Schleich New for 2017

[Sim]

Really? You think those three are better than the Acro? I mean, yes, they're all bad, but at least the Therizinosaurus and the Giganotosaurus have active poses.

I think the Acrocanthosaurus looks very bad, but that those three are worse than it (not better - I'm guessing that's a typo in your post).  The Acrocanthosaurus at least appears to generally have the basic anatomy of the animal it's based on, in cartoony form.  The Velociraptor, Therizinosaurus and Giganotosaurus look much further from reality than the Acro in that regard, their heads for example look much more off than the Acro's in terms of anatomy.  I also feel their heads have more obnoxious expressions than the Acro's.  The Schleich Velociraptor, Therizinosaurus and Giganotosaurus all have pronated hands too, while the Acro doesn't.

I don't like the Acrocanthosaurus's pose, but it looks like it's rearing which looks more natural than the poses of some of Schleich's other figures like their Velociraptor, some of which are in especially atrocious poses (e.g. this one that looks like it's melting, particularly in the photos showing it from the front/behind: http://toyseum.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/velociraptor-schleich-small-version-2015.html).  I find the Schleich Giga you posted has a worse pose than the Acro.  Besides the Giga's forelimbs being held in such a weird way, the way its tail spirals down to the ground looks very unnatural and I find it ruins the active pose.  It looks terrible.  To me the rearing pose of the Schleich Therizinosaurus looks better than the Acro's, a lot due due to at least some therizinosaurs naturally having a more upright posture.  But the Schleich Therizinosaurus's head looks really bad, instead of a beak it looks like it has a claw growing at the end of its snout.

[Shonisaurus]

From my point of view it seems even worse the acrocanthosaurus although it is necessary to recognize that the therizinosaurus precisely is not good but on the contrary, it is not a figure of a collector, the velociraptor for the children within which it fits is acceptable (not For a collector) and the giganotosaurus from my point of view despite its inaccuracies is not of the worst theropods made by Schleich.

But the acrocanthosaurus is a pretty bad figure to me and I'm sorry to say that for Schleich's followers there were even less bad old theropod figures from the same factory when they were made for the Humbold Museum. From my honest point of view the acrocanthosaurus is a figure that are sold in the chinese pipe shops. It seems purposely done by Schleich to disqualify himself and I have to say that the new version of kentrosaurus is a well-made figure.

The problem that Schleich has and has always had is that its weak point is the theropods. However, even if it is intended for children, Schleich's figures could have been fixed in other companies to make a figure more lenient to criticism.

[Sim]

the velociraptor for the children within which it fits is acceptable (not For a collector)

I disagree.  I think continuing to represent Velociraptor with Jurassic Park-inspired versions is shameful.  It propagates a false image rather than reality.  If you're a company making dinosaur figures which you market as educational/realistic, then you should make your actions reflect your words.  Schleich is really failing in this area.  Making Velociraptor figures based on the Jurassic Park designs shows Schleich hasn't done even the minimum research required or doesn't care about how wrong these figures are.

A complete skull and a sickle claw are the remains which Velociraptor mongoliensis was named on, back in 1924.  So it's always been known what the skull of Velociraptor looks like.  The Jurassic Park Velociraptor are not a valid representation of Velociraptor, and I don't think ever were.  Their head looks so different from Velociraptor's that there is no way they could ever be in the same genus.  Gregory Paul considered Deinonychus another species of Velociraptor, but from what I've seen when he did that in the 1990s, he also incorrectly reconstructed the skull of Deinonychus as Velociraptor-like.  Gregory Paul has considered Deinonychus valid and not a species of Velociraptor for a long time now, and he's also finally been reconstructing the skull of Deinonychus accurately.

