CollectA-New for 2015

[tanystropheus]

Quality is always greater than quantity. 4 super-high quality figures are more meaningful than a dozen figures that are all over the place in terms of attention to detail, accuracy and aesthetics.

When CollectA puts their collective hearts into it, they produce models that rival WS and Papo (e.g. Therizinosaurus, Deinocheirus, Dacentrurus)
However, that is not the case uniformly. In a sense, they seem to want to please everyone with their large assortment of figures, kids and collectors alike - this invariably leads to inconsistent quality across the board.

CollectA makes some the best marine reptiles out there. The prehistoric mammals are also worthwhile. A couple of years ago CollectA had a revolution. It would be nice to see them continuing in that direction. Competition benefits everyone. The introduction of REBOR will undoubtedly lead to higher quality Papo figures, and we can expect a spike in quality from future REBOR models, as well.

[tanystropheus]

Meh, in my opinion Battat toys also have garish colours. Case in point:



For an animal that's supposed to be an ambush predator, no less. At least CollectA's recent Tyrannosaurus is mostly brown with some brighter colours thrown in.

But I don't really believe in criticising an artist's colour choices. It's not like we have solid evidence for most of them anyway.

(lol, regarding the Battat, if they removed the polka dots and the red highlights, the figure would have been halfway decent, although not completely believable)

I have no problems with bright, colorful models (although, I personally prefer earth tones).However, it would be nice if CollectA took their inspiration from examples of extant birds and reptiles rather than producing models that exhibit a nonsensical hodgepodge (admixture) of hues. Symmetry, elegance and contrast are important, especially if you want to make the representations somewhat believable.  I understand that for their price the consumers are receiving a tremendous value, but even within that price range, they can still design figures that are more desirable.

[suspsy]

Extant birds and reptiles are not the best examples to cite if you want CollectA to avoid a "nonsensical hodgepodge of hues."

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/standard/Coral_snake.jpg

http://www.flchams.com/img/carousel/c-3.jpg

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01846/macaw_1846932c.jpg

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/253/5/b/my_name_is_dusky_lory_by_norbi2010-d49ghob.jpg

http://www.birdsville.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Gouldian-finch1.jpg

[tanystropheus]

Yeah, these are great. The macaw is another example of face 'war paint' done right!  The Xenoceratops not so much - that's a mammalian look (e.g. zebra, tigers)

[suspsy]

There's no reason why Xenoceratops or any of its relatives couldn't have had a colour pattern similar to a zebra or a tiger. One of the fun things about dinosaurs is that colour remains largely open to imagination. It's cool if you don't personally care for a figure's colour scheme, but no one can possibly claim that it's outright wrong. Me, I personally find Papo's colour schemes overly conservative and dull, but I'd never claim that they're incorrect.

[suspsy]

Quality is always greater than quantity. 4 super-high quality figures are more meaningful than a dozen figures that are all over the place in terms of attention to detail, accuracy and aesthetics.

I agree. But I don't see how the 2015 CollectA line is such an example. Aside from the flaw in the Medusa's beak, the detail, accuracy, and aesthetics of the line look great. Of course, it's still best to wait until the products actually hit the market before making a final judgment.

When CollectA puts their collective hearts into it, they produce models that rival WS and Papo (e.g. Therizinosaurus, Deinocheirus, Dacentrurus)
However, that is not the case uniformly. In a sense, they seem to want to please everyone with their large assortment of figures, kids and collectors alike - this invariably leads to inconsistent quality across the board.

The same accusation can easily be made of any other toy company. No one is perfect. That's why one of the worst mosasaur figures of all time came from Papo. And why the REBOR Yutyrannus is woefully inaccurate in terms of plumage.

CollectA makes some the best marine reptiles out there. The prehistoric mammals are also worthwhile. A couple of years ago CollectA had a revolution. It would be nice to see them continuing in that direction.

