Carnegie Collection Discontinued

[Himmapaan]

I don't believe a thread devoted to perceived issues in CollectA, Papo, Safari, Schleich, Rebor, or any other company is a constructive idea. We've already seen one individual in this thread behave inappropriately towards another poster simply because the latter expressed his personal fondness for CollectA. Speaking for myself, the main reason I like to come to this forum is to celebrate dinosaur toys, not to point out all the problems with them.

That's not to say that such topics shouldn't ever be discussed, but I don't think they should be overly encouraged. It won't solve anything and it could lead to more animosity between people. I think the most constructive thing to do if you're perpetually annoyed by inaccuracies in a dinosaur toy line is to contact the manufacturer and politely express those grievances. At best, you could be contributing towards improved products and at worst you can say you were proactive.

Agreed. Faults and merits are already discussed as a matter of course. Topics directly targeting flaws aren't necessary and will by their very existence be antagonistically loaded, never mind the potential for personal insults.

We've already seen one individual in this thread behave inappropriately towards another poster simply because the latter expressed his personal fondness for CollectA.

And I don't believe we've seen an apology as was recommended either. Hmm... Unless I missed it or it was given privately, in which case, my apologies.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

And to answer this...no, they are not models made from the same mold however, they are heavily copied one from another as side by side comparison demonstrate. The Medusa and Xenoceratops are almost identical....and no these are not similarities that should be expected with ceratopsids,

I respectfully disagree. As I have pointed out in the past, these are closely related animals that share near-identical bodies, after all. It's perfectly reasonable for them to have strong similarities. As well, there are only so many poses you can put heavy-set quadrupedal animals in without the need of a base.

Wild Safari and Papo's ceratopsids also look very similar in body design and pose when placed together in a line. Heck, the Papo Pachyrhinosaurus and Styracosaurus actually ARE copies of one another. Similarly, almost all of Carnegie's large theropods are in virtually the same tripod pose with their heads turned to one side and their mouths open. It's been that way for years now.

I think the reason CollectA is receiving so much of this criticism is not because their ceratopsids are inherently inferior, but rather because they've made far more than any other company and thus are more noticeable.

.in the theropods the effect is all the more pronounced because they tend to shrink wrap the skulls and then widen the hips giving a the starved at one end and gorged at the other look, which is quite awkward.

The wide hips on the CollectA Carcharodontosaurus are the price of crafting a large theropod figure that doesn't have inaccurate giant feet like the Papo Running T. Rex and doesn't stand in an inaccurate tripod stance like the Carnegie Spinosaurus. It's an unfortunate trade-off, but that's how it is. In all cases, such flaws only ruin the figure if you let them. Wide hips certainly didn't stop the Carcharodontosaurus from being voted Best Toy of 2014 by the members of this forum.

This aside from the bunches of accuracy issues that plague the models

Accuracy is hardly an issue that is exclusive to CollectA, as pointed out previously.

as well as the heavily documented problems with weak materials and falling over.

I honestly haven't had either of those problems yet, although my CollectA collection is admittedly small at present. I can say that I have seen severe warping in both my Carnegie Giganotosaurus and Spinosaurus though. I can actually knock either of them over simply by blowing on them.

As this is a topic that constantly keeps coming up, perhaps Collecta model issues should have its own thread.

I don't believe a thread devoted to perceived issues in CollectA, Papo, Safari, Schleich, Rebor, or any other company is a constructive idea. We've already seen one individual in this thread behave inappropriately towards another poster simply because the latter expressed his personal fondness for CollectA. Speaking for myself, the main reason I like to come to this forum is to celebrate dinosaur toys, not to point out all the problems with them.

That's not to say that such topics shouldn't ever be discussed, but I don't think they should be overly encouraged. It won't solve anything and it could lead to more animosity between people. I think the most constructive thing to do if you're perpetually annoyed by inaccuracies in a dinosaur toy line is to contact the manufacturer and politely express those grievances. At best, you could be contributing towards improved products and at worst you can say you were proactive.

