Papo New for 2017

[oscars_dinos]

It does not look bad, it is beautifully detailed but unfortunately it is not scientifically a cryolophosaurus. Anyway, I already have another figure to buy, but that does not mean that this figure is far enough away from what a theropod should be like the one it represents.

But the one does not remove the other is a beautifully decorated and detailed figure and his pose does not cease to have a certain charm reminds me of the allosaurus of the same company even if they have no similarity. Unfortunately it will not reach the markets until the summer, so we will have to wait quite a while.

How is it not scientifically accurate? (I have no intentions to come off as rude) I know the notch on the skull isn't to present but couldn't that just be explained with fat around the mouth or something ,and the pose makes sense to me ...how else would they mate....

[Shonisaurus]

It does not look bad, it is beautifully detailed but unfortunately it is not scientifically a cryolophosaurus. Anyway, I already have another figure to buy, but that does not mean that this figure is far enough away from what a theropod should be like the one it represents.

But the one does not remove the other is a beautifully decorated and detailed figure and his pose does not cease to have a certain charm reminds me of the allosaurus of the same company even if they have no similarity. Unfortunately it will not reach the markets until the summer, so we will have to wait quite a while.

How is it not scientifically accurate? (I have no intentions to come off as rude) I know the notch on the skull isn't to present but couldn't that just be explained with fat around the mouth or something ,and the pose makes sense to me ...how else would they mate....

I do not mean to be rude at all. I do not dislike the cryolophosaurus Papo but I have seen serious paleontological representations of these figures and differ in regards to this figure that presents erectile dysfunction. That does not mean that it is bad but there are companies that in the realization of their products are more scientific companies.
As far as my scientific knowledge can tell you that I am a complete lego (no longer amateur, an ignorant) but I have to point out that in a conference at the Museum of Natural Sciences of Madrid attended by a paleontologist who is also paleoilustrador commented To see in the Store of the Museum of Natural Sciences the figures of Papo that these figures were beautiful (that is to say they were well done) but nevertheless they were not scientific and that also were based in the Jurassic Park many of them. As I tell you and I do not wish to offend you in any way I consider much within my total scientific ignorance the words of this understanding about paleontology.
On the other hand what I comment are simple opinions, free and always based on education and the rules of the forum in which I never try to offend anyone and is more if I see that I have exceeded my opinions always apologize. Apart from that I am a simple collector of dinosaur toys and I do not dislike Papo (perhaps his articulated jaws that yes, I am not in favor of them) in the others they are very detailed and I have to assert that there are scientific figures to the hundred percent As it happens with the tupuxuara, diplodocus and carnotaurus to put three examples.

In conclusion the truth and truth that the figures of prehistoric animals of toy are what is said simple toys and of course always as much that we strive will have mistakes to a greater or smaller extent, because they are destined to the children mainly although we are many people That we also buy such products. The truth and truth that if one wants a figure of a dinosaur or prehistoric scientific animal at one hundred percent at best he would have to buy a figure of resin that cost the best at best 100 euros or 100 dollars and Normally cost more than 200/300 euros / dollars for a graphic example.
I remain that from my point of view settled the question without that you have different criteria to mine, as I will have other people. Humans are not clones and as I say the only thing I intend in this endearing forum is to inform me about the novelties and acquire knowledge of paleontology even if I am lightly always respecting the opinions of others and most important respecting the ideas of my neighbor Although it does not coincide with mine.

In short, I like the figures of Papo, Mojo, Rebor, Battat, KInto, PNSO, Collecta, Safari, even Recur and Bullyland (the latter when they made good figures) and I am a simple collector who loves zoology and animals. Extinct regardless of my absolute ignorance. I wish with my appreciations not to offend anyone from the forum and it is more not to disrespect you so much, nor to skip at all the rules of the forum.