The Jurassic Park Velociraptor head seems to be based on the inaccurate Deinonychus skull reconstruction from a 1969 monograph by John Ostrom.  Unfortunately, as Scott Hartman said here http://comments.deviantart.com/1/310579803/3856543350 , bones in that skull reconstruction don't even match up to the real bones of Deinonychus which are shown in the same monograph.  For example, the upper jaw bones in the skull reconstruction are much deeper than they are shown to be in the monograph two pages later.  The skull reconstruction in the monograph is also too short and too wide and has the eyes pointing sideways.  In reality, the eyes of Deinonychus and Velociraptor point mainly forward, enhancing their binocular vision.  The Jurassic Park Velociraptor head has all these inaccuracies from the 1969 skull reconstruction.

I think that a toy company making a Velociraptor based on those from the JP franchise shows the company doesn't care about giving children a figure that actually represents the animal.  To keep making these figures that are so obviously wrong (it's very easy to find good references for Velociraptor's skull, even Papo managed to when they made their feathered Velociraptor) and so obviously copying the work of those behind the JP Velociraptor designs leaves me feeling that Schleich is quite amoral and cheap.

It gets worse though because in addition to the above, Schleich makes their Velociraptor figures inferior to the JP franchise Velociraptor.  Schleich's mini Velociraptor, for example, has a hideous head that doesn't look like that of Velociraptor, Deinonychus or the JP Velociraptor.  It doesn't even have the sickle claws, you know, the distinctive feature these dinosaurs are famous for.  This is just rubbish, there's nothing that even makes one think this figure is of a dromaeosaurid.  Appearance-wise, if this is acceptable for children, then any dinosaur toy is as you can't really get worse than this.

Schleich's Velociraptor figures are useless as Velociraptor representations, and only work slightly better for Deinonychus as very bad representatives of it.  Personally, I think children deserve better than Schleich's awful Velociraptor figures which spread such extreme misrepresentation by copying the inaccuracies of the JP Velociraptor with Schleich then adding more inaccuracies.  If I were a kid I wouldn't be happy with how unpleasant and inaccurate Schleich's Velociraptor are.

[Shonisaurus]

the velociraptor for the children within which it fits is acceptable (not For a collector)

I disagree.  I think continuing to represent Velociraptor with Jurassic Park-inspired versions is shameful.  It propagates a false image rather than reality.  If you're a company making dinosaur figures which you market as educational/realistic, then you should make your actions reflect your words.  Schleich is really failing in this area.  Making Velociraptor figures based on the Jurassic Park designs shows Schleich hasn't done even the minimum research required or doesn't care about how wrong these figures are.

A complete skull and a sickle claw are the remains which Velociraptor mongoliensis was named on, back in 1924.  So it's always been known what the skull of Velociraptor looks like.  The Jurassic Park Velociraptor are not a valid representation of Velociraptor, and I don't think ever were.  Their head looks so different from Velociraptor's that there is no way they could ever be in the same genus.  Gregory Paul considered Deinonychus another species of Velociraptor, but from what I've seen when he did that in the 1990s, he also incorrectly reconstructed the skull of Deinonychus as Velociraptor-like.  Gregory Paul has considered Deinonychus valid and not a species of Velociraptor for a long time now, and he's also finally been reconstructing the skull of Deinonychus accurately.

The Jurassic Park Velociraptor head seems to be based on the inaccurate Deinonychus skull reconstruction from a 1969 monograph by John Ostrom.  Unfortunately, as Scott Hartman said here http://comments.deviantart.com/1/310579803/3856543350 , bones in that skull reconstruction don't even match up to the real bones of Deinonychus which are shown in the same monograph.  For example, the upper jaw bones in the skull reconstruction are much deeper than they are shown to be in the monograph two pages later.  The skull reconstruction in the monograph is also too short and too wide and has the eyes pointing sideways.  In reality, the eyes of Deinonychus and Velociraptor point mainly forward, enhancing their binocular vision.  The Jurassic Park Velociraptor head has all these inaccuracies from the 1969 skull reconstruction.

