CollectA New for 2016

[suspsy]

Dinosaurs have been undergoing constant revision and redesign for decades. There are museums that still have outdated skeletons in their exhibits and paleoartists who have put months of hard work and harder-earned money into paintings and sculptures only to see them rendered obsolete by some new discovery. Does it therefore follow that all their efforts have been for nothing? Are William Stout's and Ely Kish's paintings a mere waste of canvas now that shrink wrapping is passé? Hardly. They were working with what they thought to be accurate at the time. And one of the coolest aspects about representing dinosaurs artistically is that you can get away with a certain degree of speculation.

I agree.  Although, this part of your post is a different matter to what we've been discussing, which is making toys based on fragmentary remains.  What you're saying is about restorations becoming outdated due to changing understanding of general dinosaur/animal anatomy.

It doesn't matter whether we're dealing with fragmentary remains or better understanding of anatomy though. The result is ultimately the same: dinosaur art rendered inaccurate due to new information. My point is that it doesn't necessarily ruin said art. It all depends on one's perspective. I can still value and enjoy the 2012 Deinocheirus toy in spite of its flaws the same way I still value and enjoy Ely Kish's artwork even though her Dryptosaurus and Corythosaurus look like the walking dead. Or how I value and enjoy vintage dinosaur toys. That's just how I roll and I don't expect everyone else to be the same. To each their own.

Also, it's pretty cool how we were lamenting the lack of ornithomimosaur toys only to have two new ones revealed for next year. Life can sometimes be kind that way.

And again, I have absolutely no idea how Anthony Beeson goes about determining which prehistoric animals will be made into toys. Perhaps he likes poorly known dinosaurs because it means greater leeway for artistic interpretation. Or perhaps he enjoys the fact that no other company is likely to make those particular toys. It's his call and who are we to tell him he's doing it wrong? Hardcore paleontology geeks like us can debate the veracity of this Mercuriceratops toy till we're worn out, but to a child, it's just a cool-looking horned dinosaur. Once again, I too would have preferred a more familiar ceratopsian, but I will be happily adding this one to my collection nonetheless. Peace.

It occurs to me just now: perhaps one of the remaining mystery theropods will be a Supreme class Yi qi. Hope springs eternal!

[Patrx]

If they did they'd be some primitive state, as they are close to where the origin of primaries would be since we know compsognsthids and tyrannosaurs definitely lack them.

We do? For compsognathids, we have complete impressions from Sinosauriopteryx, but what tyrannosaur fossil preserves hand integument? Maybe Yutyrannus?

By the way, what have you read that's placed them closer to birds than to troodontids and dromaeosaurs? That would make them avialans! I've never seen any modern phylogeny that found them closer to birds than to oviraptorids.

Well, I looked again and it seems that was something GSP suggested back in 2002... so, probably not very reliable!
All in all, if it turns out that this feather arrangement is plausible, I may reconsider picking these up. But it still bugs me to look at 

[Dinoguy2]

If they did they'd be some primitive state, as they are close to where the origin of primaries would be since we know compsognsthids and tyrannosaurs definitely lack them.

We do? For compsognathids, we have complete impressions from Sinosauriopteryx, but what tyrannosaur fossil preserves hand integument? Maybe Yutyrannus?

By the way, what have you read that's placed them closer to birds than to troodontids and dromaeosaurs? That would make them avialans! I've never seen any modern phylogeny that found them closer to birds than to oviraptorids.

Well, I looked again and it seems that was something GSP suggested back in 2002... so, probably not very reliable!
All in all, if it turns out that this feather arrangement is plausible, I may reconsider picking these up. But it still bugs me to look at 

t

Yes, Yutyrannus preserves forelimb integument a bit longer than the fluff on the body but still fluffy. Not sure about the fingers but if primaries were present we should have seen some kind of evidence in at least one of the three specimens.
P
Sinocalliopteryx, which may be either a compsognathid or basal tyrannoraptoran, also lacks primaries but has fuzzy fingers, iirc

[Patrx]

I see! Well, thanks for the info, Dinoguy

[Libraraptor]

I like all of their new releases. But the ceratopsian is a little boring.

