Detail or accuracy?

[tyrantqueen]

When it comes down to deciding whether or not to buy a figure, which is more important to you?

And no, you can't pick both. That would defeat the purpose of the poll, because it's naturally what everyone wants

For me, personally, it's detail. I collect retro styled models, so obviously I don't mind figures that are out of date.

[Splonkadumpocus]

As a paleontology student, I prefer accuracy first.

However, if the makers have taken the time to make a scientifically accurate figure, they generally don't slack off on the detail. (ex: Safari post-2008)

[Jetoar]

I am study history and now I am studiying archeozoology and i think that accurate and details are very important, but the details sometimes is the winner  . I preffer Papo dinosaurs figures as other figures than they are more accurate than papo, but papo have got great details in their figures  .

[Balaur]

Accuracy is always important for me, but I want a beautiful figure that is nice to have, no matter if it is accurate, so I chose detail.

[IHogaRok]

I think that both are important and I would like my figures to have both detail and accuracy. I can't say I prefer either one, there both important.

[IHogaRok]

As a paleontology student, I prefer accuracy first.

However, if the makers have taken the time to make a scientifically accurate figure, they generally don't slack off on the detail. (ex: Safari post-2008)

On second thought, what you say is absolutely correct. If a figure is accurate, then they probably would make it more detailed as well, because detail really adds to accuracy. I choose accuracy.

[tyrantqueen]

I think that both are important and I would like my figures to have both detail and accuracy. I can't say I prefer either one, there both important.

No offense, but if you can't choose then don't vote. This is for the sake of argument. I want to know what is more important to people as collectors.
Who isn't going to choose both if they're given the chance?

On second thought, what you say is absolutely correct. If a figure is accurate, then they probably would make it more detailed as well, because detail really adds to accuracy. I choose accuracy.

Papo have the most detailed toys on the market, and yet their figures are plagued by the kind of anatomical errors you'd expect to see in the '90s and '80s. Carnegie are extremely accurate but their details do not match up to Papo's
How does detail add to accuracy? If that was true, Schleich would be one of the best dinosaur manufacturers out there.

[Ikessauro]

I understand why some people get so mad when companies release a new figure with some anatomy problems. I agree that in 2013 we have enough info and resources to make it right. But if I had to say which one drives me to buy a figure would be detail. I also agree that accurate models tend to be beautiful to the eyes of a collector, simply because it's cientifically correct, but in the end of the day the figures that have the most lifelike appearance win the attention of any collector. I always go for the most lifelike creatures, no matter if they are not very accurate. Of course that I make exceptions for the sake of completeness or nostalgia, but exquisite detail is what I look for in a figure.

[ZoPteryx]

I voted for accuracy.  If a figure is highly accurate, it should also be detailed accurately with the appropriate scales, feathers, etc.

[Patrx]

Accuracy! I've never been interested in completion of sets, or rarity of figures, or any of the usual "collector" stuff. I buy dinosaur toys because they're an affordable alternative to museum-style life restorations. But, if they're not up-to-date/accurate, they're usually of little use to me. Details are marvelous, of course. An anatomically reasonable dinosaur with no texture, blobby teeth, or bad paint is not particularly accurate either, as real animals are incredibly detailed XD

[Libraraptor]

I like Papo, guess what I´ve voted for!

[Gwangi]

Despite just choosing to buy the Papo Brachiosaurus over the Carnegie model I do actually prefer accuracy. My collection is quite diverse; JP, Tyco and even some Chinasaurs. That said when push comes to shove I typically take accuracy which is probably why I don't own a lot of Papo, though I plan to get most of them.

[John]

"Highly accurate" wins hands down for me.
Something that is highly accurate automatically includes the high detail required for it to be considered as such.

[Takama]

To me,   I go for Detail and the obscure

[IHogaRok]

I think that both are important and I would like my figures to have both detail and accuracy. I can't say I prefer either one, there both important.

No offense, but if you can't choose then don't vote. This is for the sake of argument. I want to know what is more important to people as collectors.
Who isn't going to choose both if they're given the chance?

On second thought, what you say is absolutely correct. If a figure is accurate, then they probably would make it more detailed as well, because detail really adds to accuracy. I choose accuracy.

Papo have the most detailed toys on the market, and yet their figures are plagued by the kind of anatomical errors you'd expect to see in the '90s and '80s. Carnegie are extremely accurate but their details do not match up to Papo's
How does detail add to accuracy? If that was true, Schleich would be one of the best dinosaur manufacturers out there.

First of all, I did vote for accuracy. That is why I said on second thought . And second, detail can add to accuracy, not necessarily does, but can. For example, if a figure wasn't well detailed, it wouldn't look as accurate. The reason being is because the way a dinosaur looks is a part of accuracy. I'm not saying this applies for all situations, but it can.

[deanm]

I voted for accuracy...    Though I can't explain why I have so many toothy pteranodons.

[Gryphoceratops]

I picked accuracy.  I feel if a figure is accurate chances are a decent amount of detail work goes with it anyway. 

[docronnie]

Voted for detail.  I like detailed figures for my collection, but will most probably shift to accuracy later on.

And like Takama, I like obscure figures too... I don't know why.  Maybe I find them artistic and interesting.

[ChrisLikesDinos]

Yeah, ideally both, but I went with detail. I mean, I don't want highly detailed figures that look like Godzilla, but ultimately I feel the Carnegie pieces are overpriced with what they offer.. low detail, toy like paint apps, uninspired poses. I vastly prefer something that looks nice and not like a childs toy, so sadly I prefer Papo even though in my head I want accuracy (although I do appreciate the JP sculpts greatly).

[anchry6]

Of course it is a matter of weights ... 
If I had to choose between: a reproduction 100% detailed, but for nothing, scientifically precise or exact opposite .. I prefer 100% scientific accuracy.   
However, surely I don't buy either of two reproductions.