CollectA-New for 2015

[suspsy]

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.

I'm not ruffled by any of it. As I said to amargasaurus, another fan's disgust shouldn't and doesn't affect my delight.

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.

It's not obvious as all. You're comparing photos, not the actual toys. You don't own the Acrocanthosaurus. For that matter, do you own the Carcharodontosaurus?

[stargatedalek]

I agree that the acrocanthosaurus is definitely a retool of the charcarodontosaurus, but that's not to say it isn't a very different sculpt overall. As for the daxiatitan I can see some resemblance in the legs and its possible its a retool, but there is definitely a lot of original parts to it.

I'm not saying that this is anything but sheer laziness or cost cutting, but why is that a bad thing? Honestly what company doesn't practice this in at least some way, well no company doesn't. Its just a way that they choose to do business, call it lazy, cheap, whatever you want to, but that doesn't make the individual figures any worse and it doesn't make the company any worse than any other company. Companies cut costs whenever possible, that's just how they do it.

[Sim]

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

Hehe!  I think it's unlikely ceratopsids are colour blind, and that it's even more unlikely all the species a Tyrannosaurus preyed on would be 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.

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

That's what it looks like to me, I went into more detail about it when I posted these pictures earlier in this thread.  Yes it'll be clear once the Medusaceratops is out.

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.

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 think the Acrocanthosaurus's sculpt was recycled from the Carcharodontosaurus's.  In addition to the reasons I've already mentioned, the skin folds look the same above the arm and on the abdomen - compare the Acro to the Carch in the first picture.

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 don't know why people are using things like a different head, neck, tail, skin, etc. as meaning a figure isn't a recycled sculpt?  Modifying parts of a sculpt is what allows a sculpt to be recycled!  I think the Argentinosaurus sculpt was used as the starting point for the Daxiatitan, the limb positions look like a mirror image.  Maybe it isn't a recycled sculpt, however thinking it definitely isn't is also an opinion right now.

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.

I said it feels cheap, so I was saying how I feel about it.  Your response to this was rude, and doesn't change how I feel.

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

I can see why one might consider a repaint a recycled sculpt, I don't though unless it got relabelled as a different species.

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?

No-one is saying poses were recycled.  What's being discussed is the sculpt being recycled.  This means an existing figure's sculpt is modified to make a new figure.  To me the Daxiatitan's and Argentinosaurus' limbs look to be in the exact same pose besides being mirrored.  The sculpt on Safari's recent sauropods are so different it's obvious they aren't recycled sculpts!

I'm not saying that this is anything but sheer laziness or cost cutting, but why is that a bad thing? Honestly what company doesn't practice this in at least some way, well no company doesn't. Its just a way that they choose to do business, call it lazy, cheap, whatever you want to, but that doesn't make the individual figures any worse and it doesn't make the company any worse than any other company. Companies cut costs whenever possible, that's just how they do it.

As far as I'm aware none of the Battat dinosaurs are recycled sculpts.  Same with the Carnegie Collection and Wild Safari prehistoric animals, at least the more recent ones although I'm not aware of earlier figures which are recycled sculpts.  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 to me it doesn't look good especially when the figures sharing body parts are together.  It puts me off.  So I think objectively, recycling a sculpt for a figure makes it worse because it will put some people off it.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Just a reminder , please keep your discussions civil!

[suspsy]

This debate is at an impasse. I've stated the reasons why I don't mind the Medusa and the Nasuto, and why I don't believe CollectA is guilty of laziness or any other transgression. And I've seen nothing to convince me otherwise. Same goes for the accusations being levelled against the Acro and the Daxiatitan. Two closely related carcharodontosaurs and two closely related titanosaurs are bound to share strong resemblances. Simple as that in my book. I'll wait and see what the toys are actually like.

I might email CollectA and politely inquire about this issue. I'll pass on any info if I get it.

Finally, while I firmly reject virtually everything amargasaurus and Sim have said regarding this topic, I want to make it clear that I have nothing personal against them or anyone else. We're all hardcore dinosaur fans speaking passionately about our hobby. For now at least, let's agree to disagree.

[ItsTwentyBelow]

Hmm taking a closer look at the Daxiatitan, I do agree that it is based on the Argentinosaurus sculpt. Looks like the sculptor added some material to the limbs to muscle them, as well as some slight re-positioning. They've also re-textured the body.

[stargatedalek]

I'm not aware of Safari ever retooling molds, and unless you count the miniatures neither has Battat. Safari has however re-painted many of their sculpts and re-released them time and time again. When I said every company does it I meant cost cutting in general, a company will take every chance they can get to save money, it can cause disappointment at times but at the end of the day that's just how corporate thinking works.