As far as I'm concerned, they are.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

It's very easy for a collector to sit in front of his keyboard and complain about a company's perceived laziness. Having participated in the Transformers fandom for years, I'm all too familiar with it. Fact is, you're really not in any good place to pass such judgment. You're not working at CollectA. You're not an artist working himself to the bone for days and days on end, trying to meet all his deadlines. You're also not an executive in charge of marketing or sales. And you're not the CEO whose job it is to ensure that the company runs smoothly and stays afloat in a highly competitive market.

You can claim that CollectA---and Battat, Papo, Safari,etc----don't compare to action figures like super heroes and Transformers, but they do. They so do. They all fall under the same category: TOYS. And if you really believe that the toy companies making dinosaurs are more concerned about meeting the arbitrary demands of fans than turning a profit and remaining functional, you're sorely mistaken.

Your claim that Dan or Doug or whoever wouldn't do the same is completely irrelevant. Since they don't work for CollectA, how could you possibly know that would really be the case? Do you think Anthony Beeson gets to dictate what he will and won't do?

Finally, I again point to the fact that CollectA is giving us a whopping FOURTEEN prehistoric figures this year, more than any other company save for Schleich. Of those, only two are resculpts of a popular 2014 model. The remaining twelve are all brand-spanking new.

I see no reason for complaint.

Wait a minute, stop the press here for a minute. There is no "percieved Laziness" involved here...they are recycling dinosaur models from year to year with minor alterations and new paint and and reselling them...as different species. That is laziness, as you can see from the majority of other comments affirming the point . There is just nothing even vaguely indirect about it, it is fact. It is not perception , it is reality.
  And more to the point I AM in the a perfect place to pass judgement...you see, I am the consumer. I am the final market for these products...I am Joe B Public whose money will or will not make or break this company. Wether you get that or not is not relevent, this company's ultimate success or failure relys on myself and people just like me, to either choose to purchase recyled figures or not. From people's reactions within this forum already I can tell you the public is saying...not. They did themselves no favors in public perception here.
    If I understand your argument, you are attempting to state they cannot stay afloat, meet deadlines, or do their jobs  if they make new sculpts for each dinosaur......other companies do and most do not rely on this poor business model to do it with .
  By your argument, anything a toy should then be handled like an action figure. Sorry, that is really poor logic. Transformers by their very story lines and origins invite repaints and so forth...ie.....soundwave, soundblaster, etc . You simply cannot make the same argument for dinosaur figures sorry......I am just positive that medusaceratops and Nasutoceratops were not evil brothers on another planet and then came to earth as good and evil, so they look alike . Aside from this and somewhat apparently lost in the shuffle is that none of these ceratopsians were identical as they are being modeled. I also made NO claims about papo, battat, safari, and I would prefer you did not misquote me. As for how could I know what Doug or Dan or Forest would do....I can say this much. When asked if he had recycled any of his models  Doug responded he still has the original sculpts for each and every single piece he has done . That in itself tells you something....integrity. As for Dan.....he sculpts dinosaurs for a company that trusts his judgement enough to allow him to choose the species, turn in original models and paint them. Why? Because he has a reputation for producing top of the line figures and having...yes, integrity. He is not known for recycling sculpts, that is not his calling card. It doesnt matter what they would do if they were working for collecta because I believe either artist would refuse to lower their standards to the level of recycling models just to put something on the market.
Yes Collecta is indeed giving us a whopping fourteen figures this year.....apparently the logic is smother with quantity and forget quality. We are getting three nearly identical, with slight alterations, Spinosaur models...sound familiar? We are getting a recycled ceratopsian......so that somewhat drops the whopping total doesn't it? And even worse, next year when we get another nine whopping brand newly recycled sculpts, I am sure you will see that as nothing to complain about again, since you are willing to accept it now. Of course we can always line them up on the shelf and use them for the power rangers to ride into battle !!!!

[suspsy]

Wait a minute, stop the press here for a minute. There is no "percieved Laziness" involved here...they are recycling dinosaur models from year to year with minor alterations

A new colour scheme is minor alteration. A completely different head is a major alteration.

and new paint and and reselling them...as different species. That is laziness, as you can see from the majority of other comments affirming the point

No, it's not laziness, for reasons that I will go over again. And your appeal to majority is meaningless given that a vast majority of the people on this forum have NOT bothered to comment on this topic.

