Papo - New for 2015

[Concavenator]

That Apatosaurus looks magnificent.

[Nebuloid]

Apatosaurus is available at Urzeitshop.

http://www.urzeitshop.de/papo/2419-apatosaurus-dinosaurier-spielzeug-von-papo-3465000550394.html

Really !? I just ordered from them last monday, no Apatosaurus in sight...    Oh well.

[tanystropheus]

Well it seems the apatosaurus will not be joining the carnotaurus as a modern day accurate reconstruction, darn those nostrils. Between that and the very obvious seam lines I won't be picking one up.

Your loss    It is still far more accurate than the vast majority of CollectA offerings. Anatomically, it provides a more realistic representation than Wild Safari's Apatosaurus (Carnegie is late to the party). It is on par with the Papo Carnotaurus and the Styracosaurus in terms of accuracy. Besides, the nose and eye placement are actually correct:

"...The eyes and nostrils were located toward the top of the skull..."

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Apatosaurus.aspx

Also, the seam lines are not that noticeable when you hold the models in your hand. Most details get obscured when you zoom in via cameras. Almost all my CollectAs look better in person than in pictures. The camera acts like a magnifier, rendering nuances larger-than-life.

[tanystropheus]

That Apatosaurus looks magnificent.

Agreed. This is the very best mass-market Apatosaurus released, besides the Sideshow and high-end model kits.

[stargatedalek]

It's a Tupuxuara,not a Tupandactylus.

My bad, I was thinking of comparing it to tupandactylus in my head and boom. Tupandactylus is my favorite animal (not that tupuxuara doesn't come close!), and it will be nice to have a close relative of it for comparison! Tapejaridae as a whole are very beautiful animals, even when bald.

Your loss    It is still far more accurate than the vast majority of CollectA offerings. Anatomically, it provides a more realistic representation than Wild Safari's Apatosaurus (Carnegie is late to the party). Besides, the nose and eye placement are actually correct:

"...The eyes and nostrils were located toward the top of the skull..."

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Apatosaurus.aspx

Also, the seam lines are not that noticeable when you hold the models in your hand. Most details get obscured when you zoom in via cameras. Almost all my CollectAs look better in person than in pictures. The camera acts like a magnifier, rendering nuances  larger than life.

I know its my loss, I'm just very particular with what I buy and far more so when the figures in question are not of the utmost accuracy. I may pick it up at some point if I find it in person, but I doubt it. The reason that most of CollectA's offerings are not so great is because they have only been producing higher class figures for a few years, that is to say that up until fairly recently they weren't even trying to be accurate. If you want to make an accurate comparison you have to compare whats being made currently, this year from CollectA we got a few inaccurate ceratopsians with bad feet and incorrectly placed quills, but we also got a number of amazingly accurate figures, so it was hit and miss. From Papo we have two figures that were not in the least bit intended to be accurate but rather intended to copy sideshow (and in the process became less accurate).

That site you referenced is not dedicated to paleontology and as such majority of its articles are outdated and highly minimalistic in nature. The reconstruction on the page is also outdated. The nostrils should be on the top of the skull yes but they should be at the front of the skull and not above the eyes. Sadly I couldn't find a diagram for apatosaurus but here's one for brachiosaurus. A is currently regarded as outdated, B plausible, and C most likely, apatosaurus nostrils would take a similar position on its skull relative to the snout and eyes.


That could definitely be true about the seam lines. That being said they are still more visible than in any Papo before this, but that could well be due to the size or because these ones are very early in the production cycle.

[tanystropheus]

edit

[tanystropheus]

I thought that SS models are regarded as accurate. Thus, 'copying' SS, Papo had become more accurate (as opposed to copying JP). For a $27 model, it is fairly accurate. I'm surprised that the eyes are actually situated near the top of the skull and that the Papo model approximates the overall diplodocid skull shape. The fact that the nostrils are located on top of the head, as opposed to being placed on the snout makes the model scientifically accurate, or more appropriately, relatively accurate. Could it have been more accurate? Possibly, but the difference is in millimeters...and it is in the same general quadrant ....we are really splitting hairs if we regard this as a blatant inaccuracy. The shape of the skull, neck, legs and even tail are remarkably accurate even by Papo standards. In my opinion, overly critiquing a model for 2 holes in the head is the equivalent of having a debate about the importance of the inclusion of a cloacal orifice on a toy model. I'll give you another example. Most REBOR models don't include holes for ears...does it significantly detract from accuracy? No, of course not.