[Shonisaurus]

They could make a 1:40 scale ceratopsid triceratops as Collecta and it was rare in the toy market, for example eniosaurus, centrosaurus, monoclonius, Protoceratops, psittacosaurus, to give some examples.


Moreover they could do in the future is also a Deluxe deluxe tyrannosauroideo to accompany the tyrannosaurus deluxe Collecta

[MLMjp]

They could make a 1:40 scale ceratopsid triceratops as Collecta and it was rare in the toy market, for example eniosaurus, centrosaurus, monoclonius, Protoceratops, psittacosaurus, to give some examples.


Moreover they could do in the future is also a Deluxe deluxe tyrannosauroideo to accompany the tyrannosaurus deluxe Collecta

Any one of those ceratopsians you have mentioned will be about the same size at 1:40 than the regular ceratopsians that Collecta makes, so I suggest you to change your scale if you want a BIG figure of a ceratopsian

[Shonisaurus]

They could make a 1:40 scale ceratopsid triceratops as Collecta and it was rare in the toy market, for example eniosaurus, centrosaurus, monoclonius, Protoceratops, psittacosaurus, to give some examples.


Moreover they could do in the future is also a Deluxe deluxe tyrannosauroideo to accompany the tyrannosaurus deluxe Collecta

Any one of those ceratopsians you have mentioned will be about the same size at 1:40 than the regular ceratopsians that Collecta makes, so I suggest you to change your scale if you want a BIG figure of a ceratopsian

What you say is true you should be in any case diceratops, Chasmosaurus, Arrhinoceratops.

But if we could put these centrosaurus figures monoclonius, einosaurus, Protoceratops or psittacosaurus to 1:20 scale?

[Sim]

It doesn't matter whether we're dealing with fragmentary remains or better understanding of anatomy though. The result is ultimately the same: dinosaur art rendered inaccurate due to new information. My point is that it doesn't necessarily ruin said art. It all depends on one's perspective. I can still value and enjoy the 2012 Deinocheirus toy in spite of its flaws the same way I still value and enjoy Ely Kish's artwork even though her Dryptosaurus and Corythosaurus look like the walking dead. Or how I value and enjoy vintage dinosaur toys. That's just how I roll and I don't expect everyone else to be the same. To each their own.

The result isn't the same.  Making restorations based on fragmentary remains results in restorations that are mostly invented, right down to the skeleton.  I'm interested in prehistoric animals because they're real animals that once lived, not a product of human imagination.  I find restorations based on fragmentary remains tend to come closer to human imagination than observing a real animal.  I prefer to have figures that show a lot of what is REALLY known of a prehistoric animal, rather than figures that are mostly a guess as to what an animal looked like.

Restorations based on fragmentary remains can become inaccurate due to additional remains being found, but this is one more way they can become inaccurate (in addition to better understanding of anatomy).  It's a way of becoming inaccurate that would often be avoided if a species known from better remains was chosen instead.

Since there are SO MANY interesting and unique prehistoric animals that are known from good/more complete remains, that lack a decent/any toy version, I'd like to see and have these species, rather than ones known from remains that are so incomplete that the figures of them are fantasy which also risk becoming outdated by additional remains.  As I've said before, some people aren't bothered if a figure is of a fragmentary species, and that's fine.

Restorations based on fragmentary remains can be useful and appropriate.  Especially if it's specified a restoration is based on very incomplete remains and modeled after other species.  I think restorations based on fragmentary remains that don't fit this are currently being done excessively.  As a result they can mislead people to think more is known of prehistoric animals than it actually is.

Also, it's pretty cool how we were lamenting the lack of ornithomimosaur toys only to have two new ones revealed for next year. Life can sometimes be kind that way.

