CollectA New for 2016

[terrorchicken]

metria is the stand out for me. I like feathered t-rexes but I dont like that blue/green red color scheme theyve given them. The Mercuriceratops is...ok, I think Collecta's suffering from Carnegie style same-ness with their "3 horns"

now bring on the mammals...

[suspsy]

I am surprised CollectA is still regularly making figures of animals known from fragmentary remains after how things went with Deinocheirus.

Which was a perfectly reasonable interpretation at the time. And very well-received by fans to boot.

[SBell]

I am surprised CollectA is still regularly making figures of animals known from fragmentary remains after how things went with Deinocheirus.

Which was a perfectly reasonable interpretation at the time. And very well-received by fans to boot.

Agreed--it's still a decent figure--nobody would have expected the weird Muppet-like features of Deinocheirus!

And I think the only issue with CollectA doing a speculative ceratopsian is that there are, indeed, several well know genera that are unrepresented (like Centrosaurus...). But it's not like speculative figures aren't valued as well--many of the Australian dinos, for example. Or the Protochirotherium from Bullyland. And really, every dino figure has an element of speculation in it anyway--we will never know every detail about colours, patterns or textures for most of them.

[Kovu]

I'll reserve judgement until I see non-promotional shots of them before I decide to pick any of them up. I like the spines on the the Metriacanthosaurus and the sculpting on the hunting Tyrannosaurus looks more refined than the first one. She does look like she's gonna have some balancing issues though. Plus, I don't really like bases for display purposes. Both paint jobs do look finer over previous years' though.

The Mercuriceratops' coloration is less garish than previous ceratopsians and the head sculpt is decent, but the neck/forelimb areas look off for some reason. Plus, is it just me or does it have two sets of nostrils? Also, the solid black eyes remind me a bit of those paranormal tv shows when someone is demonically possessed in a "dramatic reenactment based on true events". And that's just unsettling.

[Dinomike]

I'm very impressed by these! My first thought was - awesome they did it! I mean a dead T.rex! That's something you don't get too often!

[Halichoeres]

I too find it puzzling that an animal known from only two bones (however distinctive they are, because they ARE distinctive) gets made before the many, many animals known from more complete remains.



But I'm sure I'll get it, just like I got this year's Medusaceratops, which has the same problem. The Metriacanthosaurus looks quite good also. Looking forward to seeing the rest.

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

I can't say I'm disappointed with this year's offerings do far. Really impressed with the metriacanthosaurus, European dinosaurs seem to be underrepresented in toy form. The tyrannosaurus are a step-up from the last year but they still have that color scheme which I can't say I like much. The cannibalism suggested here is a nice touch, though. One thing I think that would make their theropods much better is more detailed bases. Safari LTD did them well with the prehistoric plants, but the smooth, lumpy ground is off-putting to me.

[Sim]

I am surprised CollectA is still regularly making figures of animals known from fragmentary remains after how things went with Deinocheirus.

Which was a perfectly reasonable interpretation at the time. And very well-received by fans to boot.

Yeah, and now it's turned out completely different to what Deinocheirus looks like except for... the only part that was known of it at the time, its forelimbs.  It seems to me a company would want to avoid their figures becoming outdated by additional remains which would probably make them a less good seller, and having to produce an up-to-date version of the animal, which involves spending time and money on making a replacement for an existing figure.


It's one thing to speculate about colours and exact body covering and another to invent most of an animal.  The latter is also more likely to become outdated by additional remains.  It doesn't seem worthwhile to me when there are relatives of these animals that are known from good/better remains which don't have a good toy version or any toy version available.


Some people aren't bothered if a figure is of a fragmentary species, and that's fine.  I've expressed other reasons why I'm not fond of figures being made of fragmentary species here (Reply #206): http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=3966.msg116317#msg116317  In addition to those reasons, I would rather avoid figures I own becoming outdated only because they were based on very incomplete remains.

[Shonisaurus]

But Metriacanthosaurus skeleton of the skull is not preserved. Therefore it is also speculative recreation, as happened with the Deinocheirus.

Just from what I've read an incomplete skeleton without skull it remains. There had been another best preserved better, such a reissue of British theropod Baryonyx.

[stargatedalek]

Tyrannosaurus corpse is a must have (I can already hear the Carnivora forum turning in it's grave )! I've always been a fan of life cycle sets with modern animals, and it seems CollectA has just taken that to a new level.

Its grave? Is the site no longer around? If it's true, then good riddance, because I always hated that place.

Sadly not, I actually joined it recently to give it a good going over and see if the internet myths are true, cringe worthy place to say the least.

[Daspletodave]

the legs on the T-Rex look wonky to me - unnatural. checked the drawings of running T-Rexes in Greg Paul's Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs and NONE of them had their legs bent so severely. frankly the hind legs resemble those of a moose or bison, not a dinosaur.

[Shonisaurus]

The honest mercuriceratops is from my point of view a very long snout.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

the legs on the T-Rex look wonky to me - unnatural. checked the drawings of running T-Rexes in Greg Paul's Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs and NONE of them had their legs bent so severely. frankly the hind legs resemble those of a moose or bison, not a dinosaur.