[stargatedalek]

Yes SS models are regarded as highly accurate (although I may personally disagree at times with some of their more conservative choices, they are still accurate). Papo however are not, at least not on purpose. Of all their recent models only two have been significantly more accurate than before they started copying sideshow and those are the carnotaurus and apatosaurus (I still feel like I die a little inside every time yet another scaled dimetrodon gets released). Papo removed pycnofibres from the tupuxuara, and they moved the nostrils of the apatosaurus*. Yes the difference is in millimeters, but the skull itself is also in millimeters. It may not be important to you but to some people it might be, its objectively inaccurate, even if its only slightly inaccurate. Not trying to get into a debate on REBOR here but REBOR models have plenty of other larger anatomical issues to worry about without worrying about ears.

*Here's the sideshow apatosaurus nostrils to compare.

[Concavenator]

Well it seems the apatosaurus will not be joining the carnotaurus as a modern day accurate reconstruction, darn those nostrils. Between that and the very obvious seam lines I won't be picking one up.

Your loss    It is still far more accurate than the vast majority of CollectA offerings. Anatomically, it provides a more realistic representation than Wild Safari's Apatosaurus (Carnegie is late to the party). It is on par with the Papo Carnotaurus and the Styracosaurus in terms of accuracy. Besides, the nose and eye placement are actually correct:

"...The eyes and nostrils were located toward the top of the skull..."

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Apatosaurus.aspx

Also, the seam lines are not that noticeable when you hold the models in your hand. Most details get obscured when you zoom in via cameras. Almost all my CollectAs look better in person than in pictures. The camera acts like a magnifier, rendering nuances larger-than-life.

CollectA's more recent releases are more acurate than anyting Papo would offer.That aside,I think the Apatosaurus is the best dinosaur Papo has done so far.If not the best,easily on par with the Dimetrodon,Allosaurus or Styracosaurus as tanystropheus said.

[tanystropheus]

Well it seems the apatosaurus will not be joining the carnotaurus as a modern day accurate reconstruction, darn those nostrils. Between that and the very obvious seam lines I won't be picking one up.

Your loss    It is still far more accurate than the vast majority of CollectA offerings. Anatomically, it provides a more realistic representation than Wild Safari's Apatosaurus (Carnegie is late to the party). It is on par with the Papo Carnotaurus and the Styracosaurus in terms of accuracy. Besides, the nose and eye placement are actually correct:

"...The eyes and nostrils were located toward the top of the skull..."

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Apatosaurus.aspx

Also, the seam lines are not that noticeable when you hold the models in your hand. Most details get obscured when you zoom in via cameras. Almost all my CollectAs look better in person than in pictures. The camera acts like a magnifier, rendering nuances larger-than-life.

CollectA's more recent releases are more acurate than anyting Papo would offer.That aside,I think the Apatosaurus is the best dinosaur Papo has done so far.If not the best,easily on par with the Dimetrodon,Allosaurus or Styracosaurus as tanystropheus said.

I agree with you, except for the CollectA part. I think CollectA needs to first address basic anatomy issues like elongated skulls on theropods and ceratopsians and disjointed beaks on ceratopsians.  I do like their Temnodontosaurus and Moropus models, though. However, CollectA definitely researches their source materials, and you see evidence of this in their somewhat bold interpretations (e.g. Arsinoitherium)

[leidy]

A pat on the back for that Apatosaurus. It's not a bad size compared to the Brachiosaurus.

Yeah, it's like the difference with the diplodocids in the Berlin museum compared to their 'Brachiosaurus'.

The Apato looks great but I do still wish it were larger.

I think you have the juvenile characteristics backwards. Longer legs and a lighter build generally typify younger dinosaurs and some other animals.  Of course the particular species also plays a part.

Can you tell where the nostrils are?

Oops, apparently I got everything wrong. My bad! The nostrils are located in the space above the dinosaur's eyes, I think.



@Megalosaurus, Tupuxuara may look glossy in the photos, but in reality its paint is matte.

They're so faintly sculpted, it's easy to ignore.  Wouldn't be too hard to carve in an alternate set of 'Witmer-compliant' nostrils, for anyone so inclined.  It's an error, but one I can overlook.

