CollectA New for 2016

[sauroid]

Dakotaraptor most likely in 2020

[Stuckasaurus (Dino Dad Reviews)]

Yeah, Dakotaraptor was published on well after Collecta had finished this year's crop. Hadn't Collecta already announced the first wave by that point?

[Tyto_Theropod]

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

Troodon would be nice, but everyone makes Theropods. Myself I'd like to see an Ornithopod that isn't either Iguanodon or a Parasaurolophus.

[suspsy]

I wouldn't be at all shocked if Dakotaraptor appeared in 2017.

[Sim]

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.

Suspsy, I know you're not bothered by figures being based on very incomplete remains.  I've known this since before we started discussing this, and if I didn't I would've known from your first reply to me in this discussion.  I'm not expecting you to agree with me, and I never have.  It's fine if we don't agree on this.  I agree it's a companies prerogative to make figures of whatever species they want.  And I think it's fine for people to express disappointment about species chosen, be it because it's an animal that's done very often, an animal only known from fragmentary remains, or other reasons, as long as they aren't rude.

"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."  It sounds like you're saying that's all there really is to the CollectA Mercuriceratops being speculative?  The horns of chasmosaurines can look very different, compare the ones of Triceratops, Vagaceratops and Kosmoceratops for example.  Only a bit of Mercuriceratops's frill is known.  Frill shape and ornamentation differs greatly between different chasmosaurines, so no-one knows what most of Mercuriceratops's frill looks like.  The only part of that figure that isn't speculation can be seen in an earlier post I made (Reply #84): http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=4038.msg118615#msg118615

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.

Something can be a personal desire and something that can help a company improve at the same time.  It's not always like this, but it can be sometimes.

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.

Are you saying I insinuated that?  I didn't and I don't think that either.  I try to be straightforward in what I say.  What I said is what I mean.

[stargatedalek]

On one hand I agree that it can be annoying/awkward/disappointing when a speculative reconstruction is made dated by new discoveries, but I do still like to see speculative reconstructions being made.

For one, very few fragmentary remains do ever get more remains assigned to them. We still don't know whether Sharovipteryx even had any hands, and we may never know, but I'd still snap up a decent figure of it in a heartbeat.

You say that speculation means the reconstruction will be a fantasy creature, rather I challenge that it presents a greater opportunity for the artist not only in that they get more creative liberty but to show that they have an understanding of paleoart and ecology and can create a realistic view of a fragmentary animal.

Lastly I like to see more recognition for obscure animals, people may lament that famous ceratopsians don't have any figures made, but I'd rather see a speculative reconstruction of an obscure species than a less speculative reconstruction of a species that is well known.

[suspsy]

Very well put, stargate.

And look! Torvosaurus and Thalassomedon!

http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2015/11/20/new-from-collecta-for-2016-part-3.html

While I was pining for Basilosaurus, a new elasmosaur is most welcome. The Torvosaurus looks very dynamic and promising, although I'll be interested to see how the final retail version looks.

Two toys more to go. CollectA sure loves stringing this out!

[Arrancon]

Oh, that Torvosaurus is nice!

And I'm probably not the only one getting WWD vibes from the Thalassomedon.

[SpartanSquat]

Torvosaurus looks nice! Also...the Thalassomedon why reminds me to WWD Cryptoclydus and this figure wasnt released before?

[Patrx]

Thalassomedon! Awesome Check out that tail fluke!

That allosaur looks very green iguana-ish 

[SpartanSquat]

One quick question...plesiosaurs had fluked tail?

[John]

So far for me the two standouts in this line's 2016 additions are the Struthiomimus and Thalassomedon.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I'd like to see better pics, the head on the Torvo looks a bit plain while the pose and size is great.  The Thalassomedon looks pretty cool and large at 12". I would have liked to see the marine animals start getting bases so we can get more interesting poses.

