The Same Old Starting Lineup - Put Me In, Coach!

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I'd love to see some truly amazing pterosaur figures, none that i can find really do them to much justice, with the best of the bunch in my opinion being the Papo Tupuxuara (even though it is naked) and the Capsule Q Pteranodon, but Pteranodon is such an overrepresented genus. I'd like to see a proper azhdarchid, anurognathid, or ctenochasmatoid, ideally in a grounded position. As for dinosaurs, coelophysoids beyond Dilophosaurus need some more love, along with heterodontosaurids and primitive ceratopsids. I'd like to see some enantiornithes or primitive avialans as well, that may be a bit of a fantasy though. With cenozoic life, any and all of the Australian pleistocene megafauna would be great, a Diprotodon from Papo would be amazing I think, and a dromornithid would be cool to see as well. A guy can only dream...

Thanks,

EarthboundEiniosaurus


The CollectA Guidraco didn't even make the list?

Whoops, sorry, I kind of forgot about that one, I don't own it yet and that list was kind of made up on the fly (I was in school at the time). Certainly a contender, and the quadrupedal pose is a real plus. The price is what's been keeping me away, maybe i'll pick it up sooner or later.

Thanks,

EarthboundEiniosaurus

It's certainly worth the price. i've bought six of them. great detail and a large size for the price.  for the cost of say two smaller Rebor pterosaurs you can have a life size juvenile one.

[Sim]

Well, at least Papo will be making what will probably end up being the most accurate Velociraptor on the market... Wow, out of all the companies to make an accurate Velociraptor... it will be Papo.

That Papo figure turned out much better than I was expecting.  Its head doesn't look like a Velociraptor's head though, for example its upper jaw looks too deep.  I think the 2015 Carnegie Velociraptor is still the figure closest to a real Velociraptor.

Well, they probably modified the jaw so that it can have an articulated jaw. But thats just a guess.

My guess is the jaw was made like that just to make it look fiercer.  I'm curious to see how it looks once it's released.

Aside from Papo, Schleich and various cheap Chinasaurs I don't think most Velociraptor toys are based on "Jurassic Park". We have Velociraptor models from CollectA, Bullyland, Safari, Carnegie, and Favorite to name a few and none of those look like JP raptors. They are all flawed in some way or another but like you said about Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops, they "are intended to represent those animals to some extent."

EDIT: Examples. I'm not saying these are accurate, but they're not JP inspired.

All the ones you listed (7 different sculpts) are ones I had in mind as figures that are intended to represent Velociraptor, rather than a JP Velociraptor.  I also counted two small ones by Safari (the Authentics one which had its sculpt recycled for some toobs, and the Feathered dinos toob one), the mini CollectA, and... Geoworld's.  I'll count the non-featherless Papo Velociraptor too even if it looks like they gave it a generic dromaeosaur head, as it doesn't seem to be based on JP's.  So that's 12 figures by toy companies.  I would have included Safari's Great Dinos Velociraptor, but on what seems to be the sculptor's website it's called "Velociraptor antirrhopus", so that means it would actually be a Deinonychus: http://wmbsculptor.tripod.com/id4.html

