CollectA New for 2017

[spinosaurus1]

a video that compares the safari kronosaurus with the collectA kronosaurus. imo, the kronosaurus from collectA visually speaking, does seem to be the superior sculpt. not to dis the safari version, as it still remains the more accurate sculpt, but really, that collectA kronosaurus looks very good

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INB123CxK90

[Sim]

I prefer the Wild Safari Kronosaurus.  It gets the dentition correct which is commendable, particularly since dentition inaccuracies in Kronosaurus reconstructions are widespread.  I find the dentition inaccuracy of the CollectA Kronosaurus noticeable, not so much because of the extra pair of teeth, but due to the absence of the gap in the tooth row between the premaxillary and maxillary teeth.  It doesn't make it look bad, but I find the head of the CollectA represents a kind of outdated Kronosaurus I've been used to seeing, while the WS's head represents a modern and accurate Kronosaurus.

I also prefer the WS Krono's skin.  The CollectA Krono's skin looks weird to me with how it's covered in creases especially the prominent creases under the neck, and having rounded bumps randomly on its skin.  Having an articulated jaw can be nice, but in this case I prefer the smooth, seamless underside of the WS Krono.  The CollectA's articulated jaw leaves a conspicuous seam on the underside of its lower jaw.

For the colour scheme, I don't like both of their colourations but I prefer the WS's to the CollectA's.  I don't think the CollectA Kronosaurus is a bad figure, but I think the WS Krono is the better representation of this animal.

[Shonisaurus]

I prefer the Wild Safari Kronosaurus.  It gets the dentition correct which is commendable, particularly since dentition inaccuracies in Kronosaurus reconstructions are widespread.  I find the dentition inaccuracy of the CollectA Kronosaurus noticeable, not so much because of the extra pair of teeth, but due to the absence of the gap in the tooth row between the premaxillary and maxillary teeth.  It doesn't make it look bad, but I find the head of the CollectA represents a kind of outdated Kronosaurus I've been used to seeing, while the WS's head represents a modern and accurate Kronosaurus.

I also prefer the WS Krono's skin.  The CollectA Krono's skin looks weird to me with how it's covered in creases especially the prominent creases under the neck, and having rounded bumps randomly on its skin.  Having an articulated jaw can be nice, but in this case I prefer the smooth, seamless underside of the WS Krono.  The CollectA's articulated jaw leaves a conspicuous seam on the underside of its lower jaw.

For the colour scheme, I don't like both of their colourations but I prefer the WS's to the CollectA's.  I don't think the CollectA Kronosaurus is a bad figure, but I think the WS Krono is the better representation of this animal.

Yes I totally agree with you the kronosaurus Collecta is very good but the Safari is more accurate from the scientific point of view and therefore much better.

[suspsy]

Nope. The WS may be marginally more accurate, but that doesn't make it inherently better. Better is purely in the eye of the beholder. Plenty of people in this thread have expressed their preference for the CollectA version. It'd be nice if this issue could be dropped already. It's become tedious and pointless.

[tanystropheus]

a video that compares the safari kronosaurus with the collectA kronosaurus. imo, the kronosaurus from collectA visually speaking, does seem to be the superior sculpt. not to dis the safari version, as it still remains the more accurate sculpt, but really, that collectA kronosaurus looks very good

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INB123CxK90

I suppose the WS Kronosaurus appears too polished...this video just makes me wish that PNSO continues to make prehistoric marine reptiles and mammals. The difference in detail and overall realism is quite apparent in the video.

The CollectA Mosasarus with the whale shark color scheme is also quite pleasant. I would have picked it up if I hadn't already purchased the Sideshow version.

[terrorchicken]

the JW mosasaur was probably the only good figure they made from that line, its actually pretty nice!

I cant decide which kronosaurus I prefer. I feel like they both have equal amount pros & cons & they cancel each other out. 