There is just nothing even vaguely indirect about it, it is fact. It is not perception , it is reality.

No, it's merely your personal perception of the situation. You don't work for CollectA, you don't know what's going on in their company, and I don't either. We must therefore rely solely on what actually is known. And what is known is that that out of fifteen new figures (I miscounted earlier), only two are resculpts. One can just as easily pass them over and still enjoy the rest.

And more to the point I AM in the a perfect place to pass judgement...you see, I am the consumer. I am the final market for these products...I am Joe B Public whose money will or will not make or break this company.

You're one guy. You don't speak for every dinosaur collector on this forum, let alone the world. Your opinion and your money only account for so much as far as CollectA's wellbeing is concerned. And again, you don't work for them and you don't personally know anyone who does. Who are you to pass final sentence and decree that it's a case of pure laziness?

Wether you get that or not is not relevent, this company's ultimate success or failure relys on myself and people just like me, to either choose to purchase recyled figures or not.

Again, you're only one guy. Your personal opinion and tastes do not speak for everyone.

From people's reactions within this forum already I can tell you the public is saying...not.

A handful of people posting in one thread on an online forum is not representative of the public as a whole.

If I understand your argument, you are attempting to state they cannot stay afloat, meet deadlines, or do their jobs  if they make new sculpts for each dinosaur......other companies do and most do not rely on this poor business model to do it with .

No, that's not what I said at all. In the first place, I've already pointed out that there are thirteen brand new prehistoric figures out this year. There are also a good many brand new modern animal figures coming out as well. That's a huge workload for any company and CollectA could easily have left it at thirteen. No one here would have batted an eye if that had been the case. Instead, they chose to supplement their prehistoric line a little more with two major resculpts. You may think that is giving less than 100%, but in my mind, it's giving 110%.

By your argument, anything a toy should then be handled like an action figure.

Nope, I never said that. I pointed out that dinosaur figures and action figures fall under the category of toys, and no one should try to pretend they are anything else.

Sorry, that is really poor logic. Transformers by their very story lines and origins invite repaints and so forth...ie.....soundwave, soundblaster, etc . You simply cannot make the same argument for dinosaur figures sorry......

Oh yes, I certainly can. Aside from their heads, what is so drastically different about Medusa, Nasuto, and Xeno? Would you be able to immediately tell a headless Nasuto skeleton from a headless Xeno? It's not like CollectA tried to make a new Spinosaurus by sticking a new head and a bigger fin on the Acrocanthosaurus.

. I also made NO claims about papo, battat, safari, and I would prefer you did not misquote me.

Since I'm the one who brought up the other companies in my previous post, I didn't misquote you. But on that note, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Papo did the exact same with their Pachyrhinosaurus and Styracosaurus. Moreover, they rereleased the original T. Rex in brown and did two versions of the juvenile sculpt and the running sculpt. Do you also hold Papo in such contempt? Going by your argument, they're even more guilty of laziness than CollectA.

As for how could I know what Doug or Dan or Forest would do....I can say this much. When asked if he had recycled any of his models  Doug responded he still has the original sculpts for each and every single piece he has done . That in itself tells you something....integrity. As for Dan.....he sculpts dinosaurs for a company that trusts his judgement enough to allow him to choose the species, turn in original models and paint them. Why? Because he has a reputation for producing top of the line figures and having...yes, integrity. He is not known for recycling sculpts, that is not his calling card.

So on account of two sculpts out of fifteen, you're willing to go on record as stating that Anthony Beeson lacks integrity?

It doesnt matter what they would do if they were working for collecta because I believe either artist would refuse to lower their standards to the level of recycling models just to put something on the market.

Belief alone does not equal truth. You're speaking purely in hypotheticals, not reality.

Yes Collecta is indeed giving us a whopping fourteen figures this year.....apparently the logic is smother with quantity and forget quality.