I think that a toy company making a Velociraptor based on those from the JP franchise shows the company doesn't care about giving children a figure that actually represents the animal.  To keep making these figures that are so obviously wrong (it's very easy to find good references for Velociraptor's skull, even Papo managed to when they made their feathered Velociraptor) and so obviously copying the work of those behind the JP Velociraptor designs leaves me feeling that Schleich is quite amoral and cheap.

It gets worse though because in addition to the above, Schleich makes their Velociraptor figures inferior to the JP franchise Velociraptor.  Schleich's mini Velociraptor, for example, has a hideous head that doesn't look like that of Velociraptor, Deinonychus or the JP Velociraptor.  It doesn't even have the sickle claws, you know, the distinctive feature these dinosaurs are famous for.  This is just rubbish, there's nothing that even makes one think this figure is of a dromaeosaurid.  Appearance-wise, if this is acceptable for children, then any dinosaur toy is as you can't really get worse than this.

Schleich's Velociraptor figures are useless as Velociraptor representations, and only work slightly better for Deinonychus as very bad representatives of it.  Personally, I think children deserve better than Schleich's awful Velociraptor figures which spread such extreme misrepresentation by copying the inaccuracies of the JP Velociraptor with Schleich then adding more inaccuracies.  If I were a kid I wouldn't be happy with how unpleasant and inaccurate Schleich's Velociraptor are.

I absolutely do not advocate velociraptor Schleich but the parents of the children although I know it is not educational that figure is bought first because it is very economical. A child is satisfied with nothing, but that is not to say that I defend the velociraptor Schleich but compared to therizinosaurus and acrocanthosaurus is less bad than those successors in the toy market.

On the other hand I agree that a company of the category of Schleich and that has a great predicament in the market make figures so unfortunate more bearing in mind that if you want you can do good like kentrosaurus (both versions) and in smaller Measure the pentaceratops and the dunkleosteus. To me sincerely it is the line of toys that less interest to me from the point of view of coleccionsita but it is not a pity that they do not make figures mainly of theropods a little better.

I understand that it could be Schleich if he wanted a leading company in the making of figures of dinosaurs (as many of the toy industry) and I have said that many times, but unfortunately they are not interested since their sales are optimal and unfortunately the opinion that We present the members of the forum will be indifferent.

But what I said between the bad (velociraptor) and the worst (therizinosaurus or acrocanthosaurus) I'm left with the least bad, but I do not want his figure to be good but acceptable inside Schleich's theropods (if that's called That acceptable figure within which we are collectors) and even if it is not educational for its paleontological inaccuracies and poor details, for children and especially for their parents who are the ones who buy them serves as a game, but what is said for collectors As it is my case does not serve and I say it with all my respect.

I do not understand how a company like Schleich that is originally from Germany is not at the same level as companies from the United States, Great Britain, Japan, China or France to give a few examples but it is also to be noted that it is the most successful. Unfortunately that is what there is and at all I do not defend Schleich's figures but you have to be realistic.

[suspsy]

Really? You think those three are better than the Acro? I mean, yes, they're all bad, but at least the Therizinosaurus and the Giganotosaurus have active poses.

I think the Acrocanthosaurus looks very bad, but that those three are worse than it (not better - I'm guessing that's a typo in your post).

Yes, that's a typo, whoops.

Bottom line, with rare exceptions like the Dunkleosteus and the Kentrosaurus, Schleich's Deluxe figures continue to be painfully bad. They're the McDonald's of dinosaur toys.

[Lanthanotus]

Bless the internet that allows me to buy all those great figures from other companies online, as I live right in the middle of Schleich country where other companies aren't retailed which is insufferable if you are not a recent animal figure collector.

