CollectA New for 2017

[japfeif]

I was just stating that if dinosaurs didnt look like the creatures I have been led to believe they were, then I will lose interest in them.

Led to believe by what? The Jurassic Park series? Our perception of dinosaurs has been constantly changing from the very beginning. They are living, breathing animals, not rampaging Hollywood monsters. If you don't accept them for what they really were, then you can't really call yourself a dinosaur fan any more than you can call yourself a shark fan or a gorilla fan if you think the Jaws and King Kong franchises are accurate depictions. 

I do not like birds at all (except owls) and they do not interest me.

What a shame then that birds are dinosaurs. 

I wouldn't blame science if they found it to be fact; I would blame evolution for making them much less cool looking than they could have been. Evolution already failed miserably as far as I am concerned if it truly did trade a great, powerful looking beast like Tyrannosaurus for a pathetic modern day chicken. If anything, I see that as the ultimate opposite of evolution.

If that's how you think evolution works, then I'm afraid you do not understand it at all. Evolution IS science, and it does not give a hoot about arbitrary notions of "cool."

I think  that might be a little unfair. All FlawedCoil said (in a bit of a clumsy way though! haha) was that he/she PREFERRED the look of the "classic" dinosaur. And there is really nothing wrong with that. To be honest, I also "prefer" the look of the classic T.rex without feathers & quills & such that make it look like an oversized chicken. But that is a purely personal preference, the science says other wise & that is the way we need to look at it. I see nothing wrong with personally preferring the look of an animal that many of us grew up with and put on an almost iconic pedestal in our minds. As I said, from a personal standpoint I like the look of unfeathered dinosaurs, even though the actual animals DID have them and it certainly does not make them evolutionary failures based on my personal likes or dislikes. I am a vertebrate zoologist by trade, but I am also a "kid-at-heart" dinosaur fan.

So while FlawedCoil may be a bit overzealous in his/her negative opinions of the classic look of his favorite dinosaurs being changed by the discovery of feathers & quills, it's a bit unfair to declare him as not being a dinosaur fan. Remember, everyone here is a fan to varying degrees or we wouldn't be here, and we all have a right to our opinions on prehistoric models, even if our preferences lean toward aesthetics over scientific accuracy.

[Sim]

The problem is that derived ceratopsians already have large dermal scales covering the area where Psittacosaurus had quills. Genetics need not even play a part when we know it's physically impossible.

Which ceratopsians have scales covering the area where Psittacosaurus has filaments?  The only thing I've seen people refer to is Triceratops skin from over its hips, and while CollectA and Kaiyodo have made ceratopsids with filaments extending onto that area, and people have been calling the filaments "butt fuzz", the filaments of Psittacosaurus are actually ONLY on its tail.

[suspsy]

I was just stating that if dinosaurs didnt look like the creatures I have been led to believe they were, then I will lose interest in them.

Led to believe by what? The Jurassic Park series? Our perception of dinosaurs has been constantly changing from the very beginning. They are living, breathing animals, not rampaging Hollywood monsters. If you don't accept them for what they really were, then you can't really call yourself a dinosaur fan any more than you can call yourself a shark fan or a gorilla fan if you think the Jaws and King Kong franchises are accurate depictions. 

I do not like birds at all (except owls) and they do not interest me.

What a shame then that birds are dinosaurs. 

I wouldn't blame science if they found it to be fact; I would blame evolution for making them much less cool looking than they could have been. Evolution already failed miserably as far as I am concerned if it truly did trade a great, powerful looking beast like Tyrannosaurus for a pathetic modern day chicken. If anything, I see that as the ultimate opposite of evolution.

If that's how you think evolution works, then I'm afraid you do not understand it at all. Evolution IS science, and it does not give a hoot about arbitrary notions of "cool."

I think  that might be a little unfair. All FlawedCoil said (in a bit of a clumsy way though! haha) was that he/she PREFERRED the look of the "classic" dinosaur. And there is really nothing wrong with that. To be honest, I also "prefer" the look of the classic T.rex without feathers & quills & such that make it look like an oversized chicken. But that is a purely personal preference, the science says other wise & that is the way we need to look at it. I see nothing wrong with personally preferring the look of an animal that many of us grew up with and put on an almost iconic pedestal in our minds. As I said, from a personal standpoint I like the look of unfeathered dinosaurs, even though the actual animals DID have them and it certainly does not make them evolutionary failures based on my personal likes or dislikes. I am a vertebrate zoologist by trade, but I am also a "kid-at-heart" dinosaur fan.

So while FlawedCoil may be a bit overzealous in his/her negative opinions of the classic look of his favorite dinosaurs being changed by the discovery of feathers & quills, it's a bit unfair to declare him as not being a dinosaur fan. Remember, everyone here is a fan to varying degrees or we wouldn't be here, and we all have a right to our opinions on prehistoric models, even if our preferences lean toward aesthetics over scientific accuracy.