You want to talk about quality? The Feathered T. Rex is already so popular, it was initially included in the Top 10 Tyrannosaurs poll. The three Spinosaurus figures have been showered with praise here and on Facebook. Same goes for the giant Guidraco. The Daeodon has inaccurate feet, but it still looks great. And I've yet to see anyone anywhere say anything remotely negative about the Smilodon, the Moropus, or the Daxiatitan. Or the rest.

Are you really accusing the entire 2015 lineup of lacking quality?

We are getting three nearly identical, with slight alterations, Spinosaur models...sound familiar?

Slight alterations? One of the walking versions is at a larger scale with an articulated jaw and the swimming version is in a completely different pose from the other two. Those are not slight in any form of the term. Not to mention that CollectA was under no obligation to produce three versions of the same dinosaur in the first place.

And even worse, next year when we get another nine whopping brand newly recycled sculpts, I am sure you will see that as nothing to complain about again, since you are willing to accept it now. Of course we can always line them up on the shelf and use them for the power rangers to ride into battle !!!!

And now you're making up random fantasy scenarios. You're demolishing your own argument with this line of false reasoning. Stick to the facts, please.

[Tallin]

Whilst I do think it's a shame that they didn't take the opportunity to give these ceratopsians some more dynamic poses and thus more character and believability, I agree that at the end of the day, it's unlikely that the sculptor gets to decree how much each figure can be different. His superiors and managers probably told him to produce new head sculpts for the one body shape to cut costs, I doubt it was his decision as an artist.

[stargatedalek]

Personally I don't mind the retooling; maybe that's just me not being picky, or maybe that's me not being a completionist and not having to worry about displaying them side by side, I can't really decide on a reason why I don't mind it besides simply that I don't. I can understand how it might put some people off should they already own the previous figure, but I think CollectA might have also taken that into account. Maybe they were making their target audience people who wouldn't necessarily want to buy multiple ceratopsians, and so they didn't feel the need to make them completely differentiated.

[Manatee]

I honestly don't mind sculpt retooling unless the sculpts look almost exactly the same; adding an entirely different head and adjusting the entire position of the upper half of the body are good enough for me to count as separate models.
I honestly do not see how anyone could accuse CollectA of laziness. Not in the least; they are releasing fifteen models just this year and, besides the Nasuto and Medusa, each is its own separate sculpt and all of them look fantastic. I'm basically just repeating what was already said, but I believe it needs to be reiterated; that claim is not true no matter how you put it.

[Sim]

Meh, in my opinion Battat toys also have garish colours. Case in point:

For an animal that's supposed to be an ambush predator, no less. At least CollectA's recent Tyrannosaurus is mostly brown with some brighter colours thrown in.

But I don't really believe in criticising an artist's colour choices. It's not like we have solid evidence for most of them anyway.

I find the Battat Tyrannosaurus' colour scheme more plausible than the 2015 CollectA Tyrannosaurus'.  I can't imagine the latter managing to camouflage with such a bright red crest.  Dan said the Battat reissues will have more natural colours so I'm hopeful they'll look great!

No, that's not what I said at all. In the first place, I've already pointed out that there are thirteen brand new prehistoric figures out this year. There are also a good many brand new modern animal figures coming out as well. That's a huge workload for any company and CollectA could easily have left it at thirteen. No one here would have batted an eye if that had been the case. Instead, they chose to supplement their prehistoric line a little more with two major resculpts. You may think that is giving less than 100%, but in my mind, it's giving 110%.

I don't think the Medusaceratops is a major resculpt, if all that was done was it was mirrored, and the neck and horns were changed.  The head seems to be the same as the Xenoceratops' down to the inaccurate mouth.
I think the CollectA Acrocanthosaurus might have been recycled from the CollectA Carcharodontosaurus.
[deleted defunct image]
It looks like the Carcharodontosaurus had its sculpt mirrored.  The chest and shoulder area, the abdomen and the legs of the 2 figures look the same besides the Acrocanthosaurus having more pointy scutes on the sides of its body although the top row of pointy scutes on its side look the same as the Carcharodontosaurus'.  I couldn't find a better picture of the Carcharodontosaurus from that side so to compare the tail I'm using one of its other side:

The pose and texture of the tail makes me think it was recycled too.

