Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[Gwangi]

Thanks for the review shout-out, @Duna; but don't forget @Gwangi who has also been covering a lot of the Marx figures in recent months, among some other retro-style figures from time to time (plus more contributions by other regular or guest reviewers).

Thank you for the shout-out, @Fembrogon! Much appreciated. 

[Duna]

Of course, @Gwangi In fact it was after some of your reviews that I set my interest in those figures, I can't forget your review of Starlux Psittacosaurus and how much I wanted that figure after I read that, I was very sad because you said it was one of the difficult to get and it was true. But I felt very happy when I got it. All my interest in Invicta also started after I came across the Iguanodon review (I think it was yours, too?).
I appreciate your work very much as reviewing vintage figures, as I've stated it's not easy and making people feel what I felt it's the most grateful part as I see it.
I will thank also @Libraraptor for the same reason and probably I'm leaving some others behind.

[Concavenator]

Back to toys: I rather have oversized feet than stability issues or tripods due to unnaturally bend tails.

For me, oversized feet are literally the worst possible solution when it comes to stability. I've had figures with oversized feet in the past that still didn't stand. Enlarging the feet reduces the risk of stability issues, but it doesn't guarantee anything. Check out @Halichoeres ' brilliant review of the Rebor Ekrixinatosaurus if you don't believe me. Personally, the ideal solution for me is what PNSO is doing with their bipeds - accurately sized feet with something included to ensure stability in the long term (in PNSO's case, those transparent rods). If nothing is included, I don't mind using a coin or leaning the figure on a wall... If we're to choose between tripods or clown feet, I'd much rather have a tripod (as long as it looks reasonably natural, like Safari's Coelophysis)

I'm not the first to bring this up on this thread, but I think it bears repeating: there can be no such thing as a definitive figure of an organism known only from fossils.

Not sure if I agree... While what you said is true, I believe there can be (and there are) figures that lack any inaccuracy, so it could be said they're "definitive" at a particular time. We don't know (in many cases, there are exceptions, as @stargatedalek pointed out) if the actual creature necessarily looked like that, but we can't discard the idea. That's how I would define "definitive" as, at least in this context. Of course, this is subject to change in light of new discoveries, and I don't think older, outdated reconstructions should be put down, as long as they are accurate for the time they were created.

Even if it is theoretically possible to create a "definitive accurate" reconstruction, a "definitive best" version won't ever really be a thing. There are always going to be variations in preference of scale, art style, and material, for even a provably 100% correct interpretation. This is why there can never be a single definitive version of a modern animal model either.

If there are more than 1 "definitive accurate" reconstructions of a particular creature, I also don't think there's a "definitive best". If you like one interpretation more than others (as long as they're perfectly reasonable with the currently available evidence) it doesn't make that particular interpretation any better. Preferences about scale and all that you mention is purely subjective, and it shouldn't make any reconstruction inherently better or worse.

[Gwangi]

Of course, @Gwangi In fact it was after some of your reviews that I set my interest in those figures, I can't forget your review of Starlux Psittacosaurus and how much I wanted that figure after I read that, I was very sad because you said it was one of the difficult to get and it was true. But I felt very happy when I got it. All my interest in Invicta also started after I came across the Iguanodon review (I think it was yours, too?).
I appreciate your work very much as reviewing vintage figures, as I've stated it's not easy and making people feel what I felt it's the most grateful part as I see it.
I will thank also @Libraraptor for the same reason and probably I'm leaving some others behind.

Thanks! It's nice to know that some of my reviews help generate interest and introduce people to stuff they wouldn't have considered otherwise. I should point out that I did not review the Starlux Psittacosaurus though, that was a guest review by @amargasaurus cazaui, I just edited and posted it. I don't have that figure myself, but I wish I did! I did review the Invicta Iguanodon though.