As for ones I think are based on JP franchise Velociraptors, there's:
1. The Bullyland Velociraptor in the first image: http://sts-forum.forumieren.de/t2753-three-new-bullyland-dinoes-velociraptor-triceratops-and-spinophorosaurus
2. This CollectA Velociraptor: http://dinotoyblog.com/2012/05/08/velociraptor-proconcollecta/
3. Velociraptor by Papo: http://dinotoyblog.com/2010/02/21/velociraptor-papo-2/
4. Papo mini Velociraptor: http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2014/06/19/papo-mini-dinosaurs-model-set-reviewed.html
5. The Schleich Velociraptor in the first post: http://sts-forum.forumieren.de/t14004p45-my-small-schleich-collection
6. Schleich's second Velociraptor, that I can't look at for more than a few seconds: http://dinotoyblog.com/2012/05/19/velociraptor-world-of-history-by-schleich/
7. Schleich's third Velociraptor.  I agree with Dr. Admin, "A real monster of a figure. If you're going to get a figure anatomically incorrect in every single way, at least try to make it look superficially good. At first glance, this figure fails on so many levels.": http://dinotoyblog.com/2013/11/13/upcoming-releases-from-schleich-new-for-2014/
8. Schleich's fourth Velociraptor (the green open-mouthed figure).  When I saw this figure, I thought two things.  First, I was stunned they managed to make an uglier Velociraptor than their previous one.  Second, I thought, "This is the ugliest and worst Velociraptor figure I've ever seen.  I can't imagine anyone making an uglier one than this.": http://www.schleich-shop.eu/en/dinosaurs/1112-schleich-42213-mini-dinosaur-set-2-4005086422131.html
9. Schleich Velociraptor number five, which shows it was possible to make an uglier Velociraptor than their previous one.  All I'll say is it looks like it's melting, and that toyjedi takes good photographs!: http://toyseum.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/velociraptor-schleich-small-version-2015.html
10,11,12. Rebor Velociraptor triplets.  3 different sculpts: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=3626.0
13. Lots of Rebor Velociraptors, although only one sculpt: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=4287.0
14. Itoy Velociraptor antirrhopus: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0176FG7DU?refRID=KK7F284DP4SC4DWCEFY5&ref_=pd_rhf_sc_p_img_1
15,16. Mojo's first two Velociraptors: http://sts-forum.forumieren.de/t9700-mojo-fun-velociraptors-2012-and-2013-comparison
17. Mojo Velociraptor with feathers and a very clashing colour scheme: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5604/15421006219_9fbb760b12_o.jpg
18. Mojo's mini Velociraptor.  On this page they actually say Velociraptor was often shown inaccurately in Jurassic Park (shouldn't it be "always" rather than "often").  Yet the figure's head looks like that of a JP Velociraptor!  And its forelimbs...: http://www.mojofun.eu/product/velociraptor-2/
19. Jurassic Park 3 small Velociraptor figure: http://www.jptoys.com/toy-database/jurassic-park-3/humans/alan-grant/img/loose.jpg
20. Jurassic World mini Velociraptor: http://dinotoyblog.com/2015/06/23/jurassic-world-minifigures-hasbro/

I haven't listed action figures.  If I did I think they would almost all be the many official Jurassic Park franchise Velociraptor toys.

[Gwangi]

Yeah, but that kind of thing is to be expected by companies like Schleich or Mojo. They rarely take their toys seriously and nether do we. But from the companies that we do collect there are plenty of offerings for actual Velociraptor toys that are not JP knock-offs. You point out the early CollectA and Bullyland models but again, most of their early models were junk. Obviously actual JP merchandise shouldn't count on your list.
So again, I challenge your original hypothesis that "most figures labelled "Velociraptor" are JP-inspired ones" because while that may be true for the sub-par companies we typically ridicule for their bad dinosaurs it isn't true for the companies most of us tend to collect. Those that did make JPish raptors latter remedied it by making better ones. That said, I do agree that no company has yet made a satisfactory Velociraptor model, or dromaeosaur in general, that properly depicts what these animals look like. Even the new Carnegie model is unsatisfactory IMO and while the Papo might be the best so far it still doesn't look "birdy" enough to me.

[JurassicGeek09]

I am personally getting over figures of dromeosaurs, cerotopsians, sauropods, and theropods.  It seems as though anytime a new line starts, they start with the same animals. 

Andrewsarchus, euparkeria, erythrosuchus, doedicurus, the entelodonts, phorusrhacoids, et al...the list goes on and on.  So many cool creatures that get little love from the makers of larger, well-posed,  highly detailed figures.  I don't need articulation, just passion and style in the poses.  I was pumped silly about Papo's Tupuxuara until I found out it was the size of a hamster.

How about a muscle-bound bull elasmotherium, head turned, alert, as if he just heard something he may have to stomp into dust?  Or the same thing with Megaloceros?

I understand the allure of the giants, I really do, but Allosaurus?  Papo has pretty much smoked that one...done.  You're gonna be hard pressed to improve on that sculpt for $16.  Their running T-Rex?  Good luck making a larger, better looking T-Rex for $25.  And they both stand very well on their own, which is awesome.

I know lots of you guys collect all figures, no matter how simplistic they are.  I am just not a big collector.  I want my figures affordable, amazing, as large as possible, and on my shelf.

Anyway...just thinking out loud.  I know I'm probably in the minority on this.

I'd love to hear more obscure crazy critters others would like to see so I can Google them and check them out.