You made the point for me more perfectly than I ever could actually. Yes, the Carnegie models share the same pose, and are theropods and yet noone, has ever suggested they are copied or borrowed from one another. Quite accurately stated.
As far as a thread devoted to the flaws of a toyline, on the one hand it might be negative at times, but people should also be able to have some warning about issues like the mohawks that do not  belong, and other problems like the constant warping and falling down, the incorrect feet and hands, and rostrals ..and yes, the loads of issues with the models being issued. It keeps cropping up in other threads and the pattern is someone will point it out, and another particular poster will dismiss it and then change the subject quickly, which is not constructive nor fair either.
  We always talk about accuracy and the shortcomings of other models, not sure why these in particular are considered a protected species. If it is a negative that the model is not accurate, then that is what it is, sorry. Maybe a thread of model inaccuracies in genral then...just not sure why it is a problem to notice and document issues that plague models that are released and increase understanding of the how and why involved. If one person misbheaved, then that is why we have such solid admins...it really does not mean to avoid a topic because of.

[Shadowknight1]

Dromaeosaur wings are actually very well known in structure, at this point velociraptor having "full" wings is no longer a matter of most likely, but rather of near certainly.
Accuracy aside its still an aesthetically pleasing model, but its one I can live without (having the Favorite Kinto one on my bucket list doesn't help that much as one might imagine ).

After having two Favorite Spinosaurs that couldn't even stay upright on their stands(one of which had a broken lower jaw so it was returned), I can't say I'd pull the trigger on any of their stuff.

[ChrisLikesDinosaurs]

Oh, so they finally made this official, eh?

[suspsy]

You made the point for me more perfectly than I ever could actually.

The only point of the recent CollectA controversy that I can perceive is that it is inherently foolhardy to jump to conclusions based on a single promo photo of a toy. You and I and a number of other people made that mistake about the Nasuto and the Medusa. It is now painfully apparent that they are distinctly different from one another, and from the Xeno.



Me, I'm still rather embarrassed for thinking that CollectA was retooling their products. I should hope you are similarly contrite.

Yes, the Carnegie models share the same pose, and are theropods and yet noone, has ever suggested they are copied or borrowed from one another. Quite accurately stated.

Actually, quite a number of collectors here and on other forums and pages have complained about the perceived lack of variety in the Carnegie line over the years.

As far as a thread devoted to the flaws of a toyline, on the one hand it might be negative at times

Discussing flaws is by default always negative. There is simply no need for such a thread here. Thankfully, the admin staff appears to agree with me on this point.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Far from contrite....using one front facing picture to try and support such a point is hardly persuasive > simple fact is, that when you compare from all angles, the two larger dinosaurs in that photo, you could easily swap the heads or paint schemes and confuse them one for another. That is simple enough to see, although looking at them head on hides most of that . They are almost cookie cutters of one another, clearly.
  The theropods are also problematic...as I stated and it was glossed over, I will do so again. The theropods have badly shrink wrapped skulls, that are quite obvious. They then widen the hips using the standing issue as justification, providing the starved in the face, fat in the hips look. Each of them is like this...so they appear heavily copied if for no other reason.
  Collectors have indeed complained about the lack of variety in Carnegie over the years, myself included. Variety means...different species, different paint applications etc.Noone has ever said Forest Rogers borrows heavily from one sculpture to make another, although the argument can definitely be made for collecta and their recent efforts.
  Discussing flaws , inaccuracies and issues is never by default negative. Perception is negative...its how you choose to take the information and work with it. Some might see a flaw as grounds for improvement, ability to do better and to make something nicer.This is something I have always encouraged and believed in. If you see a problem , have the answer to solve it as well, before complaining.  Others only do find the negative, which means they are always going to do so in any context. Quite similar to the idea guns kill people...people kill people using guns, but it is how they are used that determines for better or worse. The positive or negative lies within each of us, not within the context of free information. The state of Florida recently attempted similar logic, they forbid the use of terms global warming, climate change and so forth in all government and official business. The thinking is the terms are negative and will prevent the lowering of property values, and loss of tourism. The reality is sticking their heads in the sand while the water rises. ....be interesting to see how that works out for them. ...and that is the problem with terms like negative vs useful information

essentially why the topic inaccuracies in dinosaur models should have its own topic...so back to the carnegie discussion

  PS welcome back Himaapaan..its been forever. I hope time finds you well and better than last we saw you. Always nice to see your postings here.

[suspsy]

Far from contrite

That's unfortunate to hear, because you should be contrite. You jumped to a number of wild conclusions about CollectA not long ago that were later shown to be false. It didn't do you any favours. And it's not doing you any favours now by continuing to deny the plain, unavoidable fact that you were wrong.

simple fact is, that when you compare from all angles, the two larger dinosaurs in that photo, you could easily swap the heads or paint schemes and confuse them one for another.