As I said I do completely understand why having already had the original would make someone less inclined to purchase a retool, which is why I said I don't feel it negates the pieces individually. IE pretend the charcarodontosaurus doesn't exist and that acrocanthosaurus itself is just as good or bad as it is with the charcarodontosaurus in the picture.

*edit* Safari has indeed done a few retools in their time, although there is still some debate over whether they truly retooled or took strong inspiration from their previous pieces

[amargasaurus cazaui]

  It seems rather obvious, when reviewing the issue both here and through social media arenas like Facebook that I am not an analomy, nor am I alone, as the people responding here have shown. People do not care for this practice, and it is not the best thing they could be doing. My own two cents is I work hard for my money and cannot afford to buy every dinosaur model and figure that comes into the market. I have to use a discerning set of standards and qualifcations what makes the grade and what does not. I will never give up the full price for a figure just to get a different horn arrangement or frill decoration , on a figure with quills, incorrect feet and hands, and a stolen body. What is there left? Honestly, as I said , I am somewhat shocked anyone would even attempt to defend the practice or justify it in any way or for any reason.
  Stargate asked why it is bad...what is wrong with it? The answer is simple....charge me for an entire dinosaur figure, then produce an entire figure. Do not repackage what you sold me last year with new colors and a different face and ask for an even higher price this year, sorry. It is insulting...and more than that, it shows what Collecta really thinks of their audience in terms of naivete and gullibility. The wrong in it is they assume you wont notice or care , while they line their pockets.
  If there  is a plus side to this discussion, at least Collecta has become a leader and the first to pull one thing off well. They have beaten the Asian market recasters to their own game.........ironic.
  I do agree to disagree, without a set of standards in the dinosaur collecting realm we have nothing. If the debate is at an impasse it is because there will always be discerning collectors who do not endorse such practices.
 

[stargatedalek]

I think I'm just not very particular, its definitely not a good practice I just don't see it as being objectively wrong. That being said I'm not about to go and buy multiple retools unless there's some sort of novelty to that fact, which I don't see here.

[EmperorDinobot]

I feel fine with re-tooled dinosaurs as long as they are nicely done. I don't think this is lazy, because at least their style is consistent. Whenever a dinosaur based line falls out of consistency, THAT is when I start whining and crying and putting up world's end signs and moving the atomic clock closer to midnight.

Then again, regarding space and the state of affairs with my collection, I'm wayyy past midnight.


And if this consistent, high quality product strives to become BETTER while maintaining the same consistency, then they are to be praised.


I greatly enjoy that Procon is doing and I am sooo sad I will be unable to get any of these....I'd have to build a new park entirely for them! It's too many, too soon!

[suspsy]

Hmm taking a closer look at the Daxiatitan, I do agree that it is based on the Argentinosaurus sculpt. Looks like the sculptor added some material to the limbs to muscle them, as well as some slight re-positioning. They've also re-textured the body.

When you add in the fact that the head, neck, and tail are distinctly different from the Argentinosaurus, that certainly sounds like an entirely new figure. 

I feel fine with re-tooled dinosaurs as long as they are nicely done. I don't think this is lazy, because at least their style is consistent. Whenever a dinosaur based line falls out of consistency, THAT is when I start whining and crying and putting up world's end signs and moving the atomic clock closer to midnight.

And if this consistent, high quality product strives to become BETTER while maintaining the same consistency, then they are to be praised.

This is similar to how I feel as well. I certainly wouldn't like it if the Medusa and Nasuto represent the beginning of a trend, but there's zero proof of that, at least not yet. I may or may not end up getting both of them. At least the Nasuto for sure. And again, for me, the presence of so many brand new and exciting figures overshadows these two completely. I'm counting down the days till the Feathered T. Rex becomes available. And the Smilodon. And the Temnodontosaurus.

In the end, my hobby is far too rewarding, enjoyable, and fun for me to take it too seriously.

[tanystropheus]

The Temnodontosaurus is a breath of fresh air.

[Sim]

Same goes for the accusations being levelled against the Acro and the Daxiatitan.

I think it's very clear that saying I think the Acrocanthosaurus and Daxiatitan have recycled sculpts isn't an accusation.  I've gone into a lot of detail to explain why I think the Nasutoceratops, Medusaceratops, Acrocanthosaurus and Daxiatitan are recycled sculpts of other CollectA figures.  In your responses to this you haven't given any objective or convincing reason why things I've pointed out might not be the case, yet you expressed stong disagreement with what feels like contempt towards me.  It feels like you're saying what you want to see, rather than what's actually more likely.  I put objectivity, effort and care into what I said and since I haven't gotten an adequate amount back in your responses, I think I should stop here and let what I've said in this topic stand.