[suspsy]

Jason from Minizoo told me that the first wave of CollectA would be available by the end of the week, but that appears to have not been the case. Oh well, perhaps it'll be this week sometime.

[John]

*And as it turns out,it was in this week,rather than delayed by months as I initially thought.

[Reptilia]

Aside the nitpicky detail regarding the dentition error I don't see any other scientific evidence that makes the WS more accurate than the Collecta, so such a minutia doesn't make the WS accurate and the Collecta inaccurate in absolute terms. In fact, as I said in the Papo thread, almost everything we see in these figures is speculation, they can be restored following the most up to date skeletal but the overall appearence is always down to the imagination of the sculptor. These two Kronosaurus models are of the same size, so they make a pretty fitting comparison, but I guess that other than expressing a personal preference we can't determine which one is objectively superior, right?

If we have to play the game here's why I prefer the Collecta Kronosaurus:

1) Colour scheme - The WS sports yet another WWD inspired pattern, Collecta did not make the best possible choice but at least gave a break to that white and blue we've seen so many times before.
2) Proportions - There's something in the WS proportions that makes the head looking too big, Collecta's seems to be slightly more fluid in its pose, and therefore more harmonic in its body shape.
3) Movable jaw - A lot of people might prefer their figures without articulation but for me is always a plus, and a pliosaur with articulated jaw was long due in the toy market.
4) Warping issues - We've only seen one actual Collecta Kronosaurus, from this guy in the video, so he might have been just lucky to get a perfect copy, but we've seen quite a few WS Kronosaurus that are affected by this problem. I suspect that this could be another quality control issue from Safari Ltd, I wouldn't be surprised at all.

[stargatedalek]

In fact, as I said in the Papo thread, almost everything we see in these figures is speculation, they can be restored following the most up to date skeletal but the overall appearence is always down to the imagination of the sculptor.

Saying it doesn't make it true. The sky is green. Is it green yet? No it isn't. That's because there are reasons that the sky isn't green, just like there are reasons that Kronosaurus skull was shaped the way it was. No amount of speculation can be valid if it contradicts known points of data, and we know what Kronosaurus skull looked like.

I'm honestly getting very sick of you repeating this, like everything we've been told is a giant lie and for all we know every dinosaur had giant wings growing out of its bloody eye sockets. There are a lot of things we don't know yes, but there are a lot of things that we do know, and when what we do know is contradicted by a reconstruction that reconstruction can not fall back on "speculation" to justify that deviation from reality.

And no, not everything needs to be 100% exact to reality, but it's still important to acknowledge that reality.

I fail to see how the WS Kronosaurus copies the WWD colour-scheme, let alone pattern. The WWD Liopleurodon is black* and white, with the two colours meeting along the animals flanks relatively parallel to the opening of the jaw. They don't blend, and instead have a rough contrast where the two colours are splotched against each other like an orca or great white shark. There are white markings on the face and rows of white spots along the back ala whale sharks.

* It looks navy blue due to the underwater lighting in some scenes, but when beached on land it is clearly black.

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/walkingpedia/images/c/cb/WWD1x3_Liopleurodon_68.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140316122534
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/dinosaurs/images/7/71/Lioplerodon.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130614235924
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/walkingwithdinos/images/7/74/Image19_-_Copy.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110611121514

http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/u/ss/fQYSUbVfts-T7pS2VP2wnKyN8wxywmXtY0-FwsgxoQrNvelepBpZYlfdosa_7a4TKiob2NUQHNjOVO4ezl7B/

The WS Kronosaurus is predominantly white, with a dark blue tint to the upper black that fades gradually to white, and "mid-blue" asymmetrical markings covering the back, limbs, and head. The patterns are more reminiscent of something like a koi, or even a tiger.

https://minizoosite.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/safari-ltd-diplodocus-303629-copy.png?w=620
http://dinotoyblog.com/dinotoyimages/new_for_2017/kronosaurus_wildsafari.jpg

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yYLOQIskQLQ/maxresdefault.jpg


I'm not saying debating this isn't silly, just please stop saying things that are quantifiably false.

