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

[JurassicGeek09]

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 only negative comment I see is from cordylus about the disproportionate head. That review doesn't say much other than the colour being dull and the frill not being great in design.

[Gwangi]

The anatomy of the forelimbs is immediately noticeable as a mark against it.

[JurassicGeek09]

My knowledge of dinosaur anatomy beyond avian and non-avian theropods sucks

[Takama]

TO me the best Ceratopsian on the current market is the Battat Pachyrhinosaurus

Its almost flawless, compare the feet of the CollectA ceratopsians(ALL of them) with this Master piece

http://dinotoyblog.com/2014/08/12/pachyrhinosaurus-terra-series-by-battat/

[Gwangi]

My knowledge of dinosaur anatomy beyond avian and non-avian theropods sucks

Most ceratopsian toys have generic feet similar to something you might see on an elephant, typically with an incorrect number of digits as well. Actual ceratopsian feet look much different. If you have any recent model sculpted by Doug Watson for Safari you'll see what the feet should actually look like. Now compare that with the CollectA Triceratops or most other ceratopsians. Even the Safari Triceratops has wonky anatomy.

This is what they actually looked like.


So you want this...


Not this...

[Rogue1stClass]

So?

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

Okay, let's try this, then. What does not being able to make an entire collection of Einiosaurus have to do with making a Triceratops that looks like it belongs on the same shelf as anything any of these companies has produced recently? Does every single horn and frill combination of ceratopsian have to be represented multiple times over 60 years, or just that one?

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.

It's not just toe and shoulder problems. It's that they aren't very good figures as a whole. They are lazy base touch figures. The Papo and Wild Safari are well done lazy base touches, but that's still what they are. Kids buy them because kids like Triceratops, so why bother putting any more thought into them? As far as missing genera go, there are plenty that I would like to see toys made of. It's a crime there isn't a Deinonychus or Protoceratops being made right now, and it's odd that Troodon and Centrosaurus aren't represented. That said, not every genus necessarily needs to have a toy. You can get some pretty nice resins of Einiosaurus and I bet it wouldn't be hard to modify a Pachyrhinosaurus into one. I may actually try that. My Target has a serious overstock of the Battat one.

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

I apologize. I didn't have a lot of time to post, so I was trying to be concise and apparently came off as hostile. It wasn't intended to be. We are all friends here.

[Halichoeres]

So?

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

Okay, let's try this, then. What does not being able to make an entire collection of Einiosaurus have to do with making a Triceratops that looks like it belongs on the same shelf as anything any of these companies has produced recently? Does every single horn and frill combination of ceratopsian have to be represented multiple times over 60 years, or just that one?

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.

It's not just toe and shoulder problems. It's that they aren't very good figures as a whole. They are lazy base touch figures. The Papo and Wild Safari are well done lazy base touches, but that's still what they are. Kids buy them because kids like Triceratops, so why bother putting any more thought into them? As far as missing genera go, there are plenty that I would like to see toys made of. It's a crime there isn't a Deinonychus or Protoceratops being made right now, and it's odd that Troodon and Centrosaurus aren't represented. That said, not every genus necessarily needs to have a toy. You can get some pretty nice resins of Einiosaurus and I bet it wouldn't be hard to modify a Pachyrhinosaurus into one. I may actually try that. My Target has a serious overstock of the Battat one.

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

I apologize. I didn't have a lot of time to post, so I was trying to be concise and apparently came off as hostile. It wasn't intended to be. We are all friends here.

I apologize too, then, for misreading your intentions. You definitely have a point that even the genera that every company puts out are often kind of perfunctory (I've found something to dislike in most Stegosaurus, Allosaurus and Tyrannosaurus figures). Some of it might be that they tend to be do those popular genera first, before they've really found their stride (CollectA's standard version is a painful example). And no, not every genus needs to be done many, many times. I only brought up Einiosaurus as an offhand example (one that has only expensive resins or very toylike toys like the Dinosaur Train or Xtractaurs versions).

The one place where I'll respectfully disagree is that I do think every genus known from reasonably good remains should have a toy! But that's just the way I collect. Your mileage will vary, of course.

[Sim]

There is at least one Triceratops figure I think everyone will agree is a very well done figure.  A certain figure from 1994 that will hopefully be re-issued with a new colour scheme soon...



I've never owned the Battat Triceratops, but it looks like the best mass-produced Triceratops figure to me.  I hope I'll be able to own the re-issue.  It's amazing how closely this figure that was originally released in 1994 matches Scott Hartman's 2013 Triceratops skeletal!:


Triceratops skeletal from here: http://scotthartman.deviantart.com/art/Triceratops-74215980

[PaleoMatt]

I'm excited for that Trike!

[MLMjp]

The Battat Triceratops is just beautiful

[Patrx]

Considering that I already have about seven Triceratops models in my already-overcrowded collection, there's really no reason for me to buy the Battat version once it's re-released.

But, of course, I'm going to, because, I mean, look at it. It's flippin' magnificent.

[Halichoeres]

I just got the original Battat Trike and yeah, it's pretty incredible.

[tyrantqueen]

I sold my original Battat Trike but I am going to pick the reissue up for cheap. Although the Favorite Ltd. green Triceratops statue is the definitive Triceratops for me...