With postdata I like above all that the companies are more scientific and more precise like Safari, Collecta, Battat, Kinto and my biggest desire with my comments as also wish the rest of our fellow members is that all the companies including the one of Schleich improve year after year And there is a strong competition between them independently that they will do what they think convenient when making their figures for reasons of market and sale to certain groups (in this case children) and following their own philosophy that of course must be respected And of course you should not get into their life. But we also have sellers and traders exposing our critical points both positive and negative view.

I am simply a collector of toys and my greatest illusion is that the figures of dinosaurs and prehistoric animals improve year after year without gaining any benefit, but rather the opposite, spending on my meager bank account

[Reptilia]

It does not look bad, it is beautifully detailed but unfortunately it is not scientifically a cryolophosaurus. Anyway, I already have another figure to buy, but that does not mean that this figure is far enough away from what a theropod should be like the one it represents.

But the one does not remove the other is a beautifully decorated and detailed figure and his pose does not cease to have a certain charm reminds me of the allosaurus of the same company even if they have no similarity. Unfortunately it will not reach the markets until the summer, so we will have to wait quite a while.

How is it not scientifically accurate?

Because it is not a Safari! That's why.

[Takama]

Papos Sculptor has never really been all that knowledgeable on dinosaurs. in fact. He is currently researching the differences between a T.Rex and a Giganotosaurus (which should already be obvious to even a laymen) wheres Sculptors for Safari Are actually pretty knowledgeable on the subject already.

Most of the models are inspired buy other sources of media. From Artwork by Todd Marshall, to Ripping off the designs from Jurassic Park (and now Jurassic World), and evean high end Statues like Sideshow.

The amount of Accuracy a Papo has goes back to the source of Inspiration. I have no idea how accurate the Crylophosaurus is, Because i feel this species should not be replicated at all because its still leaves a lot of mystery to its anatomy. Some say its a Dilophosarid, others claim its a tetaneran(Misspelled that one). Until more fossils are un coverd, its true form will remain a mystery. All we know is that its a Theropod, and it had a Fan shaped Crest on its head. I will give them credit. This year shows the most Originality in there sculpts.

[tanystropheus]

Papos Sculptor has never really been all that knowledgeable on dinosaurs. in fact. He is currently researching the differences between a T.Rex and a Giganotosaurus (which should already be obvious to even a laymen) wheres Sculptors for Safari Are actually pretty knowledgeable on the subject already.

While what you are saying has an element of truth in it, the tone is incredibly biased.

[stargatedalek]

Papos Sculptor has never really been all that knowledgeable on dinosaurs. in fact. He is currently researching the differences between a T.Rex and a Giganotosaurus (which should already be obvious to even a laymen) wheres Sculptors for Safari Are actually pretty knowledgeable on the subject already.

While what you are saying has an element of truth in it, the tone is incredibly biased.

Agreed, it shouldn't matter how much knowledge on the topic someone has unless they claim to be knowledgeable.

[CityRaptor]

Indeed. As long as they do their research.

A layman with interest in Dinosaurs may know the difference, but I doubt that the public would be able to do that, since for them every large Theropod is T-REX111. I even saw a magazine once using a picture of a Giganotosauru skeleton, claiming it to be a T.rex skeleton.

[SBell]

Papos Sculptor has never really been all that knowledgeable on dinosaurs. in fact. He is currently researching the differences between a T.Rex and a Giganotosaurus (which should already be obvious to even a laymen) wheres Sculptors for Safari Are actually pretty knowledgeable on the subject already.

While what you are saying has an element of truth in it, the tone is incredibly biased.

Why doesn that matter? Papo's sculptor clearly isn't as versed in dinosaurs as the Safari sculptors. Still a good sculptor in terms of detail.

[Reptilia]

Seems like we make a lot of assumptions here, but we actually don't know how much Papo's sculptor knows about dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures in general. We must take in account that most of the times how a figure is designed is the result of a specific demand by the company, since they have to sell their products and care much more of sales number than scientific accuracy.

That said all prehistoric animals representations have a high level of speculation, because it is what paleoart and paleontology are by definition, so to continuously claim that certain companies deliver inaccurate models while others are Science, well, just sounds a bit boring and pointless. Some will go for more artsy depictions, other will be more faithful to the actual available data, but it'll be always speculation nonetheless.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

If you subscribe to it being Dilophosaur-like i think it works fine.