It's pretty clear from the pictures that Papo's artist actually referenced the skull rather than simply copying the head of the Sideshow model, they probably just weren't aware of the research on nostril placement.  A lot of people still haven't gotten the memo on that.  They may have thought they were being more accurate.

If anyone's still wondering what this is all about, here's when this was news:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1470305.stm

[tanystropheus]

Yes SS models are regarded as highly accurate (although I may personally disagree at times with some of their more conservative choices, they are still accurate). Papo however are not, at least not on purpose. Of all their recent models only two have been significantly more accurate than before they started copying sideshow and those are the carnotaurus and apatosaurus (I still feel like I die a little inside every time yet another scaled dimetrodon gets released). Papo removed pycnofibres from the tupuxuara, and they moved the nostrils of the apatosaurus*. Yes the difference is in millimeters, but the skull itself is also in millimeters. It may not be important to you but to some people it might be, its objectively inaccurate, even if its only slightly inaccurate. Not trying to get into a debate on REBOR here but REBOR models have plenty of other larger anatomical issues to worry about without worrying about ears.

*Here's the sideshow apatosaurus nostrils to compare.

Even the SS version is relatively speculative, although plausible as an interpretation. I think your critique on Papo's Apato is really splitting hairs.

"The nostrils are down near the end of the snout, as predicted by Witmer's (2001) work on nostril position in extant vertebrates. I know that some people are skeptical about the nostril position in dinosaurs hypothesized by Witmer, but it makes good sense to me. First, in formulating the hypothesis, Witmer did something that none of his critics have done, which is actually establish the nostril position in a wide range of extant animals. By itself, this doesn't show what the nostril position in dinosaurs must have been, but it establishes a null hypothesis, which should only be discarded if there is compelling evidence to the contrary. And the scarcity of counterexamples among extant vertebrates constitutes a second, normative argument: if the default nostril position was an easy constraint to break, we'd expect to see more taxa that have broken it. (Both of these arguments also apply to the alert neck posture of tetrapods, by the way.)..."

http://svpow.com/2011/11/16/sideshow-collectibles-apatosaurus-maquette-part-2-the-head/

[suspsy]

I still wish the Apatosaurus was a bit fatter. Nevertheless, I'll be getting it.

[Arul]

Nice model as always paposaur headsculp is done very well

[Daspletodave]

Papo's releases are FAR superior to anything Collecta has ever done. It's not even close. For example, the Papo ceratopsians are larger and more detailed than the ones from Collecta.
But Collecta IS improving, I'll give them that much.

[stargatedalek]

Superior in what regard? In terms of accuracy they are equally bad with ceratopsians, but CollectA's theropods and pterosaurs are vastly superior in accuracy.

[tanystropheus]

Superior in what regard? In terms of accuracy they are equally bad with ceratopsians, but CollectA's theropods and pterosaurs are vastly superior in accuracy.

It is clear that you are way too lenient with CollectA but concurrently harshly critical with Papo. You are obviously intelligent as can be seen from the quality of your posts, but the pro-CollectA/not-so-pro Papo bias is also evident with respect to the majority of your critiques.
I don't want to open up the CollectA ceratopsians debate as its been covered ad nauseum. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Papo Styracosaurus. The same can be said of the Papo Pachyrinosaurus sans antlers. The WS Pachyrhinosaurus is the superior model overall and the Battat version is also a worthwhile purchase. I'm not sure what comparison you are making with respect to pterosaurs. The Papo Pteranodon was released in 2006. Papo is releasing a second pterosaur model after a 9 year hiatus. The Papo Pteranodon is faithful to the JP representation, and the Papo Tupuxuara is faithful to the Sideshow version (note that the SS version is also lacking pycnofibers). Thus, Papo is doing exactly what it intends on doing, rather flawlessly.  This is an unfair comparison for the reason that CollectA released a half-dozen pterosaurs in that time period. Here is the non-Ludodactylus non-pycnofibers Pteranodon by CollectA for reference:
http://www.collectorsquest.com/collectible/35398/procon-pteranodon-inceps
Regarding CollectA theropods, you be the judge:
http://dinotoyblog.com/2015/02/01/daspletosaurus-collecta/

[suspsy]

Speaking as the person who wrote that review, it's wholly unfair to claim that the Daspletosaurus is representative of CollectA theropods as a whole. What about the Bistahieversor (which I also reviewed)? Or the Carcharodontosaurus, which came in first in the Top Ten 2014 poll? Or the Therizinosaurus? And what about the hugely anticipated Feathered Tyrannosaurus Rex and Spinosaurus x 3?