[Reptilia]

In fact, as I said in the Papo thread, almost everything we see in these figures is speculation, they can be restored following the most up to date skeletal but the overall appearence is always down to the imagination of the sculptor.

What in that statement of mine would be wrong, sorry? I only said that when you have an extinct animal restored you can painstakingly recreate the exact proportions from the full skeleton, but isn't the amount of bulk or the colour of integument yet completely speculative? We have mummified prehistoric animals such as mammoths, or fossilized skin and feathering impressions, but those are few and rare exceptions. For the biggest part of prehistoric fauna, and most specifically dinosaurs, all we know are fossilized bones, so would you tell me please what is wrong in saying that a life restoration is mostly speculative?

Aside the nitpicky detail regarding the dentition error I don't see any other scientific evidence that makes the WS more accurate than the Collecta, so such a minutia doesn't make the WS accurate and the Collecta inaccurate in absolute terms.

To me seems that I acknowledged the fact that the Collecta Kronosaurus has an anatomical error in the dentition, but the fact that the WS gets such detail right doesn't make it accurate in absolute terms. My point was, both in this case and on the Papo thread, that when you bring up scientific accuracy in a figure as a plus, you have still to admit that said figure has a big amount of speculation in it. So still not accurate to a certain extent, or possibly inaccurate in its speculative parts.

I fail to see how the WS Kronosaurus copies the WWD colour-scheme, let alone pattern.

Not being english my mother tongue I must have mistaken terms such as colour scheme or pattern. Of course if you describe in detail the actual design of the Liopleurodon from WWD and then that of the WS Kronosaurus you can't tell that Safari copied WWD. In fact I did use the word "inspired" instead of "copied", saying that Wild Safari's is yet another one in the list. And wouldn't you tell that all the following figures are inspired by the WWD Liopleurodon? I'd say they are, but maybe it's just me.













I know that I repeated myself for the most part here, I already had to say basically the same in a previous post where I explained my point of view, but it seems you are ignoring it altogether simply cause you disagree with what I say and you want to prove it wrong. For example I never meant to say anything like "everything we've been told is a giant lie and for all we know every dinosaur had giant wings growing out of its bloody eye sockets". Sorry but build up such a metaphoric exaggeration to discredit my opinion comes across as a silly and poor argumentation. Sounds like you're trying to depict me like some ignorant folk who denies science, which I'm not. I didn't say false things, I only expressed opinions which you happen to disagree with.

[stargatedalek]

I'm not saying that anything can be 100% accurate, what I'm saying is that by that same ruling it's also impossible to be 90% accurate, and any inaccuracy must therefore represent 100% inaccuracy. When something contradicts known facts that isn't speculation anymore, it's just wrong, no matter how much of the rest of it is known or unknown.

Think of it this way, if an animal is only known from one digit, than no matter how well done the rest of that figure is if that digit is wrong it's 100% wrong. Scale that up to most or all of a skeleton being known, and that's a lot more to get wrong that will make the whole thing wrong.

In your previous posts you implied that Papo's figures were passably accurate because nothing will ever be absolute, which is in error because they break the known data for the species they represent. Apologies for getting uppity over this but when you claim something as fact that brings your point up for scrutiny, something can't be an absolute and simultaneously representative of a personal opinion.

I never claimed the WS Kronosaurus was objectively better than the CollectA one, but it is objectively more accurate. And statements like this one;

"Aside the nitpicky detail regarding the dentition error I don't see any other scientific evidence that makes the WS more accurate than the Collecta, so such a minutia doesn't make the WS accurate and the Collecta inaccurate in absolute terms. In fact, as I said in the Papo thread, almost everything we see in these figures is speculation, they can be restored following the most up to date skeletal but the overall appearence is always down to the imagination of the sculptor. "

heavily imply that you were claiming all accuracy is subjective, this is the point I was arguing, not some petty feud over which piece of plastic is "objectively better".