Odd you should make that comparison...I was just sizing up the ceratopsian and had made a few notes. The head sculpt is in general close, but the rostral is still off a bit. However checking the arms and hands, and feet, they are not correct. The arms are not angled properly and seem scaled and shaped to most represent...a standing cow or large bull. The feet are similar in shape. It is almost as if a cow or bull were used to model the limbs and body, then given a ceratopsian head. The fine nuances of the sacral areas between centrosaurs vs chasmosaurines  is in general entirely missed . And the mohawk of course.... its a decent try but is ...less grandiose in the fine details than some of the competition lately

[Gwangi]

the legs on the T-Rex look wonky to me - unnatural. checked the drawings of running T-Rexes in Greg Paul's Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs and NONE of them had their legs bent so severely. frankly the hind legs resemble those of a moose or bison, not a dinosaur.

Odd you should make that comparison...I was just sizing up the ceratopsian and had made a few notes. The head sculpt is in general close, but the rostral is still off a bit. However checking the arms and hands, and feet, they are not correct. The arms are not angled properly and seem scaled and shaped to most represent...a standing cow or large bull. The feet are similar in shape. It is almost as if a cow or bull were used to model the limbs and body, then given a ceratopsian head. The fine nuances of the sacral areas between centrosaurs vs chasmosaurines  is in general entirely missed . And the mohawk of course.... its a decent try but is ...less grandiose in the fine details than some of the competition lately

The "moose legs" of the T. rex was a comparison made for the last feathered rex as well. And I agree, the ankles look way too high up.

And yeah, that ceratopsian is a mess past the head. I get that the head is the defining characteristic of ceratopsians but that doesn't mean the body should be neglected. Aside from the head this looks more like an older CollectA/Procon model than anything else. And the rostral is something CollectA messes up way too often.

I get that CollectA is innovative and daring which is nice but I still don't feel compelled to buy too many of them. They constantly keep making weird anatomical mistakes that make a lot of their models look strange.

[alexeratops]

Very nice! Great innovation with the dead T. rex, the cerotopsian seems bland to me (hey it's a real animal I can't change that). The hunting T. rex seems unneeded, but still a nice model. I love the Metriacanthosaurus, but will we ever get a base-less theropod again? The bases are great but sometimes are also problems.

Overall grade: B+

[empire3569]

Because of the name "Hunting T-rex" it would be cool if they introduced a model that looked like it was fleeing, such as an Edmontosaurus or maybe an updated Ankylosaurus. That would be a cool little diorama

[Roselaar]

Fantastic first preview! I love all four figures, but the dead T-Rex is the definite standout! Finally a company with guts for deceased predators! (See what I did there?)

I assume Mercuriceratops can be added to the Unique Species List? It can now replace Metriacanthosaurus for instance.

Can't wait to see what else Collecta has in store, but I'm positive it will not disappoint!

[suspsy]

I am surprised CollectA is still regularly making figures of animals known from fragmentary remains after how things went with Deinocheirus.

Which was a perfectly reasonable interpretation at the time. And very well-received by fans to boot.

Yeah, and now it's turned out completely different to what Deinocheirus looks like except for... the only part that was known of it at the time, its forelimbs.  It seems to me a company would want to avoid their figures becoming outdated by additional remains which would probably make them a less good seller, and having to produce an up-to-date version of the animal, which involves spending time and money on making a replacement for an existing figure.

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.

The same applies to toys. CollectA has its humpless, pointy-beaked Deinocheirus. Wild Safari still manufactures its Velociraptor toy even though it's naked with pronated wrists. Battat is (or was) planning to reissue a Stegosaurus with eight spikes. Not to mention all the various Spinosaurus toys that have been made over the years. And as SBell noted, there wasn't a paleontologist alive in 2012 who would have imagined that Deinocheirus had a hump and a spoonbill. Everyone agreed with the notion that it was a giant ornithomimid. I think it's unfair to fault CollectA any more than it is to fault Safari for their CC Spinosaurus toys.

Please know that I do understand where you're coming from, Sim. Personally, I would have gone with Einiosaurus myself. And Centrosaurus definitely deserves a break. I'm baffled as to why no company has done one. But as it stands, I think the Mercuriceratops is an interesting and unusual choice. Perhaps Anthony Beeson just has a thing for obscure ceratopsians.

the legs on the T-Rex look wonky to me - unnatural. checked the drawings of running T-Rexes in Greg Paul's Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs and NONE of them had their legs bent so severely. frankly the hind legs resemble those of a moose or bison, not a dinosaur.

Ironic given that Paul's T. rex illustration in that book has both a shrink-wrapped skull and a ridiculously undersized tail.

[sauroid]

we should expect a Sauropod carcass from CollectA in the near future.

[laticauda]

we should expect a Sauropod carcass from CollectA in the near future.

That would be a sight to see.  I wonder how it would look in the standard size?