I stand by my words. I have no quarter for the notion that "science ruined dinosaurs," in any form. It's no different from insisting on the false image of great white sharks as relentless serial killers with endless appetites, or the false image of wolves as demonic marauders that creep at night to murder children in their sleep.

[stargatedalek]

The problem is that derived ceratopsians already have large dermal scales covering the area where Psittacosaurus had quills. Genetics need not even play a part when we know it's physically impossible.

Which ceratopsians have scales covering the area where Psittacosaurus has filaments?  The only thing I've seen people refer to is Triceratops skin from over its hips, and while CollectA and Kaiyodo have made ceratopsids with filaments extending onto that area, and people have been calling the filaments "butt fuzz", the filaments of Psittacosaurus are actually ONLY on its tail.

I can't find a diagram, but from descriptions the Lane impressions cover the majority of surface area over the hips, and the scales and patterns closely resemble similar smaller sections from Chasmosaurus indicating this was a relatively widespread pattern of dermal integument among derived ceratopsians. The only particularly unique feature of the Triceratops impressions is the raised sections on some of the scales.

The integument of Psittacosaurus is actually epidermal, they extend significantly below the skin. This means that they couldn't have grown on derived ceratopsians unless there were accommodating patches of bare skin for them to anchor into. They are not analogues in any way to the raised scales of Triceratops, and are impossible in the placements they are typically given.

While it certainly isn't impossible that they could have been present along the areas of derived ceratopsians where we lack scale impressions, there is also no reason they couldn't have been present in ornithopods or thyreophorans where we don't have scale impressions. Since there is no reason to assume these structures are something that the common ancestor of Psittacosaurus and derived ceratopsians shared, let alone shared in exclusivity if they are a shared trait, it's not particularly more likely they were on derived ceratopsians than on any other ornithopod.

[Reptilia]

I'm always amazed on how bitter people can get when their personal convinctions are touched by other people's opinions and/or likings. And that happens even when those other people are not talking directly to said "sensitive" people. That's the internet folks.

[stargatedalek]

I'm always amazed on how bitter people can get when their personal convinctions are touched by other people's opinions and/or likings. And that happens even when those other people are not talking directly to said "sensitive" people. That's the internet folks.

While I share the sentiment others have voiced that someone is free to prefer whatever they wish, he did make other comments that were fully worthy of the relatively light chastising he received.

[Reptilia]

Fair enough. Better move back to the actual topic.

[Stuckasaurus (Dino Dad Reviews)]

I think some people feel like a lack of quills on large ceratopsians is somehow contradictory to the quills on Psittacosaurus. However, it's now a well-known fact that the scutes on the upper sides of bird feet are in fact genetically deactivated feathers, so technically they're still there. The bristles may have simply been deactivated and morphed into scales.

[Viergacht]

Ugh, companies that make flash catalogs need to be taken out behind the barn and spanked.

[RobinGoodfellow]

Ugh, companies that make flash catalogs need to be taken out behind the barn and spanked.

You can see the 2017 Collecta catalogue in PDF if you prefer.
Just click on the download icon....

http://www.collecta.biz/catalogue/files/assets/common/downloads/publication.pdf

( also the Safari 2017 catalogue is available in PDF: https://www.safariltd.com/files/catalog/2017%20SAFARI%20LTD%20CATALOG.pdf
  and Papo:  http://www.papo-france.com/catalogue/2017/Catalogue-2017.pdf )

[Shonisaurus]

Ugh, companies that make flash catalogs need to be taken out behind the barn and spanked.

You can see the 2017 Collecta catalogue in PDF if you prefer.
Just click on the download icon....

http://www.collecta.biz/catalogue/files/assets/common/downloads/publication.pdf

( also the Safari 2017 catalogue is available in PDF: https://www.safariltd.com/files/catalog/2017%20SAFARI%20LTD%20CATALOG.pdf
  and Papo:  http://www.papo-france.com/catalogue/2017/Catalogue-2017.pdf )

Thanks to RobinGoodfellow, the Collecta catalog is a gift for the eyes.

On the other hand can be seen from several angles to the uintatherium and it seems to me a magnificent figure, is one of the preferred prehistoric mammals.

[Viergacht]

Thanks, Robin! Much easier to look at.

[suspsy]

It certainly would be marvellous if Matthias Geiger would grace us with his talented presence here.

And damn, there really are a lot of horse figures in this catalog. Truly amazing how popular these animals are. I've never had much interest in them myself.

[Reptilia]

Collecta's website is updated with the new 2017 models. Not a fan of their quilled ceratopsians but I must admit that the Styracosaurus is rather impressive.