[tanystropheus]

There was a time when Papo figures were regarded as relatively inaccurate. As of now, the recent waves of Papo figures tend to border upon being relatively accurate, especially with respect to the dinosaur toy market at large.

In general, based on observations (and reviewer commentaries), it seems that WS and Favorite are more accurate than Papo, but Papo is more accurate than REBOR and Schleich. In several cases, CollectA models appear to sport the same number of inaccuracies as the Papo (generally 2 or 3 offenses per model). Obviously, there is a permeating bias that exists in the forum. The CollectA Krono (with inaccurate dentition) would be deemed as accurate overall, while the Papo Kapro (with inaccurate dentition) would be deemed as inaccurate overall. PNSO models are hit or miss in terms of accuracy. Some of the models are more or less interpretations (e.g. Megalodon, Basilosaurus or Nyctosaurus) and are neither accurate nor inaccurate, in and of itself (however, they are carefully researched).

[RobinGoodfellow]

..I'm sorry but, from my personal point of view, this entire accurate/inaccurate things has became quite repetitive and boring in total.

Collecting figures should be an hobby (aka relax) not an endless fight against toy companies and DTF members.
If a guy is searching for accurate models there are wonderful resin kits from 100USD and more.
And there are great artists assembling and painting them as requested by the client (also customizing if a kit should be inaccurate in part)... 

If a 6/12USD figure isn't totally accurate but it looks good, I can survive that (I swear..) 
Mostly because it's a TOY... 

Sorry if I was a bit rude 

[suspsy]

..I'm sorry but, from my personal point of view, this entire accurate/inaccurate things has became quite repetitive and boring in total.

Collecting figures should be an hobby (aka relax) not an endless fight against toy companies and DTF members.
If a guy is searching for accurate models there are wonderful resin kits from 100USD and more.
And there are great artist assembling and painting them as requesting from the client (also customizing if a kit should be inaccurate in part)... 

If a 6/12USD figure isn't totally accurate but it looks good, I can survive that (I swear..) 
Mostly because it's a TOY... 

Sorry if I was a bit rude 

Not rude at all. I'd say you're right on the money.

[CMIPalaeo]

Perhaps this one is a little outside the typical scope, but as it is an extinct dinosaur I figured I'd ask if anyone has actually SEEN the ivory-billed woodpecker figure yet? I saw the promo picture and I'm pretty excited about that one too.

[stargatedalek]

There was a time when Papo figures were regarded as relatively inaccurate. As of now, the recent waves of Papo figures tend to border upon being relatively accurate, especially with respect to the dinosaur toy market at large.

In general, based on observations (and reviewer commentaries), it seems that WS and Favorite are more accurate than Papo, but Papo is more accurate than REBOR and Schleich. In several cases, CollectA models appear to sport the same number of inaccuracies as the Papo (generally 2 or 3 offenses per model). Obviously, there is a permeating bias that exists in the forum. The CollectA Krono (with inaccurate dentition) would be deemed as accurate overall, while the Papo Kapro (with inaccurate dentition) would be deemed as inaccurate overall. PNSO models are hit or miss in terms of accuracy. Some of the models are more or less interpretations (e.g. Megalodon, Basilosaurus or Nyctosaurus) and are neither accurate nor inaccurate, in and of itself (however, they are carefully researched).

I for one have never seen things in relatives, but I'm quick to overlook inaccuracy if I think the originality or overall aesthetic makes up for it.