While I understand your frustration, we have to remember that the designers are going to make what sells the most. Dinosaur figures are a niche market to begin with so toy makers need to maximize their profits as much as possible. How many people are going to purchase an Arctodus vs. a T.rex? It's the same reason why Papo insists on making Jurassic Park-knockoffs in their theropod designs rather than scientifically accurate ones, and guess what? Everyone and their dog has a Standing Rex, Running Rex, and Spinosaurus.

[Sim]

Obviously actual JP merchandise shouldn't count on your list.

You say it's obvious, but that doesn't make sense to me.  We're looking at which figures labelled "Velociraptor" are based on the real animal and which are based on the JP characters, since I said, "Most figures labelled "Velociraptor" are JP/JP-inspired ones".  Official JP Velociraptor figures are figures labelled "Velociraptor".  Even excluding official JP figures though I think there are more Velociraptor figures based on the JP characters than ones that aren't.

So again, I challenge your original hypothesis that "most figures labelled "Velociraptor" are JP-inspired ones" because while that may be true for the sub-par companies we typically ridicule for their bad dinosaurs it isn't true for the companies most of us tend to collect.

You challenge the hypothesis after choosing which figures/companies to include?  All these companies have produced figures a lot of us collectors find worthwhile getting, even if I personally am not interested in them.  I've seen a lot of members here like some of Schleich's prehistoric non-dinos and dinos like their Pentaceratops and Kentrosaurus.  And Mojo's prehistoric mammals, seemed generally well-received here.  So, are you only counting good figures?  I wasn't when I said, "Most figures labelled "Velociraptor" are JP/JP-inspired ones", especially since whether a figure is good or not can be subjective (e.g. I don't think the Favorite or WS Velociraptors are good figures but others might) and can also be affected by how much it looks like the real animal - particularly relevant in the case of Velociraptor figures!

That said, I do agree that no company has yet made a satisfactory Velociraptor model, or dromaeosaur in general, that properly depicts what these animals look like. Even the new Carnegie model is unsatisfactory IMO and while the Papo might be the best so far it still doesn't look "birdy" enough to me.

Well put!

[Gwangi]

You say it's obvious, but that doesn't make sense to me.  We're looking at which figures labelled "Velociraptor" are based on the real animal and which are based on the JP characters, since I said, "Most figures labelled "Velociraptor" are JP/JP-inspired ones".  Official JP Velociraptor figures are figures labelled "Velociraptor".

Of course the "Jurassic Park" toys would look like "Jurassic Park" Velociraptors. That's why I obviously wouldn't count them. They represent movie merchandise, not a companies honest attempt to make a proper Velociraptor.

Even excluding official JP figures though I think there are more Velociraptor figures based on the JP characters than ones that aren't.

That may have been the case once, but that is not the case now. Over a dozen modern toys and figures representing Velociraptor look less like the JP raptors than they do the actual animal.

You challenge the hypothesis after choosing which figures/companies to include?

Ummm, yes. Because that is exactly what I specified in my original post on the topic. Remember? "Aside from Papo, Schleich and various cheap Chinasaurs I don't think most Velociraptor toys are based on "Jurassic Park"."

All these companies have produced figures a lot of us collectors find worthwhile getting, even if I personally am not interested in them.  I've seen a lot of members here like some of Schleich's prehistoric non-dinos and dinos like their Pentaceratops and Kentrosaurus. 

Rare exceptions, which is why we get excited by them. Generally everyone here knows not to take Schleich dinosaurs seriously. Even the people that collect them know that.

And Mojo's prehistoric mammals, seemed generally well-received here.

Mammals, not dinosaurs. Mojo doesn't make good dinosaurs. Again, this is a given and we all know that.

So, are you only counting good figures?  I wasn't when I said, "Most figures labelled "Velociraptor" are JP/JP-inspired ones", especially since whether a figure is good or not can be subjective (e.g. I don't think the Favorite or WS Velociraptors are good figures but others might) and can also be affected by how much it looks like the real animal - particularly relevant in the case of Velociraptor figures!