[Shonisaurus]

Seems like we make a lot of assumptions here, but we actually don't know how much Papo's sculptor knows about dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures in general. We must take in account that most of the times how a figure is designed is the result of a specific demand by the company, since they have to sell their products and care much more of sales number than scientific accuracy.

That said all prehistoric animals representations have a high level of speculation, because it is what paleoart and paleontology are by definition, so to continuously claim that certain companies deliver inaccurate models while others are Science, well, just sounds a bit boring and pointless. Some will go for more artsy depictions, other will be more faithful to the actual available data, but it'll be always speculation nonetheless.

Of course the remains of many dinosaurs are unfortunately very fragmented and very little is known about them. But for example the baryonyx is known quite considerable parts of his body I think a fairly high percentage for having read articles of magazines and books of dinosaurs for beginners and it must be agreed that said figure although very well modeled (in fact I have exposed In one of the best shelves) is a totally unreal figure with respect to the remains that have been discovered considerable and that I have reviewed before.

From a logic one could have made a more realistic dinosaur, without having the virtues that I have commented in other articles this and other figures of the dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals of Papo. In this case the baryonyx its paleontological remains are not speculative.

[Reptilia]

Seems like we make a lot of assumptions here, but we actually don't know how much Papo's sculptor knows about dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures in general. We must take in account that most of the times how a figure is designed is the result of a specific demand by the company, since they have to sell their products and care much more of sales number than scientific accuracy.

That said all prehistoric animals representations have a high level of speculation, because it is what paleoart and paleontology are by definition, so to continuously claim that certain companies deliver inaccurate models while others are Science, well, just sounds a bit boring and pointless. Some will go for more artsy depictions, other will be more faithful to the actual available data, but it'll be always speculation nonetheless.

Of course the remains of many dinosaurs are unfortunately very fragmented and very little is known about them. But for example the baryonyx is known quite considerable parts of his body I think a fairly high percentage for having read articles of magazines and books of dinosaurs for beginners and it must be agreed that said figure although very well modeled (in fact I have exposed In one of the best shelves) is a totally unreal figure with respect to the remains that have been discovered considerable and that I have reviewed before.

From a logic one could have made a more realistic dinosaur, without having the virtues that I have commented in other articles this and other figures of the dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals of Papo. In this case the baryonyx its paleontological remains are not speculative.

Sorry, you didn't get my point. You can dig out a full skeleton of whatever extinct animal, yet you'll have to speculate on restoring said animal to its life appearence. There are no accurate depictions of prehistoric animals, because that is simply impossible, so keeping up endlessly the argument of scientific inaccuracy is a bit pointless, in my opinion.

[Takama]

Seems like we make a lot of assumptions here, but we actually don't know how much Papo's sculptor knows about dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures in general. We must take in account that most of the times how a figure is designed is the result of a specific demand by the company, since they have to sell their products and care much more of sales number than scientific accuracy.

That said all prehistoric animals representations have a high level of speculation, because it is what paleoart and paleontology are by definition, so to continuously claim that certain companies deliver inaccurate models while others are Science, well, just sounds a bit boring and pointless. Some will go for more artsy depictions, other will be more faithful to the actual available data, but it'll be always speculation nonetheless.

Of course the remains of many dinosaurs are unfortunately very fragmented and very little is known about them. But for example the baryonyx is known quite considerable parts of his body I think a fairly high percentage for having read articles of magazines and books of dinosaurs for beginners and it must be agreed that said figure although very well modeled (in fact I have exposed In one of the best shelves) is a totally unreal figure with respect to the remains that have been discovered considerable and that I have reviewed before.

From a logic one could have made a more realistic dinosaur, without having the virtues that I have commented in other articles this and other figures of the dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals of Papo. In this case the baryonyx its paleontological remains are not speculative.