Even without the WS Kronosaurus existing, or without the dentition error, I wouldn't be purchasing the CollectA Kronosaurus because I'm not a fan of its aesthetic design (not just the colours, the jaw doesn't fit quite right, the tail fluke looks too [horizontally relative to vertically] thin to me, and the giant wrinkles don't feel right on an aquatic animal). Whereas I'm still determined to pick up the Papo Kaprosuchus despite its dentition error, because I far prefer the design to that of the WS. I like that the Papo version highlights the animals traditional crocodilian traits, rather than trying to make it look as unusual as possible. I also have both the WS and Papo Archaeopteryx, and I think I might prefer the Papo for the exact opposite reasons. Both are great, but neither is perfect, the Papo has monstrous features and the WS could do with a thicker coating of feathers, but I feel like the Papo manages to create more character with what it has. Even if I review a figure based on accuracy, because that's the only objective it can be reviewed on, it's not what makes me buy a figure.





It only bothers me when someone claims accuracy doesn't exist, not when they don't seek it out.

..I'm sorry but, from my personal point of view, this entire accurate/inaccurate things has became quite repetitive and boring in total.

Collecting figures should be an hobby (aka relax) not an endless fight against toy companies and DTF members.
If a guy is searching for accurate models there are wonderful resin kits from 100USD and more.
And there are great artists assembling and painting them as requested by the client (also customizing if a kit should be inaccurate in part)... 

If a 6/12USD figure isn't totally accurate but it looks good, I can survive that (I swear..) 
Mostly because it's a TOY... 

Sorry if I was a bit rude 

But what if I can't afford $100 resin kits? Or what if I want something that I can hold and interact with without it breaking? Not everyone collects things to put them on shelves and never touch them again. For some of us statues just aren't an option.

Perhaps this one is a little outside the typical scope, but as it is an extinct dinosaur I figured I'd ask if anyone has actually SEEN the ivory-billed woodpecker figure yet? I saw the promo picture and I'm pretty excited about that one too.

Nothing on the ATF yet.

[RobinGoodfellow]

..I'm sorry but, from my personal point of view, this entire accurate/inaccurate things has became quite repetitive and boring in total.

Collecting figures should be an hobby (aka relax) not an endless fight against toy companies and DTF members.
If a guy is searching for accurate models there are wonderful resin kits from 100USD and more.
And there are great artists assembling and painting them as requested by the client (also customizing if a kit should be inaccurate in part)... 

If a 6/12USD figure isn't totally accurate but it looks good, I can survive that (I swear..) 
Mostly because it's a TOY... 

Sorry if I was a bit rude 

But what if I can't afford $100 resin kits? Or what if I want something that I can hold and interact with without it breaking? Not everyone collects things to put them on shelves and never touch them again. For some of us statues just aren't an option.

That's not the point.
The point is that's really hard for a toy to be 100% accurate.
Accuracy needs scientific research and constant knowledge about paleontology.
Accuracy needs valuable paleo-artists.
Accuracy needs an expensive planning on pre-production design.
The result is that an accurate figure can't cost 10USD..
And there are other problems.
Toy's plastic can't be too thin (to avoid bending) = finest details are impossible.
A toy can't have sharp point (for kid's security) = no sharp teeth or sharp points.
A toy needs to be stable = oversized feet  ( or a base, but kids hate bases ).
The main target for a toy is kids (and not collectors); so a toy has to be charming to kid's eyes = exaggerated look / aggressive or not-natural pose / big head or teeth.
A mass produced toy NEEDS to sell very well worldwide so commercial purposes are more important than accuracy.
A naturalistic paint job is expensive too.
And so on...

For those reasons a toy can't be as accurate as cheap.
Better: a TOY doesn't need to be accurate mainly because is a TOY and NOT a scientific model.

A resin kit or a statue has a different target: collectors.
Collectors need accuracy; accuracy is expensive...

I'd like to buy perfect, realistic and accurate models for 10 dollars but simply it's not possible.
So, if you can afford a 10 dollar figures you should accept the fact that it can't be totally accurate...

Am I wrong?


p.s A simple example:  Schleich is the first commercial brand, selling worldwide despite inaccuracies .
                                  Battat is accurate: we know its availability...