Yes, I am only counting the good one. Those are the ones that matter. If Safari, Papo and CollectA were still making JP raptors I would understand your distress and disappointment but they're not. You're upset that most Velociraptor models don't look like Velociraptor but your examples are all companies that can even make a competent Triceratops or Tyrannosaurus so what's the point in even bringing it up to begin with? You don't really have a point to make. Your argument is that companies that don't make good dinosaurs aren't making good Velociraptor toys. Okay, we know all know that already. It's a no brainer. You could just as easily say that there are more bad Tyrannosaurus models than good ones which was the point Halichoeres was trying to make I think. Well we all know that, that's why most of us collect from the better lines of toys and from those companies we do get half way competent Velociraptor models, as you would expect.

[Sim]

Of course the "Jurassic Park" toys would look like "Jurassic Park" Velociraptors. That's why I obviously wouldn't count them. They represent movie merchandise, not a companies honest attempt to make a proper Velociraptor.

Again, I said  "Most figures labelled "Velociraptor" are JP/JP-inspired ones".  Note the bolded part.  I said that to point out most figures labelled "Velociraptor" don't represent the real animal.  It doesn't matter if they are movie merchandise.  You say they don't represent a companies honest attempt to make a proper Velociraptor, but this is true for most or all the Velociraptor figures by other companies based on the JP characters.  And that's my point.  A lot of Velociraptor figures have been made, but they're not actually of Velociraptor.

Even excluding official JP figures though I think there are more Velociraptor figures based on the JP characters than ones that aren't.

That may have been the case once, but that is not the case now. Over a dozen modern toys and figures representing Velociraptor look less like the JP raptors than they do the actual animal.

I counted 12 non-JP inspired Velociraptors, and 18 JP-inspired ones.  Adding the Resaurus, Sideshow and Collect Club to the non-JP inspired ones brings that to 15...

You challenge the hypothesis after choosing which figures/companies to include?

Ummm, yes. Because that is exactly what I specified in my original post on the topic. Remember? "Aside from Papo, Schleich and various cheap Chinasaurs I don't think most Velociraptor toys are based on "Jurassic Park"."

Yes, but you challenged my hypothesis.  My hypothesis wasn't just covering certain figures or companies, it was covering all of them.  I didn't think Halichoeres was excluding any companies, since he collects figures from any company if he likes them enough or if they represent what he finds the best version of that species.  Correct me if I've made any mistake, Halichoeres!

So, are you only counting good figures?  I wasn't when I said, "Most figures labelled "Velociraptor" are JP/JP-inspired ones", especially since whether a figure is good or not can be subjective (e.g. I don't think the Favorite or WS Velociraptors are good figures but others might) and can also be affected by how much it looks like the real animal - particularly relevant in the case of Velociraptor figures!

Yes, I am only counting the good one. Those are the ones that matter. If Safari, Papo and CollectA were still making JP raptors I would understand your distress and disappointment but they're not. You're upset that most Velociraptor models don't look like Velociraptor but your examples are all companies that can even make a competent Triceratops or Tyrannosaurus so what's the point in even bringing it up to begin with? You don't really have a point to make. Your argument is that companies that don't make good dinosaurs aren't making good Velociraptor toys. Okay, we know all know that already. It's a no brainer. You could just as easily say that there are more bad Tyrannosaurus models than good ones which was the point Halichoeres was trying to make I think. Well we all know that, that's why most of us collect from the better lines of toys and from those companies we do get half way competent Velociraptor models, as you would expect.

You've misunderstood what I said.  I pointed out most are based on the JP characters to show that unlike Triceratops and Tyrannosaurus, a lot of Velociraptor figures aren't intended to represent Velociraptor, which is why I don't think it really is made as often as Tri&Tyranno which is what it seemed to me Halichoeres was saying.  I mentioned it because, quoting myself, "I think this matters in a thread about the representation of species in figures".  I am disappointed the Velociraptor figures that have been made aren't adequate, but that's a separate point.

[Halichoeres]

Yes, a lot of Velociraptor toys look more like naked Deinonychus, as I said. And yes, JP is probably to blame for that. But JP is probably also to thank for the fact that there are as many half-decent Velociraptors as there are. Before JP, it was all Deinonychus all the time. If it weren't for JP, the only Velociraptor would probably be the GeoWorld (which is pretty terrible, but does have the right head).