Sorry, you didn't get my point. You can dig out a full skeleton of whatever extinct animal, yet you'll have to speculate on restoring said animal to its life appearence. There are no accurate depictions of prehistoric animals, because that is simply impossible, so keeping up endlessly the argument of scientific inaccuracy is a bit pointless, in my opinion.

Psitaccosaurus would like to have a word with you
http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=4995.0

IT is best to recreate these animals to the best of our knowledge because they are ANIMALS.     Plus  there is a lot of Science that goes behind reconstructing an extinct creature, and if the model does not adhere to the science it will be called out apon. You can learn a lot if you study the fossils of said animals. (Just ask any other veteran member of this forum)

[Shonisaurus]

Seems like we make a lot of assumptions here, but we actually don't know how much Papo's sculptor knows about dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures in general. We must take in account that most of the times how a figure is designed is the result of a specific demand by the company, since they have to sell their products and care much more of sales number than scientific accuracy.

That said all prehistoric animals representations have a high level of speculation, because it is what paleoart and paleontology are by definition, so to continuously claim that certain companies deliver inaccurate models while others are Science, well, just sounds a bit boring and pointless. Some will go for more artsy depictions, other will be more faithful to the actual available data, but it'll be always speculation nonetheless.

Of course the remains of many dinosaurs are unfortunately very fragmented and very little is known about them. But for example the baryonyx is known quite considerable parts of his body I think a fairly high percentage for having read articles of magazines and books of dinosaurs for beginners and it must be agreed that said figure although very well modeled (in fact I have exposed In one of the best shelves) is a totally unreal figure with respect to the remains that have been discovered considerable and that I have reviewed before.

From a logic one could have made a more realistic dinosaur, without having the virtues that I have commented in other articles this and other figures of the dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals of Papo. In this case the baryonyx its paleontological remains are not speculative.

Sorry, you didn't get my point. You can dig out a full skeleton of whatever extinct animal, yet you'll have to speculate on restoring said animal to its life appearence. There are no accurate depictions of prehistoric animals, because that is simply impossible, so keeping up endlessly the argument of scientific inaccuracy is a bit pointless, in my opinion.

According to that rule of three, we place the triceratops in a paleoartística representation of toy stegosaurus plates and dragon wings and we already have a new figure of dinosaur toy. However well that triceratops is made in this example that I am putting is not unreal, since we know for example what triceratops was but as we do not know what it was actually in life because we invented prehistoric animals according to that theory. That argument does not seem valid to me.

[stargatedalek]

but it'll be always speculation nonetheless.

See that's where you're incorrect. Some species allow/require less speculation than others do, and there are many very easy (and common) ways to break those guidelines the fossils give us. The Papo Acrocanthosaurus for example is not merely an unusually thin reconstruction, the actual bones themselves wouldn't even fit correctly inside this depiction of the animal and it's missing large sections of flesh it would require in order to be alive.

I have nothing against sci-fi styled dinosaurs, but paleoart is not as easy going a process as you claim.

[Reptilia]

Psitaccosaurus would like to have a word with you
http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=4995.0

IT is best to recreate these animals to the best of our knowledge because they are ANIMALS.     Plus  there is a lot of Science that goes behind reconstructing an extinct creature, and if the model does not adhere to the science it will be called out apon. You can learn a lot if you study the fossils of said animals. (Just ask any other veteran member of this forum)

It is best to recreate these animals to the best of our knowledge according to your own preference and opinion. That is not the preference of all, and what I was trying to say is that Papo and other companies take it in account, the fact that the market does not work according to the preference of a minority. Popular culture influence is still very important in marketing strategies, the majority of the customers of these products doesn't know anything about paleontology, and cares even less.

According to that rule of three, we place the triceratops in a paleoartística representation of toy stegosaurus plates and dragon wings and we already have a new figure of dinosaur toy. However well that triceratops is made in this example that I am putting is not unreal, since we know for example what triceratops was but as we do not know what it was actually in life because we invented prehistoric animals according to that theory. That argument does not seem valid to me.