[Duna]

Thanks! It's nice to know that some of my reviews help generate interest and introduce people to stuff they wouldn't have considered otherwise. I should point out that I did not review the Starlux Psittacosaurus though, that was a guest review by @amargasaurus cazaui, I just edited and posted it. I don't have that figure myself, but I wish I did! I did review the Invicta Iguanodon though.

Oh, sorry, my mistake, I just remembered your name. So Iguanodon was yours? It was just after reading that (I was searching for "iguanodon" and the pic of that figure stood like a absolutely perfect retro depiction of the species) I looked for adds of those Invicta in a second hand local market web and I bought my first three figures that same day (iguanodon (yes!), megalosaurus and stegosaurus) from a seller that lived near me.

As I have said in another post, it was also thanks to @Fembrogon that I decided to collect Sinclair. I fall in love with that earthy coloured Trachodon. And some other authors' reviews after, too, for example Linde ...

And of course in my collecting path I can't forgot to mention J @japfeif and his marvelous books about vintage collections, who shared his love and knowledge so everyone could appreciate and discover those figures. I decided to collect Nabisco after reading his book because I realised I loved those little figures I didn't know about.

[japfeif]

First thing I have to say is feel free to disagree! I would love to know everyone else's opinion.

I hate Invicta, and overly retro dinosaur figures. They have no charm whatsoever. (Jurassic Park style doesn't count, and I actually quite like JP style stuff.)
It REALLY annoys me that people are comparing PNSO and Safari. They both are usually scientifically accurate, but they are really different otherwise.
2018 was Papo's best year by far. The majority of stuff after 2019 has been rather bad. (Their Chilesaurus and Megaloceros are quite nice.)
I like some of the older Schleich figures. (Brachiosaurus, Dimetrodon, Tyrannosaurus)
I LOVE Mattel's more obscure figures.
Herbivorous Theropods are the best. You get the best of both worlds!
BOTM is the greatest thing ever and always.
I don't like the sheer scale of people who think JP dinos are what they were actually like.
Mattel's new Dominion figures are the coolest they have ever released.
CollectA is underrated while Papo is overrated
Please feel free to disagree.

Well, I agree with most of your assessments, but have to disagree with y our opinion on Invicta. There are basically two types of collectors' opinions on "retro vs. today". Some folks look at a figure and if it's accurate to their liking and all that, then they like it. If it's not scientifically precise and outdated,then they may not like it. Nothing wrong with that line of thinking.
However, I tend to always have the mindset of when seeing a figure for the first time, one of the first questions I generally ask is "when was it made?". If it's inaccurate with today's way of thinking but was produced, say, in the early 80s, I will give it a pass if it's a nice sculpt & pleasing to the eye....scientifically accuracy comes second.

You have to remember, many (but obviously not "all") of the dino figures out there that are not considered accurate, at the time they were made they might have been based on the prevailing theories at the time. The company did the best they could do with the info they had (and not being trained paleontologists, they probably did not have easy access to all the detailed ins & outs to things like neck-to-body ratios, pronated hands, the dreaded "shrink-wrapping", etc.). So I don't think that they should be vilified for not having access to all the facts & discovery data that are available now.

Now, other folks I've talked to don't care about the "excuses"....the figure is either "right" or "wrong" and that's that. Sort of like the mentality of the folks who grew up on Star Wars making fun of a classic movie like "Forbidden Planet" for it's "cheesy" special effects (and even today, young folks criticize Star Wars for ITS cheesy effects! haha). But it's not really fair to judge a movie (or dinosaur figure) made 40 years ago with the knowledge & technology that was prevalent then and expect to hold them to today's standards. Just 2 different lines of thought.

So that said, I find the Invicta line very charming, realistic for their time (that's the critical part here) and judge them for "how good were they in accordance to 70s & 80s standards?". For instance, the Mamenchisaurus gets alot of criticism for its neck posture, which is not known to be inaccurate but what what they thought the neck to could do BACK THEN. So can you really fault the figure?