I'm not sure I really understand the dispute. As you said, I personally can't let my collection lack a genus that anyone has attempted, regardless of how good it is. It's pretty commonplace that something is modeled after the wrong thing. The Starlux Placochelys looks like a Placodus with a Placochelys head. The Matchbox Teratosaurus looks like a 60's era reconstruction of Megalosaurus, rather than a stem crocodile. The Cog Bothriolepis looks like an arthrodireGroenlandaspis looks like an antiarch, an entirely different clade of early gnathostomes. So to me, yes, it matters what they're calling it. If you're not worried about the name, I claim that the nicest Velociraptor out there is the Kaiyodo Kitadaniryu, which has primaries on the second phalanx, a long, upturned snout, and distinctly birdlike contours.

My original claim (and it may have been a mistake to mention Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops) was that the three genera most often attempted include Velociraptor, which I think is true from the companies' perspective. They make money selling things called Velociraptor to kids. Whether what they sell is paleontologically competent doesn't really enter into it. I think the lament at issue in this thread, as originally conceived, was that companies attempt too narrow a range of species. I was just saying that how poorly they execute their attempts is a different problem. Having a dozen or so 70% correct Velociraptors to choose from is not the same as hundreds of dinosaur genera, and literally thousands of other prehistoric animal genera, that have never even been considered for production as figurines. All that said, I can absolutely see why seeing a lot of Deinonychus-as-Velociraptor figures would be frustrating for a Velociraptor fan. It's like taunting--so close, and yet so far. I feel the same way when Safari's Orthacanthus has two extra fins, when Kaiyodo's Diplocaulus lacks the pleural membrane, when Cog's Ichthyostega has missing toes, and when Schleich's Dunkleosteus puts the sclerotic ring uselessly outside the eyeball.

[Patrx]

I'm perfectly okay regarding my Kaiyodo "Kitadaniryu" as a Velociraptor. It's basically the only good one out there!

[Sim]

So to me, yes, it matters what they're calling it.

What I look at is what species the figure is based on.  But, you are right that it matters what they're calling it, as that is the genus a company is representing.  Sometimes even the JP franchise has treated their dromaeosaurs as Velociraptor and not Deinonychus, as I mentioned earlier.  I agree with you now, thanks for getting me to reconsider it!

My original claim (and it may have been a mistake to mention Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops) was that the three genera most often attempted include Velociraptor, which I think is true from the companies' perspective. They make money selling things called Velociraptor to kids. Whether what they sell is paleontologically competent doesn't really enter into it. I think the lament at issue in this thread, as originally conceived, was that companies attempt too narrow a range of species. I was just saying that how poorly they execute their attempts is a different problem. Having a dozen or so 70% correct Velociraptors to choose from is not the same as hundreds of dinosaur genera, and literally thousands of other prehistoric animal genera, that have never even been considered for production as figurines.

Well said.  Again, I agree with you now.  I don't think it was a mistake to mention Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops.

All that said, I can absolutely see why seeing a lot of Deinonychus-as-Velociraptor figures would be frustrating for a Velociraptor fan. It's like taunting--so close, and yet so far. I feel the same way when Safari's Orthacanthus has two extra fins, when Kaiyodo's Diplocaulus lacks the pleural membrane, when Cog's Ichthyostega has missing toes, and when Schleich's Dunkleosteus puts the sclerotic ring uselessly outside the eyeball.

Regarding the bolded part, yeah it does feel like that, and those figures don't end up being good representations of any real dromaeosaur either.  It's quite annoying because it's happened so often.  Rebor's ones, while I'm sure will satisfy many people and I'm happy for those people, are not of interest to me at all.  Regarding their set of Jurassic Park baby Velociraptors, they said, "No worries cus they are coming this March, so Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls, children of all ages, prepare yourself a Velociraptor Easter!"  (It's in one of the quotes in the first post here.)  That did feel like taunting.  I know they didn't mean it that way.  But, if I think of a "Velociraptor Easter", I imagine an Easter with at least one accurate Velociraptor!  I appreciate your understanding.

I can see how the other things you mentioned are like taunting too - so close, and yet so far.  It's so disappointing when figures are affected by blunders, whether there's only one figure of them (e.g. Orthacanthus), a small number, or a large number and somehow they all get spoiled by mistakes (e.g. Baryonyx).

[Halichoeres]

@Sim: Definitely agree on Baryonyx. Most started out terrible, and the rest (Invicta, Carnegie) are outdated. Reserving judgment on the Papo.

@Patrx: It's a little beauty, for sure.