And CollectA seems to have made very nice figures of them too!  I hope their bases aren't permanently attached and they don't have inaccurate anatomy like the hips.  It's refreshing to see them as they're one of the groups of dinosaurs that have kept being disregarded by toy companies, while certain other dinosaurs or their close relatives have constantly been getting made into figures.  Regarding the ornithomimosaurs, I think CollectA has been perceptive of something there is an absence and need of in the market.

And again, I have absolutely no idea how Anthony Beeson goes about determining which prehistoric animals will be made into toys. Perhaps he likes poorly known dinosaurs because it means greater leeway for artistic interpretation. Or perhaps he enjoys the fact that no other company is likely to make those particular toys. It's his call and who are we to tell him he's doing it wrong? Hardcore paleontology geeks like us can debate the veracity of this Mercuriceratops toy till we're worn out, but to a child, it's just a cool-looking horned dinosaur. Once again, I too would have preferred a more familiar ceratopsian, but I will be happily adding this one to my collection nonetheless. Peace.

What I originally said was, "I am surprised CollectA is still regularly making figures of animals known from fragmentary remains after how things went with Deinocheirus."  You replied to this with your thoughts, I replied with mine and this has repeated a few times.  I get the impression you interpreted my original post as a criticism, but it wasn't.  I was just expressing my surprise and puzzlement.  I've shared other thoughts I have in response to the points you've made.  Whatever the reasons for making toys based on fragmentary remains are, the result is a toy based on fragmentary remains.  They aren't good representations of real animals - these species are too incompletely known to allow that, they're invented representations of animals who's appearance is mostly unknown.

I can't help but think of the dinosaurs we could be getting.  Like if instead of Metriacanthosaurus which is only known from an incomplete hip, a leg bone, and vertebral material from the back and tail, we got its apparent relative Yangchuanosaurus, which is known from 2 complete skulls and skeletons! Or a troodontid, like Troodon or Saurornithoides!  Or an unenlagiine, like Buitreraptor!  Or Coelophysis!  And if instead of Mercuriceratops which is only known from the side of its frill, we got Zuniceratops, or Centrosaurus, or Einiosaurus.

People are always discussing what they like and don't like about the products of all the different companies on this forum.  In this thread alone people have said they don't like: the Tyrannosaurus's colour scheme, the ceratopsian's filaments, the all-black eyes of many CollectA figures, the lack of a CollectA sauropod, the amount of 2016 CollectA theropods, some of the CollectA 2016 figures being based on fragmentary remains; as well as a number of other things I haven't listed.  Even you said:

Two more theropods? I'm disappointed by the lack of herbivores. Poor Mercuriceratops must be very lonely.

I think 2015 spoiled us CollectA fans. We got a HUGE number of toys as well as a wide variety of beasts. 2016 appears to be a return to "normal." Although I too am disappointed by the overwhelming number of theropods. Unless the remaining two turn out to be dromaeosaurs or therizinosaurs.

So is how it is, we're all telling Anthony Beeson he's doing it wrong, and we shouldn't express the thoughts we have a right to express on a discussion forum?  How can a company know what customers think of their products if they aren't allowed to say it?  Companies can learn and improve through hearing what customers say.

[Shonisaurus]

True, there are reasonably complete dinosaur as Anchiceratops, Allosaurus, Protoceratops, psittacosaurus hadrosaurus let alone the mummified body of the Dakota is preserved.

Moreover they could do tyrannosauriodeos as Albertosaurus, tarbosaurus or deluxe Daspletosaurus.

The fact that his figures are frustrating, very well done, but going by that logic I also bought a dragon. The remains of dinosaurs that almost all talk and have made this year are totally fragmented.

I hope that these constructive criticism serve as something to change the philosophy of Collecta.

[SBell]

So is how it is, we're all telling Anthony Beeson he's doing it wrong, and we shouldn't express the thoughts we have a right to express on a discussion forum?  How can a company know what customers think of their products if they aren't allowed to say it?  Companies can learn and improve through hearing what customers say.

CollectA is quite active on Social media and has people to field calls and emails from interested consumers with questions, concerns or suggestions.