[suspsy]

Here's a heap of photos from the Hong Kong Toy Fair:

https://www.facebook.com/monsterhousehk/posts/1356561197729544

[Flaffy]

Here's a heap of photos from the Hong Kong Toy Fair:

https://www.facebook.com/monsterhousehk/posts/1356561197729544

Ehhh... Sad times, under 18, can't go...
Well anyways, time for thoughts and opinions:
Styracosaurus: Not bad, but boring colours
Uintatherium: Clearly a male, colours on the face look a little smudged, but still a very nice figure
Regaliceratops: Pretty ceratopsian, is there something wrong with the front feet fingers?
Einiosaurus: Another beautiful representation of this peculiar ceratopsian.
Gigantspinosaurus: A lot better than expected, love the colours
Basilosaurus: Might just get this one, just so I can say I have a basilosaurus in my collection
Excalibosaurus: Your friendly neighbourhood sword mouth icthyosaur, got nice gloss
Kronosaurus: Is it just me or does the teeth seem shorter and blunter? Safety reasons?
Deinocherius: Same as last year, just a little bigger and tilted head.
Toob: looks even better then the promo pics, must have.
Dimorphodon: Give. It. To. Me. Now.

[Shonisaurus]

Here's a heap of photos from the Hong Kong Toy Fair:

https://www.facebook.com/monsterhousehk/posts/1356561197729544

The figures look magnificent, but they can not be appreciated because the photographs are quite dark.

The uintatherium does not disappoint, it does look small at first glance although I think it will be the best made in the toy market to date.

The deinocheirus and kronosaurus can not be appreciated well, although that yes the kronosaurus unfortunately you see much the seam of your articulated jaw.

The miniatures of prehistoric marine life are great are better figures than the prototype.

After the giganspinosaurus has made me reconciled with his figure looks better than promotional photography.

The einiosaurus and regaliceratops look even better than the promotional figures.

Regarding styracosaurus I sincerely like your promotional figure but it is still only a photograph.

As far as the basilosaurus is concerned, it is seen that the size within the fits is considerable, being on a standard scale large although that does look very thin though it is more plausible than its propaganda figure.

As for the dimorphodon I really like that you can see the seams of the articulated jaw and my opinion is the same as the dimorphodon without it so that it can surpass even the guidraco.

The excalibosaurus is the same as the promotional figure so it is perhaps one of the less showy figures. Well done but its standard size takes away the spell that could have a ichthyosaurido with a larger scale.

Conclusion. Undoubtedly, it is an important year for Collecta and shows his genius and creative ingenuity and as a company capable of facing the best challenges from a toy point of view not only now but in the following years.

I finish to thank Suspsy for these great photos of facebook. Thanks for sharing.

[Reptilia]

Styracosaurus, Uintatherium, Dimorphodon and Kronosaurus are simply outstanding models. Really tempted to get them all, in due time. Collecta is getting better every year, they could just discontinue all of their pre-2013 catalogue and still have a strong and consistent range for their prehistoric line.

[suspsy]

The Styracosaurus looks like a true beast. I can't wait to have it dwarfing all my other ceratopsians.

The Uintatherium also looks gigantic compared to the lovely Regaliceratops. Einiosaurus and Gigantspinosaurus also look good.

The Kronosaurus looks even better at that angle. Sure hope the Excalibosaurus I order doesn't have a warped snout like that.

Nice how the Leedsichthys is the largest figure in the aquatic tube. Sure will be fun to have that one.

[tanystropheus]

I like the shiny surface on the Excalibosaurus.

The ceratopsians are a huge improvement over the previous years, especially in terms of paint job and proportions. The snouts still look a bit longish, but I'm no expert on dinosaur anatomy.

CollectA has been consistent in delivering some of the finest marine reptiles/mammals and prehistoric mammals in the market. This year is no exception. Great to see a mainstream quality company deliver a Uintatherium (as opposed to Geoworld).

I'm undecided on the Basilosaurus. It looks quite amazing, but I am more than pleased with the PNSO version. If PNSO didn't release the Basilosaurus, CollectA would easily take the crown. However, CollectA does have the best budget Basilo in the market. Missed opportunity, Mojo 

I'm also looking forward to the Leedsichthys. I would like to see Leedsichthys achieve Dunk status in the prehistoric toys market.

The Dimorphodon is an improvement over the Guidraco; the black beady eyes give it a lifelike quality.

Why doe the Dimorphodon have the same color scheme as the Gigantspinosaurus? [Are they taking a page from Papo's book (e.g. RRR, Rainbow Standing Rex, Rainbow Raptor and Rainbow Acro)]

CollectA's Deinocheirus models are on par with Safari Ltd. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't CollectA already release this version??