[Kovu]

Eh, still don't think I'll be picking any CollectA's up again this year. The Torvosaurus looks a bit odd. I can't place my finger on it, but I'm just not feeling it. The Thalassomedon looks nice though and I like the inclusion of the tail fluke.

[Everything_Dinosaur]

There will be one further announcement with regards to new models from CollectA made next week.  In the meantime, here is confirmation that, as some forum members guessed given the clues we provided, that a Torvosaurus will be added to the range.

Here is the article with details of this European Theropod plus news of that elasmosaurid: Latest news about CollectA models 2016

We will also post up pics of the mini dinosaurs box sets (A1101 and A1102) shortly on Everything Dinosaur's Facebook page and other social media.  These items are already in stock and we have to say they are most impressive.  We will also let forum members know about the Giganotosaurus and Apatosaurus debate.

[Takama]

Did CollectA abandon the Articulated Jaws for Deluxe Theropods?

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

There will be one further announcement with regards to new models from CollectA made next week.  In the meantime, here is confirmation that, as some forum members guessed given the clues we provided, that a Torvosaurus will be added to the range.

Here is the article with details of this European Theropod plus news of that elasmosaurid: Latest news about CollectA models 2016

We will also post up pics of the mini dinosaurs box sets (A1101 and A1102) shortly on Everything Dinosaur's Facebook page and other social media.  These items are already in stock and we have to say they are most impressive.  We will also let forum members know about the Giganotosaurus and Apatosaurus debate.

Suspy posted the same link above :

Very well put, stargate.

And look! Torvosaurus and Thalassomedon!

http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2015/11/20/new-from-collecta-for-2016-part-3.html

While I was pining for Basilosaurus, a new elasmosaur is most welcome. The Torvosaurus looks very dynamic and promising, although I'll be interested to see how the final retail version looks.

Two toys more to go. CollectA sure loves stringing this out!

Pays to read back a little.

[PaleoMatt]

Is that all of our figures for this year now? I hope theres more lol

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Is that all of our figures for this year now? I hope theres more lol

read back. seems like there is one more reveal coming.

[Sim]

On one hand I agree that it can be annoying/awkward/disappointing when a speculative reconstruction is made dated by new discoveries, but I do still like to see speculative reconstructions being made.

For one, very few fragmentary remains do ever get more remains assigned to them. We still don't know whether Sharovipteryx even had any hands, and we may never know, but I'd still snap up a decent figure of it in a heartbeat.

Sharovipteryx is known from an almost complete skeleton, so it isn't very incompletely known or fragmentary.  There has to be some speculation when making a restoration of any prehistoric animal.  What I've been saying is I'm not fond of when most of an animal restoration, skeleton included, is invented.

You say that speculation means the reconstruction will be a fantasy creature, rather I challenge that it presents a greater opportunity for the artist not only in that they get more creative liberty but to show that they have an understanding of paleoart and ecology and can create a realistic view of a fragmentary animal.

I agree with the bolded part, but these restorations are still fantasy because they can't be based on much reality, since the reality is the very incompletely known animal the restoration is of.

Lastly I like to see more recognition for obscure animals, people may lament that famous ceratopsians don't have any figures made, but I'd rather see a speculative reconstruction of an obscure species than a less speculative reconstruction of a species that is well known.

I agree with the bolded part.  However, obscure animals aren't always very incompletely known.  There are SO MANY obscure animals that are known from better remains that don't have a decent or any toy version.  Buitreraptor, Saurornithoides and Zuniceratops for example.



I simply expressed I was surprised that CollectA is still regularly making figures of animals known from very incomplete remains.  There wasn't anything more to this, and I wasn't planning to say anything more about it.  Suspsy's replies to me have seemed to suggest it's somehow wrong I felt surprised, so I've felt a need to explain why I felt that way.  Then it seems some people have misrepresented things I've explained, even though I explained these things because it seemed Suspsy was saying it was wrong I felt the way I did.