So what? One could just as easily swap the heads and the paint schemes on the WS Nasuto, Diablo, and Vaga and the result would be the same. For that matter, one could even do it with actual skeletal mounts and it would be difficult even for a paleontologist to tell the difference at first glance.

The theropods are also problematic...as I stated and it was glossed over, I will do so again. The theropods have badly shrink wrapped skulls, that are quite obvious.

It's not obvious due to the fact that not all of them do have shrink-wrapped heads. Just look at the Daspletosaurus. And shrink-wrapping, like overly similar poses, is hardly an issue that is exclusive to CollectA. You make it sound like they're the only guilty party.

They then widen the hips using the standing issue as justification

That statement doesn't make sense. Why would they deliberately widen the hips if there was no reason to do so?

.Noone has ever said Forest Rogers borrows heavily from one sculpture to make another, although the argument can definitely be made for collecta and their recent efforts.

Said argument has been debunked. Repeatedly. It's long past time to move on.

Discussing flaws , inaccuracies and issues is never by default negative.

Unfortunately, it is. Especially in this instance. Regardless of good intentions. A thread devoted solely to highlighting flaws in dinosaur models is: 1) Redundant given that such topics are already brought up regularly in various discussions; 2) Potentially detrimental given that different people have different preferences, perceptions, and values when it comes to their dinosaur toys. Himapaan agrees with me on this, for which I am relieved.

If you wish to continue this line of debate, amargasaurus, I would be happy to oblige you, but I think it would be best if it was done in PM. Let this thread resume its proper topic of discussion.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

This thread really needs to get back on topic and stay Carnegie/Safari-centric guys.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

This thread really needs to get back on topic and stay Carnegie/Safari-centric guys.

I agree there Blade, I have no further comment. The obvious speaks for itself. Thanks for the room to speak my mind.

   For those that wish to delver further into the differences between the dinosaurs mentioned here, ie....xenoceratops, and Medusaceratops, I encourage you to examine the skeletals and reconstructions of centrosaurines vs chasmosaurines, and I am more than glad to discuss that within the psittacosaurus threads for anyone wishing papers regarding those animals and how they differ, or to discuss it more fully.

[DinoLord]

Getting back on the topic of the Carnegie line, if there's one thing I'm really disappointed in it's that we never got to see updated sculpts of such classic dinosaurs as Apatosaurus, Stegosaurus, and Allosaurus, amongst others. Hopefully we will see CMNH commission figures or kits of some sorts for these genera at some point in the future.

[suspsy]

Indeed. I was really hoping that last year's T. Rex would lead to the rest of the Classic Big Four: Apatosaurus, Stegosaurus, and Triceratops. Sigh.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Same here, I was really expecting some massive re-do's when the Anniversary came around. So maybe eventually Carnegie will do something, otherwise Safari might release their own larger pieces..something I have a little more hope for to be honest.

[tanystropheus]

Indeed. I was really hoping that last year's T. Rex would lead to the rest of the Classic Big Four: Apatosaurus, Stegosaurus, and Triceratops. Sigh.

They never updated the Pteranodon, either. Perhaps, WS could make a Pteranodon sternbergi?
Instead of Triceratops, companies need to focus on Torosaurus.
I was looking forward to a Carnegie Apatosaurus, but the Papo Apato will more than suffice.

[suspsy]

Indeed. I was really hoping that last year's T. Rex would lead to the rest of the Classic Big Four: Apatosaurus, Stegosaurus, and Triceratops. Sigh.

They never updated the Pteranodon, either. Perhaps, WS could make a Pteranodon sternbergi?
Instead of Triceratops, companies need to focus on Torosaurus.
I was looking forward to a Carnegie Apatosaurus, but the Papo Apato will more than suffice.

Yeah, Carnegie really fell behind in the pterosaur department. P. sternbergi is now known as Geosternbergia though.

I'm 100% with you on Torosaurus. Off the top of my head, the only recent one is the 2011 CollectA toy, and it's not the greatest. I'd snap up a WS version in an instant. Or an updated CollectA one, doesn't matter.

[Arul]

Is that possible that carnegie museum will make a coorperation again with another brand ?