How should my collection be?

[Cloud the Dinosaur King]

Do you guys think that my collection should be grouped by company or by group(theropods, sauropods, ornithopods)?

[suspsy]

I display mine according to group, but your collection should be however the hell you choose it to be. There's no wrong or right way to do it.

[BlueKrono]

I do my own by group. I think it would depend on which characteristic is most significant to you.

[CityRaptor]

I think this is up to you. Mine is currently grouped by company, but I can understand why one would group them by group, and have thought about doing it myself. But I figured out that grouping them by company is a more effective use of space for me.

[ceratopsian]

I agree with the others - it's what appeals to you most, there is no "should" here.  I've been thinking about this a bit myself recently, as I'm hoping to have new accommodations for my models later this year.  I'll probably go for a bit of a mix.  For instance, the tiny models - Kaiyodo and the like - I'll keep together, probably arranged within that by animal group.  I'll probably also put my larger models and custom-painted resins together - e.g. the one Sideshow I own, the Trcic running Triceratops, the handful of models from Martin Garrett I have, maybe the larger PNSO models.  Then the rest I'll try and organise by animal group - e.g. I love to see all my ceratopsians together.  So for me scale (loosely speaking) and the type of model (toy or "posh" model) come into it as well as company/animal group.  Maybe too if animals came together as a set I'll be a bit inclined to display them as a set.  I guess I'll also give pride of place to particular favourites.  I'm also hoping that maybe every now and then I can vary the display and ring the changes!  It might also be fun to see if I can build up a group of dinosaurs that are known contemporaries from a particular geographic area, but I certainly wouldn't do that with the whole collection - otherwise I would be too busy agonising over the details ever to get anything up on the shelves!

[Neosodon]

I display my models completely random. A few on the mantle, a couple on a cabinet and a bunch more on the coffee table. I try to get models that are relatively to scale so they all look good no matter which dinosaurs they're set up with. Somtimes I'll display them by time period like I'll display my stegosaurus with the Diplodacus and Ceratosaurus. I think its cool to have my models grouped with the other dinosaurs they would of been around in real life.

[Cloud the Dinosaur King]

I think that I should group my dinosaurs by Suborder as than I would have more dinosaurs per shelf and I would only need 3 shelf's as opposed to 5.

[BrontoScorpio]

I would say Totally by company !
The figures kind of fit next to each other being made by the same concept, style, material and often scale too.

[Silvanusaurus]

You should group them by the number of digits on the hind feet and the expression of complacency in their eyes. This and this alone should be the universal rule of dinosaur toy collecting.

[Libraraptor]

Do whatever you like. There is just this simple rule. I have them all crammed together on shelves and in cabinets.

[deanm]

What ever way makes you happy and fits your needs (what ever they may be - viewing, space, etc).

Myself, I have sorted it my collection displays in the following manner:
   pterosaurs by family ( the bulk of my collection)
   Burgess Shale (various manufacturers loosely grouped by critter and or by manufacturer)
   Prehistoric fish (like the Burgess Shale)
   Company-wise - everything else...

To me, I also like looking at other people's collections - no matter how they are ordered/sorted/displayed etc as it always provides me with ideas etc.

[Halichoeres]

You should group them by the number of digits on the hind feet and the expression of complacency in their eyes. This and this alone should be the universal rule of dinosaur toy collecting.

False. The objectively best way is by the energy content of the toy, which can be measured by combusting it in a bomb calorimeter. Once you've measured the number of kilojoules released by its burning, you can replace it and arrange it accordingly.

[Silvanusaurus]

You should group them by the number of digits on the hind feet and the expression of complacency in their eyes. This and this alone should be the universal rule of dinosaur toy collecting.

False. The objectively best way is by the energy content of the toy, which can be measured by combusting it in a bomb calorimeter. Once you've measured the number of kilojoules released by its burning, you can replace it and arrange it accordingly.

Everything I believed in has changed.

[The Atroxious]

False. The objectively best way is by the energy content of the toy, which can be measured by combusting it in a bomb calorimeter. Once you've measured the number of kilojoules released by its burning, you can replace it and arrange it accordingly.

Does this method include figures such as the Papo brown running rex and the Battat Diplodocus? Not that I have either, but given the rarity of those figures, wouldn't it be better to weigh them and figure out what materials they're made of in roughly what proportions, and come up with an estimate of energy content?

[BlueKrono]

False. The objectively best way is by the energy content of the toy, which can be measured by combusting it in a bomb calorimeter. Once you've measured the number of kilojoules released by its burning, you can replace it and arrange it accordingly.

Does this method include figures such as the Papo brown running rex and the Battat Diplodocus? Not that I have either, but given the rarity of those figures, wouldn't it be better to weigh them and figure out what materials they're made of in roughly what proportions, and come up with an estimate of energy content?

No.

[Takama]

I group mine by Line.

But it is up to you on how you group your collection

[Silvanusaurus]

False. The objectively best way is by the energy content of the toy, which can be measured by combusting it in a bomb calorimeter. Once you've measured the number of kilojoules released by its burning, you can replace it and arrange it accordingly.

Does this method include figures such as the Papo brown running rex and the Battat Diplodocus? Not that I have either, but given the rarity of those figures, wouldn't it be better to weigh them and figure out what materials they're made of in roughly what proportions, and come up with an estimate of energy content?

No, too much 'roughly' in that method. Combustion is the only way, only a profligate heathen-born would question this.

[gursar]

I think it is better changing to different methods time to time instead of stick to the one specific method. I am getting bored to look at the same setting after a while. Also rearranging my collection always makes a good excuse forcing my lazy nature to clean dusts  .
Here are some quite extraordinary innovative ideas which I could not think in a thousand years maybe I could borrow a couple of them for my next rearrangement.

[Halichoeres]

False. The objectively best way is by the energy content of the toy, which can be measured by combusting it in a bomb calorimeter. Once you've measured the number of kilojoules released by its burning, you can replace it and arrange it accordingly.

Does this method include figures such as the Papo brown running rex and the Battat Diplodocus? Not that I have either, but given the rarity of those figures, wouldn't it be better to weigh them and figure out what materials they're made of in roughly what proportions, and come up with an estimate of energy content?

No, too much 'roughly' in that method. Combustion is the only way, only a profligate heathen-born would question this.

Correct. That way lies epistemological anarchy.

[Moodyraptor]

Mine are extremely carefully arranged in a manner that is aesthetically pleasing but which gives the air of being aesthetically pleasing by accident and not because I have obsessively arranged them. It's a subtle art.