What, if anything, is 'museum quality'?

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I want to kick in here and say something not so much about the dinosaur itself, because I seldom collect theropods, but rather about a term being used. "Museum Accurate" and the swirl about this term are making me snicker a bit . Alot depends on which museum and what their standards are. I have seen models and displays in museums that fall far short of the same type display in my home for instance. Sometimes information is not given accurately and sometimes it is just plain wrong. I know in a thread a year or two ago I displayed a psittacosaurus that was at a local museum that really lowers the bar for accuracy...and I have seen dinosaur egg displays in museums that were entirely replicas, presented as real, or mis-labeled. While museums are great institutions and contain much visual zing and learning, they make mistakes too, and alot more common than is being allowed for here. Make note this company is not stating their model is "museum endorsed" or supported by "The American museum of whatever" . Anymore the term museum accurate is as ambigous as the term rare, limited, or many others you see batted around Ebay. Remember there are also creation museums, and many other museums that are not giving or displaying things you yourself would accept as reliable or accurate. Just not sure that term is worth the fuss here...it is a marketing ploy and not one that is badly out of line given some dinosaur figures I see represented as accurate.

[DinoToyForum]

I figured this might generate some interesting discussion and was worthy of a new thread So I split it off. 

[tyrantqueen]

My theory is that the confusion may stem from the fact that many people have fond memories of the Invicta, Battat and Carnegie lines, all of which claim to be museum authenticated. Perhaps the term has becoming linked to that, and people automatically assume "museum accurate" means something of Invicta/Battat/Carnegie calibre. Just a guess.

...Or maybe that was back in the day when "museum accurate" meant something

[stargatedalek]

Whether museums themselves are always accurate or not its bold to label your product as such, and it will lead people to have high expectations,  when those expectations are not met the company has no one else to blame but themselves if they get complaints over it, using a bold marketing tactic like that has risks, and if you aren't willing to take them than don't make such claims

[Megalosaurus]

In the instant I read "museum" in the advertising of Y-Rex I knew that it has nothing to do with a museum, but just is a marketing strategy.
So I don't go nuts for the inaccuracy.

[DinoLord]

This thread brings up a great point. I have been to very few, if any, museum exhibits that were perfectly accurate without any flawed mounts. While 'museum-accurate' is a rather bold term to use, perhaps it's not as strict as some people make it out to be.

[tyrantqueen]

I just take everything with a grain of salt now. Afaik, Kaiyodo doesn't claim their models to be accurate (unless someone could correct me on that, I don't read Japanese so I wouldn't know) but their dinosaurs are some of the most accurate around (not to mention beautiful..) On the other hand, Geoworld claims their toys to be paleontologist approved but often times they make mistakes in their models, such as leaving out feathers or giving their theropods broken wrists.

My advice: TRUST NOONE

[DinoLord]

My advice: TRUST NOONE

Good point - if there's one thing I've learned from collecting over the years it's the fine facets of the anatomy of various prehistoric animals. Reading reviews on the blog is pretty good for this actually.

[Gwangi]

Amarga brings up a lot of great points. Heck, the Yale Peabody Museum STILL has tail dragging dinosaurs on display! They're working on it though.



But yeah, claiming museum quality does higher ones expectations I think. Though I'm aware that museum models and museums can be flawed if a toy line does claim museum quality I would prefer to see them back it up with accuracy.

[Seijun]

I associate "museum quality" with meaning "scientifically accurate to modern standards". I think because most people assume that museums ARE scientifically accurate to modern standards. At least, that is what I grew up thinking. I imagined museums as being run by "experts", perhaps a bunch of paleontologists in white lab coats, who would be the last people on earth to let a scientific inaccuracy slip past!

[stoneage]

My theory is that the confusion may stem from the fact that many people have fond memories of the Invicta, Battat and Carnegie lines, all of which claim to be museum authenticated. Perhaps the term has becoming linked to that, and people automatically assume "museum accurate" means something of Invicta/Battat/Carnegie calibre. Just a guess.

...Or maybe that was back in the day when "museum accurate" meant something

Don't forget Schleich and Bullyland, or Walking With Dinosaurs etc.  Its kind of like everyone on E-bay calling everything rare.  Even the old Battat dinosaurs aren't that rare.  It seems like almost every collector has some.