I had another look at the other 2015 CollectA figures and... I think the Daxiatitan is recycled from the Argentinosaurus sculpt.


Again it looks like the sculpt was mirrored.  Notice how one of the hands on both figures is raised in the exact same way, and the hindlimb on the same side of the body is the one that's further back.  Besides being mirrored all 4 limbs on the Daxiatitan look identical to the Argentinosaurus'.  The abdomen of both figures looks the same too.

I really don't like it when parts of a figure are recycled for a figure that's supposed to be entirely new.  It feels cheap, and it doesn't look good especially when the figures sharing body parts are together.  It puts me off.  I'm curious though if there are other figures by companies that make prehistoric animal figures that have recycled sculpts?  Besides Papo's Styracosaurus.

[Tallin]

Um, The daxiatitan looks different to me...

The folds of muscle around the chest area look different and the left foot is raised more, plus the change in tail. The scutes and the shape of the neck are also different to my eyes. Daxia's back legs also look a little more defines...

Those more titanosaurs that are known from non-complete remains are depicted similarly anyway...

[Sim]

Um, The daxiatitan looks different to me...

The folds of muscle around the chest area look different and the left foot is raised more, plus the change in tail. The scutes and the shape of the neck are also different to my eyes. Daxia's back legs also look a little more defines...

Those more titanosaurs that are known from non-complete remains are depicted similarly anyway...

I didn't say the tail, scutes and neck were the same.   I've found a better picture of the Argentinosaurus!

The skin detail isn't identical on the two figures but besides that their limbs look the same but mirrored.  When I say mirrored I mean the sculpt was reversed.  That was what was done to the CollectA Xenoceratops' sculpt for the CollectA Medusaceratops.  One of the hands on the Daxia and Argentino is raised in the exact same way, and the hindlimb on the same side of the body is the one that's further back.  I tried to get the best pictures to compare them, but the two figures might be pictured from slightly different angles so that has to be taken into account.

[suspsy]

Meh, in my opinion Battat toys also have garish colours. Case in point:

For an animal that's supposed to be an ambush predator, no less. At least CollectA's recent Tyrannosaurus is mostly brown with some brighter colours thrown in.

But I don't really believe in criticising an artist's colour choices. It's not like we have solid evidence for most of them anyway.

I find the Battat Tyrannosaurus' colour scheme more plausible than the 2015 CollectA Tyrannosaurus'.  I can't imagine the latter managing to camouflage with such a bright red crest.  Dan said the Battat reissues will have more natural colours so I'm hopeful they'll look great!

I'd say they're on par as far as camouflage (or lack of) is concerned. And besides, what if ceratopsids are colour blind?

No, that's not what I said at all. In the first place, I've already pointed out that there are thirteen brand new prehistoric figures out this year. There are also a good many brand new modern animal figures coming out as well. That's a huge workload for any company and CollectA could easily have left it at thirteen. No one here would have batted an eye if that had been the case. Instead, they chose to supplement their prehistoric line a little more with two major resculpts. You may think that is giving less than 100%, but in my mind, it's giving 110%.

I don't think the Medusaceratops is a major resculpt, if all that was done was it was mirrored, and the neck and horns were changed.  The head seems to be the same as the Xenoceratops' down to the inaccurate mouth.[/quote]

I'm not seeing that, but we'll know for sure once the Medusa is out. Either way, it doesn't affect my argument.

think the CollectA Acrocanthosaurus might have been recycled from the CollectA Carcharodontosaurus.

It looks like the Carcharodontosaurus had its sculpt mirrored.  The chest and shoulder area, the abdomen and the legs of the 2 figures look the same besides the Acrocanthosaurus having more pointy scutes on the sides of its body although the top row of pointy scutes on its side look the same as the Carcharodontosaurus'.  I couldn't find a better picture of the Carcharodontosaurus from that side so to compare the tail I'm using one of its other side:

The pose and texture of the tail makes me think it was recycled too.