(Well, there's one improbable shop in a tiny village 25 km from here, that has a massive Schleich shelf - as people demand those figures - but also retails a small, but well sorted collection of Papos and CollectAs, lucky me, each time I visit that gem of German toy shops)

[BlueKrono]

I think those arguing that certain brands are unacceptable for children because of lack of scientific accuracy forget what it was like to be a child. The main preoccupation on most childrens' minds is whether or not the figure is fun to play with or not. They could care less if the scutes are misplaced or if it has the wrong number of toes. Toys that light up and make noise, have articulation, or are just a solid hunk of plastic can all be fun for a child depending on their imagination, but scientific accuracy is almost never a consideration to a youngster. I can understand the argument that parents might want to purchase and give their children accurate representations to support companies who produce such figures and encourage scientific research when producing figures, but I really think children couldn't care less. Kids like horses and unicorns, dinosaurs and dragons.

[stargatedalek]

I think those arguing that certain brands are unacceptable for children because of lack of scientific accuracy forget what it was like to be a child. The main preoccupation on most childrens' minds is whether or not the figure is fun to play with or not. They could care less if the scutes are misplaced or if it has the wrong number of toes. Toys that light up and make noise, have articulation, or are just a solid hunk of plastic can all be fun for a child depending on their imagination, but scientific accuracy is almost never a consideration to a youngster. I can understand the argument that parents might want to purchase and give their children accurate representations to support companies who produce such figures and encourage scientific research when producing figures, but I really think children couldn't care less. Kids like horses and unicorns, dinosaurs and dragons.

It's not that children care or not, it's that companies like Schleich are claiming to be educational. They charge frankly ludicrous prices for sub-par quality toys because they market them to "discerning" parents and teachers. If they claimed to be "just making fun toys for kids" than fine, that'd be that, but they're lying and deceiving people and that deserves to be called out.

When I was little I really only cared about quality control, I think most kids are probably the same way. It's not easy for kids to know what something is meant to look like, but it's pretty easy to know when somethings eyes are painted on its forehead, or when the paint from the teeth is lazily slopped all over the lips.

[Reptilia]

Totally agree with BlueKrono, toys are just toys, and kids want to have fun with them. This obsession for scientific accuracy is just a thing going on here, the biggest part of customers of prehistoric toys, and I would underline the words biggest part, doesn't care at all about such things, most parents don't really care. As already said many times before claims like "educational toys" are just a marketing formula, nothing more. Be sure that children with real interest in dinosaurs and prehistory will easily find out how a Velociraptor or a Tyrannosaurus would have looked like, I personally believe that's quite stupid to think that Schleich or whatever other company have a real power to corrupt young minds. It's fine to criticize Schleich products from a collector's perspective, I'm the first to say that their prehistoric figures are horrible, but all the rest sounds rather ridicolous to me.

[Sim]

I think those arguing that certain brands are unacceptable for children because of lack of scientific accuracy forget what it was like to be a child. The main preoccupation on most childrens' minds is whether or not the figure is fun to play with or not. They could care less if the scutes are misplaced or if it has the wrong number of toes. Toys that light up and make noise, have articulation, or are just a solid hunk of plastic can all be fun for a child depending on their imagination, but scientific accuracy is almost never a consideration to a youngster. I can understand the argument that parents might want to purchase and give their children accurate representations to support companies who produce such figures and encourage scientific research when producing figures, but I really think children couldn't care less. Kids like horses and unicorns, dinosaurs and dragons.

When I was little I could tell when Velociraptor toys had the right head shape for Velociraptor and when they didn't.  I imagine children who are very interested in dinosaurs would be able to tell too as there's a clear difference.  Even back then I didn't like when Velociraptor toys had an incorrect head shape, and I cared about my prehistoric animal toys being reasonably accurate.  I wouldn't have thought about it like that, instead as a child I found the more accurate figures looked better, more convincing and realistic.  For example, I found my Battat Tyrannosaurus looked superior in those ways to my green Carnegie Tyrannosaurus.  Looking back now, I can see the dinosaur toys I had as a kid that I enjoyed most were the more accurate ones.  So I think some kids care about a reasonable level of accuracy.

For the children who don't care about the accuracy of a prehistoric animal toy... I think if they're going to get a newly made dinosaur toy, it's probably better it does a good job at representing an amazing animal that actually lived, allowing a child to experience that and possibly learn from it, than for the toy to be a very bad representation that can mislead and give a child incorrect ideas of prehistoric life.