[stargatedalek]

Afaik, Kaiyodo doesn't claim their models to be accurate (unless someone could correct me on that, I don't read Japanese so I wouldn't know) but their dinosaurs are some of the most accurate around (not to mention beautiful..)

I've never noted that sort of thing on any publishing material (other than some of the expo figures)

[amargasaurus cazaui]

My theory is that the confusion may stem from the fact that many people have fond memories of the Invicta, Battat and Carnegie lines, all of which claim to be museum authenticated. Perhaps the term has becoming linked to that, and people automatically assume "museum accurate" means something of Invicta/Battat/Carnegie calibre. Just a guess.

...Or maybe that was back in the day when "museum accurate" meant something

I would theorize that museum accurate and museum authenticated are two different Tyrannosaurus rex of the same species lol.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Whether museums themselves are always accurate or not its bold to label your product as such, and it will lead people to have high expectations,  when those expectations are not met the company has no one else to blame but themselves if they get complaints over it, using a bold marketing tactic like that has risks, and if you aren't willing to take them than don't make such claims

The problem I see with this theory is quite simple. Define museum accurate...what percentage of mistake is allowed to earn the grade for instance...where do you draw the line? Can you black and white draw a scale for what is and is not accurate and then definitely state something is or is not? Does one feather constitute a violation or ten? Does a mis-shapen tooth automatically qualify?I doubt you can do so, and therefore both their claim of museum accuracy and your denial of it are subject to question. Aside from this  compared to most Chinasaurs, John Q Public would say wow, this dinosaur is really life-like, because honestly most of the public do not know the difference between Yutyrannus and Gallimimus.

[stargatedalek]

its not a matter of defining "museum quality" (which can't really be defined), but rather a matter of "if you are going to use a risky marketing tactic, its your own fault if it backfires"

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I do not see them taking any risk in using it. Walk the aisles of Wal-Mart...how many foods are labeled Low Calorie, heart healthy, or Diet.......what does any of those terms mean? If you cannot define it you cannot question the accuracy..and in this case if you cannot define Museum Accurate to a set standard, you cannot apply it to a product.
  Hence no risk..they are not stating it was authenticated, approved, or endorsed by anyone or anything. All they are doing is using wordspeak and creative words that really mean nothing when you come down to it. No risk, no loss, and no problem if someone disagrees. Quite simple.

[stargatedalek]

I think any marketing intended to raise expectations (regardless if it actually means anything, thats still its intention) is risky, because higher expectations mean higher rates of disappointment in customers and would-be customers

this particular case that started this discussion was different, because they didn't just say "museum quality" but they outright claimed to be "based on latest research", to me this is something I'd consider "fraudulent conduct" (imagine how fast a food product would be taken off the market with unsubstantiated direct claims like that )

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I think any marketing intended to raise expectations (regardless if it actually means anything, thats still its intention) is risky, because higher expectations mean higher rates of disappointment in customers and would-be customers

this particular case that started this discussion was different, because they didn't just say "museum quality" but they outright claimed to be "based on latest research", to me this is something I'd consider "fraudulent conduct" (imagine how fast a food product would be taken off the market with unsubstantiated direct claims like that )

I agree with your first comment, however again, based on the latest research....by whom? They again do not specify..it could be their latest research, the latest research they found, or the latest research they found a few years ago. It is another meaningless term. They are not stating...based on the latest research by Manning and Ciao, published @2014/2/24 Nor are they saying based on Museum Specimen MV409F displayed in Senckenberg, Germany.  You cannot prove fraud because the terms being used are so poorly defined. It is basically alot of words that mean zero. This practice is actually common in the food market, and is how business is done. Inaccurate or meaningless terms that cannot be proven and mean little if anything. The over the counter medication business is even worse at times.

[stargatedalek]

probably the packaging regulations are stricter here, because I see articles about products being blocked from grocery all the time for that sort of thing

[Gwangi]

I just want to point out that this Coelophysis stands outside the local museum where I volunteer. It looks even worse in profile. Keep in mind that the museum is not a dinosaur museum per se and that it was donated by a local artist or something but you get my point.