceratopsian]

I really don't see a problem at all with the club.  But tastes differ!

paint application on the tail club of the orange variant is pathetic. that's disappointing

[ceratopsian]

I tried to take a photo or two, @Flaffy.  It's surprisingly difficult for this model, as it looks completely different according to the intensity of light striking it, and also the angle at which that light strikes it.

Here's a variety of images of it in neutral light, which give the best impression of how I see it in daylight in front of me in the study:







The colour on these is quite true to life - apart from some of the tips of the osteoderms look starkly white.  This is not how they look to my eye at all.  There is indeed paleness - but it looks very natural to my eye rather than the camera.

Next up: in brighter shade:  this is NOT how it looks to my eye.  The hind legs, for instance, are in reality quite a rich orange-brown.



And finally in bright shade, edging towards sunlit - which makes it look much paler and more yellow.  You can see how the club and head are burnt out, even though the light level isn't that strong:



Hope that helps to give an idea of how light sensitive this model is!