Nope. The lower jaws are similar, but the sculpting is different. Same goes for the rest of the Acro's body. I'd attribute it to the fact that they're similarly sized members of the same family.

I had another look at the other 2015 CollectA figures and... I think the Daxiatitan is recycled from the Argentinosaurus sculpt.


Again it looks like the sculpt was mirrored.  Notice how one of the hands on both figures is raised in the exact same way, and the hindlimb on the same side of the body is the one that's further back.  Besides being mirrored all 4 limbs on the Daxiatitan look identical to the Argentinosaurus'.  The abdomen of both figures looks the same too.

Again, no. The Daxiatitan has a different head, different feet, a proportionally longer neck and tail, and a different skin texture. Like the Acro and the Carcharodontosaurus, Argentinosaurus and Daxiatitan are from the same family, so naturally they're going to be similar.

I really don't like it when parts of a figure are recycled for a figure that's supposed to be entirely new.  It feels cheap, and it doesn't look good especially when the figures sharing body parts are together.  It puts me off.  I'm curious though if there are other figures by companies that make prehistoric animal figures that have recycled sculpts?  Besides Papo's Styracosaurus.

I don't like the fact that the Medusa and the Nasuto are resculpts of the Xeno, but I still want them. They'll look nice lined up as a trio. Again, people can toss around the cheap label as much as they want, but in my mind, these two are add-ons to the rest of the brand new stuff.

The Jurassic Park line repainted or resculpted a number of its toys back in the day.

[darth daniel]

The skin detail isn't identical on the two figures but besides that their limbs look the same but mirrored.  When I say mirrored I mean the sculpt was reversed.  That was what was done to the CollectA Xenoceratops' sculpt for the CollectA Medusaceratops.  One of the hands on the Daxia and Argentino is raised in the exact same way, and the hindlimb on the same side of the body is the one that's further back.

What does 'recycle' a pose mean anyway? There´s not so many different ways those animals could have walked... Of course they look similar in some way. The 'mirroring' of the leg positions is a way to avoid a completely identical look. Besides, the Argentinosaurus´ front legs don´t even look as if it walked, he is standing and looks like one second before rearing on his rear legs (if he was able to), shifting back his center of gravity. The Daxiatitan on the other hand seems to be in a walking position.

If you look at Safari´s sauropod figures, except for the new Diplodocus, every single figure has the feet on the left/right side closer together than on the right/left side. Does that mean Safari recycled all its sauropod sculpts?

[Tallin]

I dislike the common tripod roaring pose of the safari therapod models more than the mirroring of Collecta...

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Thanks Sim, I am glad other people are noticing how common this practice is in their figures and how often they do it. I really am astonished anyone would even attempt to defend this as good business or something acceptable. I will not go in and refute each point in the argument once more, as I have already well established the point it is a shoddy practice, wether driven by laziness, finances or just lack of concern. The bottom line is that it is not something you see in Safari products at all,nor from Battat. I seem to have been quoted as saying that , so now I will, however I left out Papo since I also do not buy their figures for much these same reasons. I own one Papo figure to be precise, the Dimetrodon, which I think everyone would agree is an original and well done model.I do not need to work for them or any other company to see greed and cost cutting and lack of effort. It is obvious and blatantly so.

    Yes I am one person, in a single thread in a forum. However if I can see and notice these issues others are as well. It is fair to say this is costing them business. I am a consumer, as are others who have commented. I guess if we follow the rather odd example stated above, since we have not asked the entire world what they think we are not allowed to notice trends within the forum, except when they work to the advantage of collecta. More odd argument making there for sure.
One final point to make is this...everyone seems delighted that Collecta is doing so many models and saying they are all great. You can go back through the thread here and find probems with nearly every sculpt being done...the ceratopsians for instance have incorrect hand/and or feet, and mishapen heads , badly designed rostrals, etc. The heads on the large theropods are all badly shrink wrapped, compared to the overly wide hips, etc. For each model there are problems with the basic anatomy, research and final product if you read through the thread carefully, in nearly every single case.  Just because they are dumping alot of product out there does not mean it is done well, nor is it a nice thing. The Spinosaurus group they are releasing was not planned and released as a crowd pleaser, it was designed to capitalize on the moment, pure and simple. The few models it has been stated are well done or are being praised are of course unreleased to this point.
  I do suggest to split this topic away from the main thread as I think that lack of business ethics when producing dinosaurs in a major company might deserve a seperate thread. I am sure there are other examples.