However, Anthony tried to engage with the forums and...doesn't now. In short, the experience was less-than-positive for him, so he mostly does what he does, however he does it. He works with professionals in paleontology and art, as he has done for a very long time.

And that isn't likely to change. It might have something to do with everyone "telling Anthony Beeson he's doing it wrong". As 'right' as everyone is sure they are...so is he, and he is the one doing the work, with a lot of years and experience behind him. Is everything he produces perfect? No, of course not, and no one should think that--but he does it the way he wants to (with input, I'm sure, from company bosses and the limits of sculpting, etc). And I'm glad he does--Safari and CollectA are easily the best prehistoric-figure-makers out there right now, and it is because they have a vision and follow it, despite what the internet has to say.

[tyrantqueen]

I don't remember Beeson ever posting here. Was it on the old forum?

And that isn't likely to change. It might have something to do with everyone "telling Anthony Beeson he's doing it wrong". As 'right' as everyone is sure they are...so is he, and he is the one doing the work, with a lot of years and experience behind him. Is everything he produces perfect? No, of course not, and no one should think that--but he does it the way he wants to (with input, I'm sure, from company bosses and the limits of sculpting, etc). And I'm glad he does--Safari and CollectA are easily the best prehistoric-figure-makers out there right now, and it is because they have a vision and follow it, despite what the internet has to say.

I thought you said the dinosaurs weren't sculpted by him. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you but the way you worded it makes it seem like you believe he did.

[Sim]

And that isn't likely to change. It might have something to do with everyone "telling Anthony Beeson he's doing it wrong". As 'right' as everyone is sure they are...so is he, and he is the one doing the work, with a lot of years and experience behind him.

I've realised what I said could have been misinterpreted.  I was asking suspsy if he thinks people saying what they don't like about CollectA figures means telling Anthony Beeson he's doing it wrong.  I think to put it that way reduces valid things people say which have worth.  What I said about preferring figures to be made of animals who's appearance isn't mostly unknown was singled out so I listed other examples including things suspsy said to show these other things could be considered telling Anthony Beeson he's doing it wrong, and that things aren't as he seemed to put it.

CollectA has received praise in this thread by almost everyone who's posted, including me, so to suggest that Anthony Beeson is being told he's doing it wrong seems to be focusing on what people don't like and simplifying it.

[Shonisaurus]

I heard the blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk that can not be introduced into this year (ie in the near future) Giganotosaurus and deluxe apatosaurus  . Here is the article:

Link:

http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2015/11/16/collecta-mini-dinosaurs-box-sets-reviewed.html

[suspsy]

Sim, as far as your argument regarding the benefits of making toys based on well-known dinosaurs as opposed to fragmentary ones is concerned, I want you to know that I understand you completely. That said, I simply don't agree with you. If CollectA or some other company chooses to produce a toy based on a poorly known dinosaur, that is their prerogative and I am perfectly fine with it. I've explained why I feel that way. It just doesn't bother me the way it does you apparently. And granted, I suppose it's always possible that Mercuriceratops didn't actually have a horn arrangement like the one on the toy, but given how most chasmosaurines have three horns, I highly doubt it.

And that isn't likely to change. It might have something to do with everyone "telling Anthony Beeson he's doing it wrong". As 'right' as everyone is sure they are...so is he, and he is the one doing the work, with a lot of years and experience behind him.

I've realised what I said could have been misinterpreted.  I was asking suspsy if he thinks people saying what they don't like about CollectA figures means telling Anthony Beeson he's doing it wrong.  I think to put it that way reduces valid things people say which have worth.  What I said about preferring figures to be made of animals who's appearance isn't mostly unknown was singled out so I listed other examples including things suspsy said to show these other things could be considered telling Anthony Beeson he's doing it wrong, and that things aren't as he seemed to put it.

CollectA has received praise in this thread by almost everyone who's posted, including me, so to suggest that Anthony Beeson is being told he's doing it wrong seems to be focusing on what people don't like and simplifying it.