They were the first line to at least make some attempt at scaling their figures with each other and many of the dinos hold up reasonably well today. The fact that they aren't accurate by today's standards and are considered more "retro" than anything else is kind of irrelevant to me. They are very much a product of their time. Just like Marx, Linde, ROM, and the rest of the "vintage" crew.

And one thing about Papo...they have definitely had some hits & misses as far as (again) scientific accuracy. But for me, the ting that they DO have going for them and makes this collector keep coming back & having faith in them is the fact that whether or not they give pronated hands to a theropod who didn't have them, shrink-wrapped a dino's head when it shouldn't have been (and in my opinion that's debatable at best.....we really don't know exactly how much muscle/fat was on a dino's skull and I've always thought far too much ado is made over "shrink-wrapping", which has never been decisively proven or disproved as far as I know, as it's a soft tissue issue...however, the pronated wrist thing is definitely a proven mechanical & physiological impossibility & should never be done in a figure), Papo figures always look "alive". If you stick one in your yard and walk 4 feet away, just about all of their figures look like they are living animals standing there (from the point of view of someone who isn't picking apart all the physiological errors or isn't aware of them), and I give Papo major points for that. No other comparably-priced dino figure line can make that claim.
No matter how scientifically accurate Safari or CollectA may make a dinosaur figure, it never looks like anything more than a toy or a model. It could never be mistaken for a living animal. I just wish Papo could/would take their amazing skills at recreating and sculpting a living breathing animal and give them all of the latest scientifically accurate features & details.

THAT would be a company no one could complain about.

[Gwangi]

Thanks! It's nice to know that some of my reviews help generate interest and introduce people to stuff they wouldn't have considered otherwise. I should point out that I did not review the Starlux Psittacosaurus though, that was a guest review by @amargasaurus cazaui, I just edited and posted it. I don't have that figure myself, but I wish I did! I did review the Invicta Iguanodon though.

Oh, sorry, my mistake, I just remembered your name. So Iguanodon was yours? It was just after reading that (I was searching for "iguanodon" and the pic of that figure stood like a absolutely perfect retro depiction of the species) I looked for adds of those Invicta in a second hand local market web and I bought my first three figures that same day (iguanodon (yes!), megalosaurus and stegosaurus) from a seller that lived near me.

As I have said in another post, it was also thanks to @Fembrogon that I decided to collect Sinclair. I fall in love with that earthy coloured Trachodon. And some other authors' reviews after, too, for example Linde ...

And of course in my collecting path I can't forgot to mention J @japfeif and his marvelous books about vintage collections, who shared his love and knowledge so everyone could appreciate and discover those figures. I decided to collect Nabisco after reading his book because I realised I loved those little figures I didn't know about.

No worries, I just wanted to give credit where it's due. But yes, the Invicta Iguanodon review is mine, I reviewed maybe 6 Invicta figures? I must also thank @Fembrogon for bringing the Sinclair toys to my attention. Despite collecting a few vintage lines I'm not that well versed on all of them and that includes Sinclair (aside from the Mold-A-Rama figures).

The thing about vintage vs. modern is that everything that is now modern will eventually be vintage, and since we're dealing with extinct animals, chances are they'll also eventually be outdated and inaccurate. If the goal is to only have a collection of accurate figures then it will require periodically having to replace figures, you're forever chasing an unreachable goal, and to me that's somewhat sad. That's why I just collect what I like, accurate or inaccurate, modern or vintage. Chances are if I like the figure today I'll still like it in 10 or 20 years, when it's no longer accurate or modern.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Thanks! It's nice to know that some of my reviews help generate interest and introduce people to stuff they wouldn't have considered otherwise. I should point out that I did not review the Starlux Psittacosaurus though, that was a guest review by @amargasaurus cazaui, I just edited and posted it. I don't have that figure myself, but I wish I did! I did review the Invicta Iguanodon though.

Oh, sorry, my mistake, I just remembered your name. So Iguanodon was yours? It was just after reading that (I was searching for "iguanodon" and the pic of that figure stood like a absolutely perfect retro depiction of the species) I looked for adds of those Invicta in a second hand local market web and I bought my first three figures that same day (iguanodon (yes!), megalosaurus and stegosaurus) from a seller that lived near me.