I'm not sure if you were referring to me BlueKrono, but I never said any brand was unacceptable for children.  I expressed my feeling that children deserve better dinosaur toys than some that Schleich makes.  I also don't think perfect accuracy is needed for a dinosaur toy to be a good representation, but that a certain amount is needed.

Be sure that children with real interest in dinosaurs and prehistory will easily find out how a Velociraptor or a Tyrannosaurus would have looked like, I personally believe that's quite stupid to think that Schleich or whatever other company have a real power to corrupt young minds. It's fine to criticize Schleich products from a collector's perspective, I'm the first to say that their prehistoric figures are horrible, but all the rest sounds rather ridicolous to me.

Genuine question here, who are you calling stupid?  Also, you think what I've said in this discussion is ridiculous?  Why do you feel the need to insult someone else when expressing your disagreement?

[stargatedalek]

Totally agree with BlueKrono, toys are just toys, and kids want to have fun with them. This obsession for scientific accuracy is just a thing going on here, the biggest part of customers of prehistoric toys, and I would underline the words biggest part, doesn't care at all about such things, most parents don't really care. As already said many times before claims like "educational toys" are just a marketing formula, nothing more. Be sure that children with real interest in dinosaurs and prehistory will easily find out how a Velociraptor or a Tyrannosaurus would have looked like, I personally believe that's quite stupid to think that Schleich or whatever other company have a real power to corrupt young minds. It's fine to criticize Schleich products from a collector's perspective, I'm the first to say that their prehistoric figures are horrible, but all the rest sounds rather ridicolous to me.

So it's fine to lie to people? It doesn't matter if the children care or not, they're lying and taking advantage of parents and educators, manipulating them into paying outrageous prices.

If a car company claims their car is environmentally friendly when it isn't any more than any other car, even since "environmentally friendly" as an adjective is actually meaningless since it includes no point of objective comparison, that could still be deemed false advertising in a court or at the very least would be called out widescale. So why is calling out Schleich for lying making us "stupid"? It's wrong for companies to lie, let alone about something so serious as education, let alone about educating young impressionable children.

Sure younger versions of many members here would recognize Schleich as the garbage it is, but what about the kid who only briefly glances at the toys as the teacher shows them off? What about the kid who briefly looks through the educational section at Toys R Us and sees these things next to science kits? Putting such atrocious toys on a huge pedestal and making them most businesses poster child of education thanks to Schleich's omnipresent brand is despicable, nothing less.

[Reptilia]

Genuine question here, who are you calling stupid?  Also, you think what I've said in this discussion is ridiculous?  Why do you feel the need to insult someone else when expressing your disagreement?

I answer with another question: why do you feel offended? I didn't call you or anybody else stupid, I just said that "I personally believe that's quite stupid to think that Schleich have a real power to corrupt young minds", and that I find this whole idea ridicolous. I didn't say that you are stupid or ridicolous, it's substantially different. You're not the only one having such idea, so I don't understand why you take it on a personal level, I didn't even quote anything you said, I only talked in general expressing what I think. So I don't feel the need to insult anybody, really. And I'll add that I find those accusations against Schleich quite boring, you can keep on expressing your disdain for Schleich as much as I can say that I'm bored, with no insult involved.

[Sim]

Genuine question here, who are you calling stupid?  Also, you think what I've said in this discussion is ridiculous?  Why do you feel the need to insult someone else when expressing your disagreement?

I answer with another question: why do you feel offended? I didn't call you or anybody else stupid, I just said that "I personally believe that's quite stupid to think that Schleich have a real power to corrupt young minds", and that I find this whole idea ridicolous. I didn't say that you are stupid or ridicolous, it's substantially different. You're not the only one having such idea, so I don't understand why you take it on a personal level, I didn't even quote anything you said, I only talked in general expressing what I think. So I don't feel the need to insult anybody, really. And I'll add that I find those accusations against Schleich quite boring, you can keep on expressing your disdain for Schleich as much as I can say that I'm bored, with no insult involved.