I didn't say that we can made up prehistoric animals like putting together features from different species, that would be stupid. I just said that when you have a full skeleton you'll still have to go with full speculation regarding how the animal would have appeared in life. You will never know how much fat would have covered the bones, and you will never know the full colour of its skin or feathers. Unless you'd find such things fully preserved, which is unlikely, and the very scarce and fragmentary remains of soft tissue and feathers impressions prove it. Therefore every depiction of any prehistoric animal will always be inaccurate to an extent.

but it'll be always speculation nonetheless.

See that's where you're incorrect. Some species allow/require less speculation than others do, and there are many very easy (and common) ways to break those guidelines the fossils give us. The Papo Acrocanthosaurus for example is not merely an unusually thin reconstruction, the actual bones themselves wouldn't even fit correctly inside this depiction of the animal and it's missing large sections of flesh it would require in order to be alive.

I have nothing against sci-fi styled dinosaurs, but paleoart is not as easy going a process as you claim.

Again, I know that certain figures are more speculative and sci-fied than others, as I've pointed out that is an approach that companies have on purpose, to satisfy a demand from the market. And I didn't say that paleoart is an easygoing process, I just said that is highly speculative.

I find a bit redundant to always keep up the argument that Papo figures are scientifically inaccurate, unlike those from other companies. And I said that all figures are inaccurate to a certain extent just to show how the argument of scientific accuracy is very little relevant, in the end. To be honest if people are so concerned with scientific accuracy they'd have to drop half of their collections, if not their entire collections, if you go by my strict logic. And also they shouldn't care for Papos at all, but then they usually add that the model is beautifully detailed and stuff like that, and they end up buying Papos anyway, eventually proving that scientific accuracy is not that important when collecting.

[Shonisaurus]

It does not look bad, it is beautifully detailed but unfortunately it is not scientifically a cryolophosaurus. Anyway, I already have another figure to buy, but that does not mean that this figure is far enough away from what a theropod should be like the one it represents.

But the one does not remove the other is a beautifully decorated and detailed figure and his pose does not cease to have a certain charm reminds me of the allosaurus of the same company even if they have no similarity. Unfortunately it will not reach the markets until the summer, so we will have to wait quite a while.

How is it not scientifically accurate?

Because it is not a Safari! That's why.

Not only Safari, there are many dinosaur companies that make scientific dinosaurs such as Collecta, Battat (unfortunately passed away Dans Lorusso), Kinto, Favorite among other dinosaur companies and prehistoric toy animals not to mention the company Papo in some figures like Tupuxuara or carnotaurus to give two examples.

On the other hand as I stated before I have no stock in any toy dinosaur toy company and I am not a beneficiary of them, on the contrary as I said before but I have to admit that regardless of the other companies are exceptional Safari is a leading company and Today is perhaps the best toy dinosaurs ever to win the Prehistoric Times awards for the best prehistoric dinosaur and animal toy. And as I said I do not understand for my misfortune of paleontology but seeing books that I have for young or beginners and from what I see and I have the figures of Safari come out and have to say that the other figures are just as great as Safari.

I do not say that I have no idea but what experts say in paleontology and paleoartists.

[Shonisaurus]

Psitaccosaurus would like to have a word with you
http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=4995.0

IT is best to recreate these animals to the best of our knowledge because they are ANIMALS.     Plus  there is a lot of Science that goes behind reconstructing an extinct creature, and if the model does not adhere to the science it will be called out apon. You can learn a lot if you study the fossils of said animals. (Just ask any other veteran member of this forum)

It is best to recreate these animals to the best of our knowledge according to your own preference and opinion. That is not the preference of all, and what I was trying to say is that Papo and other companies take it in account, the fact that the market does not work according to the preference of a minority. Popular culture influence is still very important in marketing strategies, the majority of the customers of these products doesn't know anything about paleontology, and cares even less.