As I have said in another post, it was also thanks to @Fembrogon that I decided to collect Sinclair. I fall in love with that earthy coloured Trachodon. And some other authors' reviews after, too, for example Linde ...

And of course in my collecting path I can't forgot to mention J @japfeif and his marvelous books about vintage collections, who shared his love and knowledge so everyone could appreciate and discover those figures. I decided to collect Nabisco after reading his book because I realised I loved those little figures I didn't know about.

No worries, I just wanted to give credit where it's due. But yes, the Invicta Iguanodon review is mine, I reviewed maybe 6 Invicta figures? I must also thank @Fembrogon for bringing the Sinclair toys to my attention. Despite collecting a few vintage lines I'm not that well versed on all of them and that includes Sinclair (aside from the Mold-A-Rama figures).

The thing about vintage vs. modern is that everything that is now modern will eventually be vintage, and since we're dealing with extinct animals, chances are they'll also eventually be outdated and inaccurate. If the goal is to only have a collection of accurate figures then it will require periodically having to replace figures, you're forever chasing an unreachable goal, and to me that's somewhat sad. That's why I just collect what I like, accurate or inaccurate, modern or vintage. Chances are if I like the figure today I'll still like it in 10 or 20 years, when it's no longer accurate or modern.

I agree fully. The only addendum I would add is also pop culture and fantasy representations to that as well. If you like it, buy it. If not don't

[Gwangi]

Thanks! It's nice to know that some of my reviews help generate interest and introduce people to stuff they wouldn't have considered otherwise. I should point out that I did not review the Starlux Psittacosaurus though, that was a guest review by @amargasaurus cazaui, I just edited and posted it. I don't have that figure myself, but I wish I did! I did review the Invicta Iguanodon though.

Oh, sorry, my mistake, I just remembered your name. So Iguanodon was yours? It was just after reading that (I was searching for "iguanodon" and the pic of that figure stood like a absolutely perfect retro depiction of the species) I looked for adds of those Invicta in a second hand local market web and I bought my first three figures that same day (iguanodon (yes!), megalosaurus and stegosaurus) from a seller that lived near me.

As I have said in another post, it was also thanks to @Fembrogon that I decided to collect Sinclair. I fall in love with that earthy coloured Trachodon. And some other authors' reviews after, too, for example Linde ...

And of course in my collecting path I can't forgot to mention J @japfeif and his marvelous books about vintage collections, who shared his love and knowledge so everyone could appreciate and discover those figures. I decided to collect Nabisco after reading his book because I realised I loved those little figures I didn't know about.

No worries, I just wanted to give credit where it's due. But yes, the Invicta Iguanodon review is mine, I reviewed maybe 6 Invicta figures? I must also thank @Fembrogon for bringing the Sinclair toys to my attention. Despite collecting a few vintage lines I'm not that well versed on all of them and that includes Sinclair (aside from the Mold-A-Rama figures).

The thing about vintage vs. modern is that everything that is now modern will eventually be vintage, and since we're dealing with extinct animals, chances are they'll also eventually be outdated and inaccurate. If the goal is to only have a collection of accurate figures then it will require periodically having to replace figures, you're forever chasing an unreachable goal, and to me that's somewhat sad. That's why I just collect what I like, accurate or inaccurate, modern or vintage. Chances are if I like the figure today I'll still like it in 10 or 20 years, when it's no longer accurate or modern.

I agree fully. The only addendum I would add is also pop culture and fantasy representations to that as well. If you like it, buy it. If not don't

And with pop culture representatives you're guaranteed that they'll always be accurate, to the source material at least.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Thanks! It's nice to know that some of my reviews help generate interest and introduce people to stuff they wouldn't have considered otherwise. I should point out that I did not review the Starlux Psittacosaurus though, that was a guest review by @amargasaurus cazaui, I just edited and posted it. I don't have that figure myself, but I wish I did! I did review the Invicta Iguanodon though.