[ItsTwentyBelow]

Agreed. There are no "accusations" being made against anything, merely observations.

These figures we are discussing were each partially made using existing CollectA sculpts we have already seen of other, different dinosaur genera. They are what they are, and it really isn't a matter of debate.

[suspsy]

I think it's very clear that saying I think the Acrocanthosaurus and Daxiatitan have recycled sculpts isn't an accusation.

But it is an accusation, Sim. You're basing your case solely by comparing photos, not the actual physical figures. You don't currently own the Acro or the Daxia and you haven't even said if you own the Carcharo and the Argentino. It's great that you're confident in your observational skills, but it's still hearsay for the moment.

In your responses to this you haven't given any objective or convincing reason why things I've pointed out might not be the case

You mean besides the fact that we're dealing with two closely related carcharodontosaurs and two closely related titanosaurs, and that it's to be expected that they would strongly resemble each other? And that the Daxiatitan in particular has a completely different head and skin texture and a longer neck and tail from the three-year old Argentino? And that the Acro's mandible has a raised tongue and appears less streamlined than the Carcharo's? And that its skin texture also looks different?

yet you expressed stong disagreement with what feels like contempt towards me.

Why would I have contempt towards you? I disagree with your conclusions, that's all. Disagreement does not equate contempt. There's no point in taking this personally. I sure don't.

It feels like you're saying what you want to see, rather than what's actually more likely.

I can just as easily toss that accusation right back at you, Sim.

I've examined the exact same photos you have, and while I agree that there are a lot of strong similarities between Acro/Carcharo and Daxia/Argentino, that doesn't necessarily prove that the new ones are simply recycled from the old ones. To my eye, these resemblances are a result of the fact that the animals are not only from the same family, but were also close in size.

As I stated before, I'm more than happy to agree to disagree for the time being. Hopefully this debate can be settled once all four figures can be compared side by side.

[ItsTwentyBelow]

I do not understand why you keep insisting at this. We can infer plenty about these figures from the photographs, more than enough to be able to tell that some of them are recycled from other recently released CollectA figures. This is regardless of whether or not all or none of us already own the Xeno, Argentino, and Carcharo.

The photo lineup someone posted earlier of the Xeno, Medusa, and Nasuto together was pretty telling, too. Like I said before, they are what they are.

[Tallin]

There really is no point arguing about this, some people will detest the fact that they are reusing sculpts other people won't mind. And that's ok, everyone has different values! If you don't like it, don't buy it and email Collecta your feedback, I'm sure they'd like that and maybe they'll act upon it for next year. If you don't mind, awesome and good for you!

It's not like they're going to remake them and what's done is done - can't we all just respect each other's opinions and not try and convert everyone to our own way of thinking? This is meant to be a fun and relaxing hobby after all!

[suspsy]

I do not understand why you keep insisting at this. We can infer plenty about these figures from the photographs, more than enough to be able to tell that some of them are recycled from other recently released CollectA figures. This is regardless of whether or not all or none of us already own the Xeno, Argentino, and Carcharo.

I don't understand why you can't accept that there can be another point of view. I've repeatedly acknowledged the similarities between the four figures, but I remain unconvinced that they are indeed recycled from each other. I think it's merely a case of family resemblance, and also near-identical poses. But there are only so many poses you can put a giant titanosaur in.

The photo lineup someone posted earlier of the Xeno, Medusa, and Nasuto together was pretty telling, too. Like I said before, they are what they are.

I was the one who posted that comparison photo. And I've fully acknowledged that they appear to share the exact same body. I've also explained why it doesn't upset me in the slightest.

I have to say too, I'm really tired of this debate. It's not achieving anything positive or constructive and people are just repeating themselves. Could we all please drop it for the time being and move on to other topics?

[amargasaurus cazaui]

There really is no point arguing about this, some people will detest the fact that they are reusing sculpts other people won't mind. And that's ok, everyone has different values! If you don't like it, don't buy it and email Collecta your feedback, I'm sure they'd like that and maybe they'll act upon it for next year. If you don't mind, awesome and good for you!

It's not like they're going to remake them and what's done is done - can't we all just respect each other's opinions and not try and convert everyone to our own way of thinking? This is meant to be a fun and relaxing hobby after all!

I am not so sure that is the issue Tallin, the problem here is not wether some like or dislike the resculpts of existing figures, it is more a debate centered around apparently one person stating they are not doing this, when the reality is they are, and have been for some time. In addition, as I highlighted, that is indeed the problem. They will remake them again and again, each time with minor changes, different paint and a new name tag.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I think this discussion has reached an impasse. I'm seeing some hostile comments starting here, so I'm going to ask that we please drop this topic.