I could easily list off all the glaring flaws in the Papo line, but I really don't want to. Because I like Papo in spite of them. Same as how I like CollectA in spite of their flaws. No company is ever going to be perfect.

[tanystropheus]

Speaking as the person who wrote that review, it's wholly unfair to claim that the Daspletosaurus is representative of CollectA theropods as a whole. What about the Bistahieversor (which I also reviewed)? Or the Carcharodontosaurus, which came in first in the Top Ten 2014 poll? Or the Therizinosaurus? And what about the hugely anticipated Feathered Tyrannosaurus Rex and Spinosaurus x 3?

I could easily list off all the glaring flaws in the Papo line, but I really don't want to. Because I like Papo in spite of them. Same as how I like CollectA in spite of their flaws. No company is ever going to be perfect.

It's a well written review. I chose that review because it includes 2 flawed theropods together in one picture. The T-rex with prey also has that very elongated somewhat compressed skull, as well. I have the Therizinosaurus and I have commented earlier that it easily rivals the best by Papo and Carnegie. The issue is not whether they have flaws. All dinosaur models have at least one flaw or another. Stargatedalek stated that the CollectA theropods are 'vastly' superior in accuracy, and I don't see it.  However, while it is permissable for CollectA models (or Wild Safari) to have one or two flaws, when a Papo model presents with even 1 minor flaw...it results in a general boycott of that model. I'm surprised that you don't see that dichotomy in people's attitudes regarding Papo. It seems that people hold Papos (and arguably REBORs... I suppose it makes sense with REBORs due to the premium price tag. ) to much higher expectations than any other models.

[stargatedalek]

Again I'm saying in regards to scientific accuracy, Papo were meaning to copy Jurassic Park and they did that very well, their pieces are interesting sci-fi monsters, but they aren't accurate. Older CollectA pieces also were not accurate, but look at their recent therizinosaurus, or charcarodontosaurus, or mosasaur, or upcoming tyrannosaurus, each and every one of them is by far superior to anything Papo has made in terms of accuracy. The Papo pieces do receive some leniency in that they are not meant to be scientifically accurate but rather meant to be sci-fi monsters. It still doesn't change the fact that they are not as accurate as CollectA, or Wild Safari, or Carnegie, or Kaiyodo, or Favorite Kinto, and with so many other brands out there which do make scientifically accurate pieces, I'm not going to settle for "nearly accurate" unless it has something else going for it (which admittedly many Papo do, they have intrigue as science fiction figures). I hardly feel that I am "too lenient with CollectA" or "pro-CollectA", the only CollectA I own are the small therizinosaurus, kelenken, and hatzegopteryx, I own them because I felt they were both scientifically accurate and generally appealing (and in the case of the latter two highly underrepresented). I'm very selective in what figures I buy regardless of what brand I buy them from. I also own the Papo pteranodon, parasaurolophus, and archeopteryx, not because they are accurate by any means, but because I felt they had interesting character appeal to them.

Since you really want me to, sure, I'll compare those figures, I'll bite.

The CollectA pteranodon is by far more accurate, its neck isn't broken, it doesn't have teeth, its crest is the right shape, its ankles are in a more natural position, and it doesn't have the incorrect membrane connected to the tail (no pterosaurs had this, the membrane went from ankle to ankle and the tail rested above it, and pteranodon most likely didn't have this membrane at all).

I don't know which Papo theropod you want me to compare the daspletosaurus to but I'm going to assume the tyrannosaurs. Well I have to tell you it is more scientifically accurate. Papo has misshapen skull, broken wrists, impossible tail position, and generally off proportions. The CollectA also has a misshapen skull and impossible tail. If you has asked me which I liked better I would have told you the Papo tyrannosaurus, even though the daspletosaurus has some definite novel aspects to it, it just doesn't have the appeal of the Papo tyrannosaurs. But having asked me which was more accurate, I have to answer the CollectA daspletosaurus.