[Shonisaurus]

..I'm sorry but, from my personal point of view, this entire accurate/inaccurate things has became quite repetitive and boring in total.

Collecting figures should be an hobby (aka relax) not an endless fight against toy companies and DTF members.
If a guy is searching for accurate models there are wonderful resin kits from 100USD and more.
And there are great artists assembling and painting them as requested by the client (also customizing if a kit should be inaccurate in part)... 

If a 6/12USD figure isn't totally accurate but it looks good, I can survive that (I swear..) 
Mostly because it's a TOY... 

Sorry if I was a bit rude 

But what if I can't afford $100 resin kits? Or what if I want something that I can hold and interact with without it breaking? Not everyone collects things to put them on shelves and never touch them again. For some of us statues just aren't an option.

That's not the point.
The point is that's really hard for a toy to be 100% accurate.
Accuracy needs scientific research and constant knowledge about paleontology.
Accuracy needs valuable paleo-artists.
Accuracy needs an expensive planning on pre-production design.
The result is that an accurate figure can't cost 10USD..
And there are other problems.
Toy's plastic can't be too thin (to avoid bending) = finest details are impossible.
A toy can't have sharp point (for kid's security) = no sharp teeth or sharp points.
A toy needs to be stable = oversized feet  ( or a base, but kids hate bases ).
The main target for a toy is kids (and not collectors); so a toy has to be charming to kid's eyes = exaggerated look / aggressive or not-natural pose / big head or teeth.
A mass produced toy NEEDS to sell very well worldwide so commercial purposes are more important than accuracy.
A naturalistic paint job is expensive too.
And so on...

For those reasons a toy can't be as accurate as cheap.
Better: a TOY doesn't need to be accurate mainly because is a TOY and NOT a scientific model.

A resin kit or a statue has a different target: collectors.
Collectors need accuracy; accuracy is expensive...

I'd like to buy perfect, realistic and accurate models for 10 dollars but simply it's not possible.
So, if you can afford a 10 dollar figures you should accept the fact that it can't be totally accurate...

Am I wrong?


p.s A simple example:  Schleich is the first commercial brand, selling worldwide despite inaccuracies .
                                  Battat is accurate: we know its availability...

I knew that Schleich was the best-selling toy brand. It is abundant but I do not understand the buyers of Schleich figures with how bad they are, but the truth is that they are aimed at the little ones and those are the ones in the market.

What you have pointed out is true although for me it is painful but it is true if you want to buy an exact figure you have to buy it from resin and they cost even 500 euros / dollars at least. It is a shame what is said in the forum but it is the reality. In my country there are no distributors of Safari, just Collecta (they are sold poorly or very badly) and Papo (it is the company that defends itself moderately), as Mojo, Bullyland and Battat is talking about science fiction.

It is the sad truth that Schleich is the one that commands at least in Europe and in much of the world, to my misfortune, although they do from time to time some figure within which it fits that enters the scope of the collecting. On the other hand fortunately Papo is a company that as I said goes very far in production to the German Schleich, but they could make the prehistoric animal figures less repetitive and more avant-garde giving a new air to the sales, except some that is for Collectors like the kentrosaurus the rest are destined and without intention to offend Schleich for the smallest one to five years at most.

Without going any further, there is a collector's shop where I currently work, which has expensive trains and models of aeromodelism and models in general that sell the figures of Schleich and nothing else. One can be made to the idea of the force that has Schleich at European level.

That does not remove that Collecta that is what was going to make models of dinosaurs and wild animals more accurate but unfortunately in the market of my nation they are not successful. In fact, they are still waiting for the second set of dinosaurs from Collecta from 2016 to mid-February, so I had to buy their figures in an online store.

[Patrx]

Thank goodness we have companies like Safari and CollectA, who know that dinosaur products should be educational - and therefore scientifically credible - partially because kids often get their impressions of prehistoric life from these "toys".