Thank you for the clarification. As Sbell noted, people on the internet love to talk about how they'd do things differently if they were running this company or that one. I'm guilty of it myself. But it's terrible easy to do that when you don't have any real stake in the company's survival. We are absolutely free to say we don't like this colour scheme or that one, or that it's too bad that this animal hasn't been done, or that there's too many of the same family, etc, but I feel those are all more along the lines of personal desires as opposed to valid constructive criticism. As I said, I too would have preferred more variety, but that doesn't follow that Anthony Beeson has made any poor choices with the 2016 lineup. And as we're all well aware, theropods do indeed sell better than any other group of dinosaurs.

Two more days until the final reveal. Hope one of the four is a Supreme,

[SBell]

I don't remember Beeson ever posting here. Was it on the old forum?

And that isn't likely to change. It might have something to do with everyone "telling Anthony Beeson he's doing it wrong". As 'right' as everyone is sure they are...so is he, and he is the one doing the work, with a lot of years and experience behind him. Is everything he produces perfect? No, of course not, and no one should think that--but he does it the way he wants to (with input, I'm sure, from company bosses and the limits of sculpting, etc). And I'm glad he does--Safari and CollectA are easily the best prehistoric-figure-makers out there right now, and it is because they have a vision and follow it, despite what the internet has to say.

I thought you said the dinosaurs weren't sculpted by him. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you but the way you worded it makes it seem like you believe he did.

He likely visited there near the beginning on V1, yes. He didn't stay for long though.

And I didn't say he sculpted--I said he produced them. Decisions on sculpt, design, species, etc begin with him and require his approval--hence, he produces them. Since I have been very clear form the beginning that I KNOW he is not the sculptor, please don't twist my words or troll me to make it sound like I've contradicted myself.

I've realised what I said could have been misinterpreted.  I was asking suspsy if he thinks people saying what they don't like about CollectA figures means telling Anthony Beeson he's doing it wrong.  I think to put it that way reduces valid things people say which have worth.  What I said about preferring figures to be made of animals who's appearance isn't mostly unknown was singled out so I listed other examples including things suspsy said to show these other things could be considered telling Anthony Beeson he's doing it wrong, and that things aren't as he seemed to put it.

CollectA has received praise in this thread by almost everyone who's posted, including me, so to suggest that Anthony Beeson is being told he's doing it wrong seems to be focusing on what people don't like and simplifying it.

Thank you for the clarification. As Sbell noted, people on the internet love to talk about how they'd do things differently if they were running this company or that one. I'm guilty of it myself. But it's terrible easy to do that when you don't have any real stake in the company's survival. We are absolutely free to say we don't like this colour scheme or that one, or that it's too bad that this animal hasn't been done, or that there's too many of the same family, etc, but I feel those are all more along the lines of personal desires as opposed to valid constructive criticism. As I said, I too would have preferred more variety, but that doesn't follow that Anthony Beeson has made any poor choices with the 2016 lineup. And as we're all well aware, theropods do indeed sell better than any other group of dinosaurs.

Two more days until the final reveal. Hope one of the four is a Supreme,

That's kind of what inspired me to resond--intent of the phrasing or not, it was pretty bold to insinuate that Anthomy needs or wants us to point out what we percieve as his models' flaws.

[Stuckasaurus (Dino Dad Reviews)]

Taking a break from the blame game for a moment, did we get an estimated date for when the next batch of models will be revealed?

[Rain]

Taking a break from the blame game for a moment, did we get an estimated date for when the next batch of models will be revealed?

Suspsy said 2 days a post earlier

[SBell]

Taking a break from the blame game for a moment, did we get an estimated date for when the next batch of models will be revealed?

They are releasing on Fridays (UK time). Apparently there are only 4 more prehistoric ones to reveal. Not sure about, say, aquatic animals and wild animals and such.

[PaleoMatt]

Please be Troodon, Nuthetes or Dakotaraptor! Dakotaraptor is very unlikely though