Papo New for 2017

[Verahin]

Also, I got a reply from everything dinosaur stating  'apart from the leaked Polacanthus image that has already been published, they are not able to comment on any other Papo releases, they are currently under embargo for a couple more weeks'(sic).

So possibly two weeks till we find out what's what, (unless their are anymore early leaks).

So I bet we'll get images on December 19, the beginning of Christmas week. Would be fine.

[Saurox]

The first post on this thread says that Acrocanthosaurus and Iguanodon are confirmed, but is there any official claim - I mean from the company - that those two are going to be released in 2017? Or is it still all derived from this interview (http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=3912.20) from October 2015?

According to the translation in that thread, the sculptor says: "I'll be sculpting Acrocanthosaurus next year" (meaning 2016) and to a further question regarding Iguanodon says: "I have not started an Iguanodon yet. If I start next year, probably it'll be out in 2017". So all we know is that the Acro must have been sculpted this year, and scheduled for 2017, and an Iguanodon was only planned by the sculptor, as much as a Giganotosaurus was also planned, according to another interview (http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=3437.0) from earlier 2015.

We only have that blurred catalogue image of the Polacanthus, which came out of nowhere since there's no mention of it in those interviews. Papo 2017 line up might turn out as a total surprise as far as we know, people is even sure that there are going to be three new models, but Papo have released only two in 2015 and up to six in 2012, though from different sculptors, we really can expect everything.

That's a fair point. I can't help but feel as though we are in for even more T. rex Andy raptor repaints

[Viergacht]

I'd like to see some of the little guys, like Heterodontosaurus. Maybe in a group on the same base.

[Saurox]

I'd like to see some of the little guys, like Heterodontosaurus. Maybe in a group on the same base.

Or a troop of feathered Compsognathus.

[Concavenator]

A member of STS has already got the Polacanthus.It's rather disappointing in my opinion.Seems my worries seemed right

[kreativtek]

A member of STS has already got the Polacanthus.It's rather disappointing in my opinion.Seems my worries seemed right

Yeah, it looks kind of Schleich-y. The details are pretty good, but coloring and pose seem neutral at best. It will probably be liked by children but I cannot see myself adding it to my collection.

[tanystropheus]

A member of STS has already got the Polacanthus.It's rather disappointing in my opinion.Seems my worries seemed right

Yeah, it looks kind of Schleich-y. The details are pretty good, but coloring and pose seem neutral at best. It will probably be liked by children but I cannot see myself adding it to my collection.

Is it accurate?
The Papo Ankylosaurus was actually closer to a Euoplo...
To be fair most Ankylosaurus in the market are chimeric representations.
I also have the Favorite version, in my opinion, the best mass market interpretation.

[Albertosaurus]

A member of STS has already got the Polacanthus.It's rather disappointing in my opinion.Seems my worries seemed right

Could you guys post a pincture?

[CityRaptor]

Posting pics here would be welcome, given that the STS Forum does not allow non-members to see pictures or links for that matter.

[Albertosaurus]

It could be worst....but I think that this is probably the WORST figure ever made by Papo. It looks like a Schleich figure, as I said as soon as I saw the blurry image. Those folds under the neck and tail...my God...

Edit: By the way, I went ahead and took the time to register myself on the STS forum and post here this picture...dont understand why the members already registered were talking about it without pictures...

[suspsy]

I like it. Fits in perfectly with the rest of Papo's prehistoric figures, which all have various anatomical shortcomings and errors. This is par for the course.

[Jose S.M.]

Thanks for the pic Albertosaurus. I like it, the only thing that I don't like it's the skin folds in the underside of the tail, the neck ones don't seem to deep in the frontal view, the armor looks good.

[Killekor]

I think that i Will get it, i like this figure.

Predasaurskillekor

[Shonisaurus]

Papo's polacanthus foxii is not to shoot many rockets. It is unfortunately turning into a toy factory of all to one euro.

On the other hand both Papo and Rebor and not to mention Schleich (with the honorable exception of Collecta) have put on the gold tray the first place to Safari in terms of production of dinosaurs and prehistoric animals.

The image can not be more daunting. I warned and I predicted seeing the photos (although it is not necessary to be an eminence) that this year will be the Safari.

I was expecting something else from Papo.

[Dyscrasia]

Sadly, this is one of least appealing Papo dinosaur figures I've seen so far.

Despite anatomical errors, the Papo dinosaurs tend to look like miniature versions of high-end statues or resin kits, but this one looks nothing like that.

[CityRaptor]

Given that the Polacanthus originally came out of the blue, I think it is save to assume that it was sculpted by a different sculptor. Probably the same one who made the Minis and Marine Reptiles. The style at least seems to match. Still a lot better than CollectA's or Geoworld's.

[Shonisaurus]

The polacanthus is even of lower quality than Colecta gastonia (and that which belongs to its dark epoch). I've seen the photos on sts forum and honestly even the creature's tail is bad.

The figure is childish to a high degree does not have to envy the figures of Bullyland that unfortunately has us accustomed (although it seems an exaggeration). On the other hand its look reminds me to the reborated dinosaurs of Rebor (triceratops and stegosaurus Rebor). Papo is lowering the bar alarmingly!

Paleontologists of my country have already commented that the papo dinosaurs were more toy figures and that from the scientific point of view they do not correspond to reality.

[CityRaptor]

Geez, it is just this one, probably sculpted by the other sculptor.  I wouldn't worry unless the Acrocanthosaurus and Iguanodon are also like this.

Paleontologists of my country have already commented that the papo dinosaurs were more toy figures and that from the scientific point of view they do not correspond to reality.

Well, one does not really need a palaeontologist to see that many of them are not accurate. And unlike some other companies they also never claimed that.

[MLMjp]

It has some very nice detail but yeah, there´s something on this that set apart from the other Papos. The wrinkles on the underside are a bit weird but not too distracting. There is something on the head that looks strange, but if I recall correctly the skull of Polacanthus isn´t known; so it can count as an "speculative feature". It has the correct number of digits on each foot although the first digit of each foot is vestigial, which is not correct.
I still like it and I will probably buy it to replace my old Collecta Polacanthus. But yes, is not the best of what Papo has to offer.

[stargatedalek]

Why is it's skull an amalgamation of Pachycephalosaurus, a ceratopsian, and a carp?

Correct number of digits or not the way they all face forwards lined up exactly evenly is unnatural.

Easily Papo's worst dinosaur in my opinion. Although in fairness it's on par with Schleich's better figures, so make of that what you will.