[Rogue1stClass]

When did Papo first make their Triceratops? 5 years ago? 10? That's the best one on the market. It's fine, but it's not as good as literally any other dinosaur they make.

The Wild Safari is a close second, and he has a date on his belly. 2007. That's 9 years now. Since then, WS has produced many new, fantastic looking ceratopsians, and even a pretty awesome Edmontosaurus. The Triceratops remains, eh, not bad.

The Collecta is from 2010, with a 2012 repaint, and he's just terrible. I mean, the repaint is good, but the model itself is just sad looking.

I have no idea how old the Schliech is, but it's bad even for a Schliech.

The last new sculpt of a Triceratops for Carnegie was in 1999. The last one released for that collection was a repaint of the 1988 sculpt.

Where are all of these Triceratops toys you guys are inundated with to point of being sick of?

[Gwangi]

When did Papo first make their Triceratops? 5 years ago? 10? That's the best one on the market. It's fine, but it's not as good as literally any other dinosaur they make.

The Wild Safari is a close second, and he has a date on his belly. 2007. That's 9 years now. Since then, WS has produced many new, fantastic looking ceratopsians, and even a pretty awesome Edmontosaurus. The Triceratops remains, eh, not bad.

The Collecta is from 2010, with a 2012 repaint, and he's just terrible. I mean, the repaint is good, but the model itself is just sad looking.

I have no idea how old the Schliech is, but it's bad even for a Schliech.

The last new sculpt of a Triceratops for Carnegie was in 1999. The last one released for that collection was a repaint of the 1988 sculpt.

Where are all of these Triceratops toys you guys are inundated with to point of being sick of?

You make a good point, we still don't have too many good Triceratops figures to choose from.

That having been said, there are some good Triceratops out there that were made more recently. There is the re-released Sega model, two from Favorite, the Kaiyodo Capsule Q Museum, and the Battat will probably be re-released soon.

[japfeif]

I have to go and wake up my daughter and attend to today's responsibilities, but just like someone else said above (was it Sim?) I'll get back to this thread with a list of creatures that I believe, really are crying out to be made into figures.

Yes, it was me.  My list is coming soon!  I look forward to seeing yours! 

I'd love to see some companies make more adventurous taxon choices, but it does seem like the old trifecta of Tyrannosaurs, Velociraptor, and Triceratops are the cash cows.

Hmm, I don't agree regarding Velociraptor.  Most figures labelled "Velociraptor" are JP/JP-inspired ones, and the JP franchise dromaeosaurs aren't based on Velociraptor at all, but Deinonychus.  If you use "Velociraptor" to refer to all figures labelled that, regardless of whether they even attempt to represent the small Mongolian dromaeosaur, then yeah Velociraptor's a cash cow.  Since right from the start when Michael Crichton created the JP Velociraptors, they never represented the real animal in any way, I personally feel all the JP and JP-inspired "Velociraptor" figures don't represent Velociraptor, and I think this matters in a thread about the representation of species in figures.

Velociraptor mongoliensis is my favourite dinosaur, and I'm sad there isn't a figure of it that's an adequate representation of it.    There's a few great featherless Velociraptor figures from before it was known it had feathers, like the ones Greg Wenzel sculpted for Safari.  Ever since it was discovered it had feathers though, the few that have been made just haven't done a satisfactory job.  There isn't a single one I've liked enough to want to get, and I've really tried to like them since they are of my favourite...

Safari, of all companies, even made their Wild Safari Velociraptor featherless, despite it coming out:
1. Over seven years after Sinornithosaurus and Microraptor fossils with feathers were found.
2. Two years after the fully feathered Carnegie Microraptor was released, which was sold by Safari.
3. And... a year after a Velociraptor with quill knobs was found.  Even if this specimen was found while the figure was being made, why was Safari making a featherless Velociraptor given the two points above, since they present themselves as being passionate about educational toys?

Well, at least Papo will be making what will probably end up being the most accurate Velociraptor on the market... Wow, out of all the companies to make an accurate Velociraptor... it will be Papo.

Actually, not that surprising really. Papo (IMO) makes the most realistic figures period. Meaning most "life-like". Meaning "stick one in a field and from 10 feet away it could pass for an actual living animal".
What they need to work on is their "scientific accuracy". Then they'd be unbeatable.