According to that rule of three, we place the triceratops in a paleoartística representation of toy stegosaurus plates and dragon wings and we already have a new figure of dinosaur toy. However well that triceratops is made in this example that I am putting is not unreal, since we know for example what triceratops was but as we do not know what it was actually in life because we invented prehistoric animals according to that theory. That argument does not seem valid to me.

I didn't say that we can made up prehistoric animals like putting together features from different species, that would be stupid. I just said that when you have a full skeleton you'll still have to go with full speculation regarding how the animal would have appeared in life. You will never know how much fat would have covered the bones, and you will never know the full colour of its skin or feathers. Unless you'd find such things fully preserved, which is unlikely, and the very scarce and fragmentary remains of soft tissue and feathers impressions prove it. Therefore every depiction of any prehistoric animal will always be inaccurate to an extent.

but it'll be always speculation nonetheless.

See that's where you're incorrect. Some species allow/require less speculation than others do, and there are many very easy (and common) ways to break those guidelines the fossils give us. The Papo Acrocanthosaurus for example is not merely an unusually thin reconstruction, the actual bones themselves wouldn't even fit correctly inside this depiction of the animal and it's missing large sections of flesh it would require in order to be alive.

I have nothing against sci-fi styled dinosaurs, but paleoart is not as easy going a process as you claim.

Again, I know that certain figures are more speculative and sci-fied than others, as I've pointed out that is an approach that companies have on purpose, to satisfy a demand from the market. And I didn't say that paleoart is an easygoing process, I just said that is highly speculative.

I find a bit redundant to always keep up the argument that Papo figures are scientifically inaccurate, unlike those from other companies. And I said that all figures are inaccurate to a certain extent just to show how the argument of scientific accuracy is very little relevant, in the end. To be honest if people are so concerned with scientific accuracy they'd have to drop half of their collections, if not their entire collections, if you go by my strict logic. And also they shouldn't care for Papos at all, but then they usually add that the model is beautifully detailed and stuff like that, and they end up buying Papos anyway, eventually proving that scientific accuracy is not that important when collecting.

For example we know 100 percent Mammuthus primigenius or coelodonta antiquitatis and going further the mummified hadrosaurus or "Dakota", is that for you merely speculative? It is true that many of the prehistoric dinosaurs and animals unfortunately are known little or almost nothing but to put another example (after recent discoveries) the deinocheirus has changed, certain that there have been speculative representations before knowing the skull and much Of the body, but for example Collecta in some way approached the skeleton in the sense that it was according to previous investigations to the knowledge or discovery of the remains to which the animal was supposed to represent as an ornithymimid.

On the other hand the carnotaurus was discovered much of the skeleton and in this case Papo represented it wonderfully the same I can say to put another example of styracosaurus. I know that paleontology in certain species of dinosaurs and prehistoric animals can only speculate on how this species was because only fragmented remains are known, but from my point of view according to what you say is to interpret science at our dawn and most importantly to amend the Paleontologists. I recognize that many species of dinosaur toys and prehistoric animals are inaccurate and that does not mean I discard them or do not buy them. But from my point of view I celebrate above all and above all that dinosaurs are as scientific as possible within the toy world to educate future generations, regardless of whether they are meant for the amusement of children.

For my misfortune I will not be able to answer you well because I have already repeated my ignorance but in this forum there are people understood that could inform you if all the prehistoric animals are speculative as you say or not, I repeat is to flatter the scientists and Paleontologists who will know more than all of us by far.

[oscars_dinos]

It does not look bad, it is beautifully detailed but unfortunately it is not scientifically a cryolophosaurus. Anyway, I already have another figure to buy, but that does not mean that this figure is far enough away from what a theropod should be like the one it represents.

But the one does not remove the other is a beautifully decorated and detailed figure and his pose does not cease to have a certain charm reminds me of the allosaurus of the same company even if they have no similarity. Unfortunately it will not reach the markets until the summer, so we will have to wait quite a while.

How is it not scientifically accurate? (I have no intentions to come off as rude) I know the notch on the skull isn't to present but couldn't that just be explained with fat around the mouth or something ,and the pose makes sense to me ...how else would they mate....