[Patrx]

...the Favorite Ltd. green Triceratops statue is the definitive Triceratops for me...

I agree! The one I bought from you (and had re-painted by Martin Garratt) is the centerpiece of my Triceratops display 

[JurassicGeek09]

My knowledge of dinosaur anatomy beyond avian and non-avian theropods sucks

Most ceratopsian toys have generic feet similar to something you might see on an elephant, typically with an incorrect number of digits as well. Actual ceratopsian feet look much different. If you have any recent model sculpted by Doug Watson for Safari you'll see what the feet should actually look like. Now compare that with the CollectA Triceratops or most other ceratopsians. Even the Safari Triceratops has wonky anatomy.

This is what they actually looked like.


So you want this...


Not this...

Thank you for this! Now I know what to look for. OK, so the feet and head are off. That definitely sucks, but at least it's not a JP imitation a la Papo. And, it has a better colour scheme.

[Rogue1stClass]

I apologize too, then, for misreading your intentions. You definitely have a point that even the genera that every company puts out are often kind of perfunctory (I've found something to dislike in most Stegosaurus, Allosaurus and Tyrannosaurus figures). Some of it might be that they tend to be do those popular genera first, before they've really found their stride (CollectA's standard version is a painful example). And no, not every genus needs to be done many, many times. I only brought up Einiosaurus as an offhand example (one that has only expensive resins or very toylike toys like the Dinosaur Train or Xtractaurs versions).

The one place where I'll respectfully disagree is that I do think every genus known from reasonably good remains should have a toy! But that's just the way I collect. Your mileage will vary, of course.

Here's to internet civility!

I would actually like a good Einiosaurus. I'd like a good anything, I just want a good Triceratops more. And, yeah, I'll agree. Most of the iconics tend to be pretty weak as replicas, especially Stegosaurus, but most of them still have toys that are attractive, interesting or just cool anyway. In other words, still good toys. It's hard to make a correct Stegosaurus, but it's also hard to make a really terrible one. They are just inherently interesting animals.

I'm all for everything getting a toy, but that's just not realistic. What I would like, besides new iconics every so often, is more diversity of groups. Maybe instead of the next "frill of the week" ceratopsian, we get a Leptoceratops, which I don't think anyone has ever made. Collecta's ornithomimids are a good step in this direction, and I'm really excited about them. As for my own habits, I go first and foremost for good looking models, for animals that mean something to me, and for animals from just before the K-T event, which I use for reference for a thing I'm doing. There are last of that last one than you would think.

[Gwangi]

I apologize too, then, for misreading your intentions. You definitely have a point that even the genera that every company puts out are often kind of perfunctory (I've found something to dislike in most Stegosaurus, Allosaurus and Tyrannosaurus figures). Some of it might be that they tend to be do those popular genera first, before they've really found their stride (CollectA's standard version is a painful example). And no, not every genus needs to be done many, many times. I only brought up Einiosaurus as an offhand example (one that has only expensive resins or very toylike toys like the Dinosaur Train or Xtractaurs versions).

The one place where I'll respectfully disagree is that I do think every genus known from reasonably good remains should have a toy! But that's just the way I collect. Your mileage will vary, of course.

Here's to internet civility!

I would actually like a good Einiosaurus. I'd like a good anything, I just want a good Triceratops more. And, yeah, I'll agree. Most of the iconics tend to be pretty weak as replicas, especially Stegosaurus, but most of them still have toys that are attractive, interesting or just cool anyway. In other words, still good toys. It's hard to make a correct Stegosaurus, but it's also hard to make a really terrible one. They are just inherently interesting animals.

I'm all for everything getting a toy, but that's just not realistic. What I would like, besides new iconics every so often, is more diversity of groups. Maybe instead of the next "frill of the week" ceratopsian, we get a Leptoceratops, which I don't think anyone has ever made. Collecta's ornithomimids are a good step in this direction, and I'm really excited about them. As for my own habits, I go first and foremost for good looking models, for animals that mean something to me, and for animals from just before the K-T event, which I use for reference for a thing I'm doing. There are last of that last one than you would think.

Safari made a Leptoceratops, it's pretty good. You should check it out.

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

I'm all for everything getting a toy, but that's just not realistic. What I would like, besides new iconics every so often, is more diversity of groups. Maybe instead of the next "frill of the week" ceratopsian, we get a Leptoceratops, which I don't think anyone has ever made. C

Wild Safari made a leptoceratops a few years ago: http://dinotoyblog.com/2009/10/18/leptoceratops-wild-safari-by-safari-ltd/

Whoops, nevermind, Gwangi beat me to it   

[Halichoeres]

It's been retired for a while, but DeJankins still has the Lepto in stock: http://www.dejankins.com/wild-safari/

[Rogue1stClass]

I'm all for everything getting a toy, but that's just not realistic. What I would like, besides new iconics every so often, is more diversity of groups. Maybe instead of the next "frill of the week" ceratopsian, we get a Leptoceratops, which I don't think anyone has ever made. C

Wild Safari made a leptoceratops a few years ago: http://dinotoyblog.com/2009/10/18/leptoceratops-wild-safari-by-safari-ltd/

Whoops, nevermind, Gwangi beat me to it   

Huh. I thought that was a Toob figure. I'm going to have to keep my eye for one now.