Of course, it's not that they need to LEARN how to do anything....they certainly have the tools & skills & ability to make figures that are both realistic and scientifically accurate. They just obviously choose not to. Anyway, their figures are not THAT bad to the average dino buff (which is their market after all). A slightly too deep T.rex skull or wrong number of toes on the foot of a Dimetrodon really won't matter to most folks, sad to say.

[Halichoeres]

When did Papo first make their Triceratops? 5 years ago? 10? That's the best one on the market. It's fine, but it's not as good as literally any other dinosaur they make.

The Wild Safari is a close second, and he has a date on his belly. 2007. That's 9 years now. Since then, WS has produced many new, fantastic looking ceratopsians, and even a pretty awesome Edmontosaurus. The Triceratops remains, eh, not bad.

The Collecta is from 2010, with a 2012 repaint, and he's just terrible. I mean, the repaint is good, but the model itself is just sad looking.

I have no idea how old the Schliech is, but it's bad even for a Schliech.

The last new sculpt of a Triceratops for Carnegie was in 1999. The last one released for that collection was a repaint of the 1988 sculpt.

Where are all of these Triceratops toys you guys are inundated with to point of being sick of?

It's true that the Triceratops figures from the big companies all have some flaw or another, but they have all at least gone to the trouble to make one at some point. I mean, you could never make a collection like this one focused on, say, Einiosaurus.

[Sim]

I would really appreciate it if people would only quote the relevant parts of posts.  It gets annoying having the screen taken over by irrelevant quotes.  Forum rule number 8 also says, "Avoid quoting entire posts if they are long and/or contain many images."

Well, at least Papo will be making what will probably end up being the most accurate Velociraptor on the market... Wow, out of all the companies to make an accurate Velociraptor... it will be Papo.

Actually, not that surprising really. Papo (IMO) makes the most realistic figures period. Meaning most "life-like". Meaning "stick one in a field and from 10 feet away it could pass for an actual living animal".
What they need to work on is their "scientific accuracy". Then they'd be unbeatable.

Of course, it's not that they need to LEARN how to do anything....they certainly have the tools & skills & ability to make figures that are both realistic and scientifically accurate. They just obviously choose not to. Anyway, their figures are not THAT bad to the average dino buff (which is their market after all). A slightly too deep T.rex skull or wrong number of toes on the foot of a Dimetrodon really won't matter to most folks, sad to say.

"Realistic" and "life-like" mean representing things in a way that is accurate and true to life.  Since Papo's prehistoric figures represent real animals, and often have major anatomical inaccuracies, they are one of the least realistic and life-like prehistoric animal toy lines.  The sculptor for almost all of Papo's prehistoric animals has said he makes the figures somewhere between accurate and what the general public expects them to look like.  Thus, it's no surprise the Papo figures often end up looking less like the real animals than the figures made by other companies like Safari and Battat who's sculptors work with palaeontologists and put much research and care into making their figures look like the real animals.  For Papo, accuracy isn't a priority and it shows in their figures.

You mentioned "scientific accuracy" as being separate from being "realistic" and "life-like", but it's not.  Without it, you have very detailed figures of what look like fantasy creatures or characters from a film.  Just because most people won't notice the major inaccuracies in Papo figures doesn't make them more realistic or life-like.

The inaccuracies in the Papo figures tend to be things you wouldn't see on someone's genuine attempt to restore these prehistoric animals.  E.g.: Giving a Tyrannosaurus a head taken from JP or King Kong.  Giving a Parasaurolophus teeth inside its beak.  Making a Velociraptor that looks like JP's.  Making a feathered Velociraptor and giving it a head that doesn't look like that of the real animal.  Giving a Pachyrhinosaurus antler-like horns like the one from Disney's Dinosaur.  Making a Tylosaurus without palatine teeth.  Making a featherless Oviraptor.  Giving a Carnotaurus a wide snout.  Making a Pteranodon that not only copies the monsters from JP3, but also doesn't look like any real animal!  More about that can be seen in Reply #729 here: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=419.msg113336#msg113336  Making an Ankylosaurus with a tail posed like a scorpion's, when the last half of ankylosaurid tails is actually stiff and straight due to the vertebrae interlocking or being fused together.  An ankylosaurid's tail club isn't just the "knob" right at the end of the tail, it's also composed of the "handle" - the stiff last half of their tail.