I do not mean to be rude at all. I do not dislike the cryolophosaurus Papo but I have seen serious paleontological representations of these figures and differ in regards to this figure that presents erectile dysfunction. That does not mean that it is bad but there are companies that in the realization of their products are more scientific companies.
As far as my scientific knowledge can tell you that I am a complete lego (no longer amateur, an ignorant) but I have to point out that in a conference at the Museum of Natural Sciences of Madrid attended by a paleontologist who is also paleoilustrador commented To see in the Store of the Museum of Natural Sciences the figures of Papo that these figures were beautiful (that is to say they were well done) but nevertheless they were not scientific and that also were based in the Jurassic Park many of them. As I tell you and I do not wish to offend you in any way I consider much within my total scientific ignorance the words of this understanding about paleontology.
On the other hand what I comment are simple opinions, free and always based on education and the rules of the forum in which I never try to offend anyone and is more if I see that I have exceeded my opinions always apologize. Apart from that I am a simple collector of dinosaur toys and I do not dislike Papo (perhaps his articulated jaws that yes, I am not in favor of them) in the others they are very detailed and I have to assert that there are scientific figures to the hundred percent As it happens with the tupuxuara, diplodocus and carnotaurus to put three examples.

In conclusion the truth and truth that the figures of prehistoric animals of toy are what is said simple toys and of course always as much that we strive will have mistakes to a greater or smaller extent, because they are destined to the children mainly although we are many people That we also buy such products. The truth and truth that if one wants a figure of a dinosaur or prehistoric scientific animal at one hundred percent at best he would have to buy a figure of resin that cost the best at best 100 euros or 100 dollars and Normally cost more than 200/300 euros / dollars for a graphic example.
I remain that from my point of view settled the question without that you have different criteria to mine, as I will have other people. Humans are not clones and as I say the only thing I intend in this endearing forum is to inform me about the novelties and acquire knowledge of paleontology even if I am lightly always respecting the opinions of others and most important respecting the ideas of my neighbor Although it does not coincide with mine.

In short, I like the figures of Papo, Mojo, Rebor, Battat, KInto, PNSO, Collecta, Safari, even Recur and Bullyland (the latter when they made good figures) and I am a simple collector who loves zoology and animals. Extinct regardless of my absolute ignorance. I wish with my appreciations not to offend anyone from the forum and it is more not to disrespect you so much, nor to skip at all the rules of the forum.

With postdata I like above all that the companies are more scientific and more precise like Safari, Collecta, Battat, Kinto and my biggest desire with my comments as also wish the rest of our fellow members is that all the companies including the one of Schleich improve year after year And there is a strong competition between them independently that they will do what they think convenient when making their figures for reasons of market and sale to certain groups (in this case children) and following their own philosophy that of course must be respected And of course you should not get into their life. But we also have sellers and traders exposing our critical points both positive and negative view.

I am simply a collector of toys and my greatest illusion is that the figures of dinosaurs and prehistoric animals improve year after year without gaining any benefit, but rather the opposite, spending on my meager bank account

Ah don't worry I didn't think you where being rude or offensive and what you said was interesting I would just like to know specifically what is wrong with the figure, I'm only 17 and by no means consider myself a scholar on this stuff but I do draw dinosaurs and try to make the as accurate as I can ( example of some of my work http://backocean.deviantart.com/art/Daspletosaurus-629967180 ) so I'm just interested in the specifics of whats wrong with the figure perhaps on an anatomical scale like is the arm to long, is the skull to big, is the tail to short, etc.

also I know this isn't the place but it would be awesome if you guys could check out my work
http://backocean.deviantart.com/art/Cryolophosaurus-635492851
http://backocean.deviantart.com/gallery/

[Shonisaurus]

Honestly your paleoartísticos works are fabulous. The cryolophosaurus that you have made (and that I do not understand paleontology but it is seen with the naked eye) is much better than the one of Papo, independently that said figure I will buy it without hesitate I like Papo by its detail although its figures many of them (some Fortunately they are the exception) are not scientific.