You just admitted you think I've been stupid and ridiculous.  As for why I feel offended and take it on a personal level... Well, I believe it's wrong to be abusive towards others for valid and fair opinions they hold, and it did seem you were referring to me which I asked about and you then admitted you were saying those things to me.  The fact I'm among those you were referring to means I'm among those you said were being stupid and ridiculous. I don't know why you'd think someone wouldn't mind being called those things if they aren't the only person you're saying them to.  And saying someone is being stupid/ridiculous is a form of calling them stupid/ridiculous.  I'm not hurt by what you said, as I see it's narrow-minded and without a basic level of respect, but I'm fed up with your rude comments.

If you don't feel the need to insult anyone, then you should consider the fact that you have been insulting people by saying things they've done are stupid or ridiculous.  What I find boring are posts like yours, that dismiss well-grounded criticism of Schleich's prehistoric figures but can't provide what's required for the dismissing, and which make unprovoked attacks towards others.  You're coming across as not being able to respect other people's opinions, with a tendency to make offensive comments when expressing your disdain.

As already said many times before claims like "educational toys" are just a marketing formula, nothing more.

I don't remember this being said many times before, I remember it being suggested only once.  And even if among the companies that claim to make educational toys, companies like Schleich and Papo keep making some new figures that are the opposite of educational, companies like Safari are making genuinely educational toys, so it is more than just a marketing formula.

[BlueKrono]

Sim - My comment wasn't referring to anything you had said; I think it was something Shonisaurus said earlier about them being unacceptable for children. I think you were one of the rare children who did care about accuracy - I think most of the little minions don't. Totally agree with you that there is better stuff out there than Schleich.

Stargatedalek - You have a valid point. Misrepresenting yourself as an "educational" company is reprehensible when you're putting out what Schleich is offering.

[Reptilia]

Sim, I wasn't trying to interact with you with my first comment. I thought that it was pretty clear cause, I repeat, I didn't quote you or called your name. I'm entitled to think that an argument is stupid or ridicolous, if you feel offended because you think that such argument is valid I don't know exactly what to do. You want me to apologize? Ok, sorry if I said that I think that this argument is stupid, ridicolous and boring. But I'll say it again, I didn't call you stupid. Seems like you want to read in my words personal insults at any cost, whereas I only expressed my thought in general, regardless of whoever has the opposite opinion. And finally, if you think my comments are rude and narrow-minded just ignore them instead of talking directly to me. End of the discussion for me.

[Neosodon]

Weather or not something is exceptable or not is ultimately up to the buyer but in my opinion shleich is only exceptable for toddlers. And it's not just nit picky scientific accuracy that's the problem. Many of shleich's figures are so hideous they don't even look like a real animals. Even when I was 6 I would try and look for realistic figures. Most kids older than 7 could easily tell the difference between safari's and shleich's Giganotosaurus.

Also when the general public walks into stores and see's shleich crap on the shelves being advertised as scientifically accurate models it will lower their overall opinion of dinosaurs and replicas. Schleich has helped contribute to the stereotype that dinosaurs are just fantasy monsters for children.

[BlueKrono]

Unless my perception of horses is way off, their extant animals aren't too bad.

[Shonisaurus]

It must be recognized that at least his kentrosaurus are quite good figures.

[stargatedalek]

It must be recognized that at least his kentrosaurus are quite good figures.

It only looks good because good Stegosaurs are very rare, and so even a bad one can look good.

[Nanuqsaurus]

Unless my perception of horses is way off, their extant animals aren't too bad.

I'm quite a big fan of Schleich's extant animals, they have some really outstanding figures. Sadly it seems the dinosaurs are not made by the same sculptor, otherwise we'd have some amazing dinosaur figures from Schleich. The dinosaur sculptor doesn't seem to understand the difference between animals and monsters.