I've seen a lot of Papo's prehistoric figures in shops, I've held them, and I've had a good look at them.  They've always looked like very detailed toys to me though.  I've not seen this, "looking like a living animal" that people say.  And this is even ignoring the anatomical inaccuracies.  Maybe I think they might look like real animals if the real animals were the same size as the toys?  I do think the expressions and body language of Papo figures often doesn't look like what I'd expect from a real animal.  Most of the Papo theropods looking malevolent is one example of this.  I've also seen paint mistakes on the figures sometimes.  And nearly all Papo Allosaurus seem to have the neck painted differently on each side of the seam.

[Rogue1stClass]

When did Papo first make their Triceratops? 5 years ago? 10? That's the best one on the market. It's fine, but it's not as good as literally any other dinosaur they make.

The Wild Safari is a close second, and he has a date on his belly. 2007. That's 9 years now. Since then, WS has produced many new, fantastic looking ceratopsians, and even a pretty awesome Edmontosaurus. The Triceratops remains, eh, not bad.

The Collecta is from 2010, with a 2012 repaint, and he's just terrible. I mean, the repaint is good, but the model itself is just sad looking.

I have no idea how old the Schliech is, but it's bad even for a Schliech.

The last new sculpt of a Triceratops for Carnegie was in 1999. The last one released for that collection was a repaint of the 1988 sculpt.

Where are all of these Triceratops toys you guys are inundated with to point of being sick of?

It's true that the Triceratops figures from the big companies all have some flaw or another, but they have all at least gone to the trouble to make one at some point. I mean, you could never make a collection like this one focused on, say, Einiosaurus.

So?

I mean, seriously. You have to be three layers deep in the hobby aspect of these toys before you even know what an Einiosaurus is, and we already have Xenoceratops, Medusaceratops, Vagaceratops, Utahceratops, dueling Nasulo- and Diablo- ceratopses as well as a few Styracosaurus and a near glut of the extremely similar Pachyrhinosaurus to appease us. Triceratops is a staple. He's one of the ones kids beg their parents for and casual collectors pick up multiple versions of. There's a reason everyone makes one. Everyone buys one. The best one that everyone can buy is a conservative rendering of an interpretation that wasn't all that great 25 years ago. Meanwhile, we get indignant that people don't keep up with the science.

This is, by the way, how we lost Edmontosaurus. Back when it was called Trachodon, it was one of the Big Five and showed up in all the toy sets with Tyrannosaurus, Triceratops, Stegosaurus, and Brontosaurus. Then it started getting crowded out by its wacky crested cousins and before long disappeared completely.

[Halichoeres]

So?

Well, this is an encouraging start that promises collegial discourse.

I mean, seriously. You have to be three layers deep in the hobby aspect of these toys before you even know what an Einiosaurus is, and we already have Xenoceratops, Medusaceratops, Vagaceratops, Utahceratops, dueling Nasulo- and Diablo- ceratopses as well as a few Styracosaurus and a near glut of the extremely similar Pachyrhinosaurus to appease us. Triceratops is a staple. He's one of the ones kids beg their parents for and casual collectors pick up multiple versions of. There's a reason everyone makes one. Everyone buys one. The best one that everyone can buy is a conservative rendering of an interpretation that wasn't all that great 25 years ago. Meanwhile, we get indignant that people don't keep up with the science.

This is, by the way, how we lost Edmontosaurus. Back when it was called Trachodon, it was one of the Big Five and showed up in all the toy sets with Tyrannosaurus, Triceratops, Stegosaurus, and Brontosaurus. Then it started getting crowded out by its wacky crested cousins and before long disappeared completely.

I guess I figure you have to be even deeper into dinosaurs to notice the toe or shoulder problems with existing Triceratops figures than to notice the total absence of many other genera, but never mind.


@smashtoad (OP), apologies for any part I played in turning a lighthearted collective wishlist for neglected critters into a disputatious gripefest.

[JurassicGeek09]

What's wrong with the CollectA Deluxe Trike? I think it's quite good.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

What's wrong with the CollectA Deluxe Trike? I think it's quite good.

This one has a few issues : http://dinotoyblog.com/2010/08/16/triceratops-deluxeprocon-collecta/

The 1:15 is pretty nice over all i think : http://dinotoyblog.com/2012/07/06/triceratops-115-collecta/