[ItsTwentyBelow]

Please. I cannot get over how ruffled some people's feathers get on the internet, especially over this stuff. Calm down because I'm not planning on responding to any of it.

It's not obvious to some people on here which figures are clearly recycled from previous CollectA figures, but it is very obvious to me.

The Acro is also a clear recycle of last year's Carcharodontosarus. Very obvious, while a lot of people seem to think the Daxiatitan is a recycle of the Argentinosaurus, which it is not. I can tell just by looking at it that it's original.

I'm just trying to set the record straight here. Kosmo, Nasuto and Acro are obvious recycles with minimal changes/mirrored sculpts, to the point that it's all I see, so I'm not interested in them.

Doing it this way rather than creating a new sculpt from the ground up will always be considered taking the easy way out.

People can choose to accept this or keep whining at me, but I am well trained in pattern recognition and stand behind what I am saying.

[suspsy]

Thanks Sim, I am glad other people are noticing how common this practice is in their figures and how often they do it. I really am astonished anyone would even attempt to defend this as good business or something acceptable.

Given how many toy companies engage in the practice of repainting or retooling, it's acceptable and good business.

I will not go in and refute each point in the argument once more, as I have already well established the point it is a shoddy practice

Strictly your personal opinion.

The bottom line is that it is not something you see in Safari products at all,nor from Battat. I seem to have been quoted as saying that , so now I will,

I already stated that I was the one who brought up Battat, Safari, and Papo, not you. You're the one who's misquoting me.

however I left out Papo since I also do not buy their figures for much these same reasons. I own one Papo figure to be precise, the Dimetrodon, which I think everyone would agree is an original and well done model.

And so are many of CollectA's recent models.

I do not need to work for them or any other company to see greed and cost cutting and lack of effort. It is obvious and blatantly so.

Again, you're speaking strictly for yourself. Your personal opinion does not equate reality, no matter how strongly you feel.

Yes I am one person, in a single thread in a forum. However if I can see and notice these issues others are as well.

Others do not agree with you, as this thread is proving.

It is fair to say this is costing them business. I am a consumer, as are others who have commented. I guess if we follow the rather odd example stated above, since we have not asked the entire world what they think we are not allowed to notice trends within the forum, except when they work to the advantage of collecta. More odd argument making there for sure.

Noticing trends is not the same as claiming that your opinion is factual and shared by a majority.

One final point to make is this...everyone seems delighted that Collecta is doing so many models and saying they are all great. You can go back through the thread here and find probems with nearly every sculpt being done...the ceratopsians for instance have incorrect hand/and or feet, and mishapen heads , badly designed rostrals, etc. The heads on the large theropods are all badly shrink wrapped, compared to the overly wide hips, etc. For each model there are problems with the basic anatomy, research and final product if you read through the thread carefully, in nearly every single case.

So? The same can be said for any and every other toyline, be it Safari, Battat, Papo, Schleich, REBOR or so on. Again, no one is perfect. Especially when it comes to depicting extinct animals.

Just because they are dumping alot of product out there does not mean it is done well, nor is it a nice thing.

I'm sorry you see it that way. I disagree with you, of course. Oh well. Your disgust doesn't affect my delight in the slightest.

The Spinosaurus group they are releasing was not planned and released as a crowd pleaser, it was designed to capitalize on the moment, pure and simple.

Are you saying it's wrong for a toy company to capitalise on a major moment in paleontology? Why? And again, who are you to say what CollectA's precise motives are?