Oh, sorry, my mistake, I just remembered your name. So Iguanodon was yours? It was just after reading that (I was searching for "iguanodon" and the pic of that figure stood like a absolutely perfect retro depiction of the species) I looked for adds of those Invicta in a second hand local market web and I bought my first three figures that same day (iguanodon (yes!), megalosaurus and stegosaurus) from a seller that lived near me.

As I have said in another post, it was also thanks to @Fembrogon that I decided to collect Sinclair. I fall in love with that earthy coloured Trachodon. And some other authors' reviews after, too, for example Linde ...

And of course in my collecting path I can't forgot to mention J @japfeif and his marvelous books about vintage collections, who shared his love and knowledge so everyone could appreciate and discover those figures. I decided to collect Nabisco after reading his book because I realised I loved those little figures I didn't know about.

No worries, I just wanted to give credit where it's due. But yes, the Invicta Iguanodon review is mine, I reviewed maybe 6 Invicta figures? I must also thank @Fembrogon for bringing the Sinclair toys to my attention. Despite collecting a few vintage lines I'm not that well versed on all of them and that includes Sinclair (aside from the Mold-A-Rama figures).

The thing about vintage vs. modern is that everything that is now modern will eventually be vintage, and since we're dealing with extinct animals, chances are they'll also eventually be outdated and inaccurate. If the goal is to only have a collection of accurate figures then it will require periodically having to replace figures, you're forever chasing an unreachable goal, and to me that's somewhat sad. That's why I just collect what I like, accurate or inaccurate, modern or vintage. Chances are if I like the figure today I'll still like it in 10 or 20 years, when it's no longer accurate or modern.

I agree fully. The only addendum I would add is also pop culture and fantasy representations to that as well. If you like it, buy it. If not don't

And with pop culture representatives you're guaranteed that they'll always be accurate, to the source material at least.

exactly.

[Theriz]

First thing I have to say is feel free to disagree! I would love to know everyone else's opinion.

I hate Invicta, and overly retro dinosaur figures. They have no charm whatsoever. (Jurassic Park style doesn't count, and I actually quite like JP style stuff.)
It REALLY annoys me that people are comparing PNSO and Safari. They both are usually scientifically accurate, but they are really different otherwise.
2018 was Papo's best year by far. The majority of stuff after 2019 has been rather bad. (Their Chilesaurus and Megaloceros are quite nice.)
I like some of the older Schleich figures. (Brachiosaurus, Dimetrodon, Tyrannosaurus)
I LOVE Mattel's more obscure figures.
Herbivorous Theropods are the best. You get the best of both worlds!
BOTM is the greatest thing ever and always.
I don't like the sheer scale of people who think JP dinos are what they were actually like.
Mattel's new Dominion figures are the coolest they have ever released.
CollectA is underrated while Papo is overrated
Please feel free to disagree.

Well, I agree with most of your assessments, but have to disagree with y our opinion on Invicta. There are basically two types of collectors' opinions on "retro vs. today". Some folks look at a figure and if it's accurate to their liking and all that, then they like it. If it's not scientifically precise and outdated,then they may not like it. Nothing wrong with that line of thinking.
However, I tend to always have the mindset of when seeing a figure for the first time, one of the first questions I generally ask is "when was it made?". If it's inaccurate with today's way of thinking but was produced, say, in the early 80s, I will give it a pass if it's a nice sculpt & pleasing to the eye....scientifically accuracy comes second.

You have to remember, many (but obviously not "all") of the dino figures out there that are not considered accurate, at the time they were made they might have been based on the prevailing theories at the time. The company did the best they could do with the info they had (and not being trained paleontologists, they probably did not have easy access to all the detailed ins & outs to things like neck-to-body ratios, pronated hands, the dreaded "shrink-wrapping", etc.). So I don't think that they should be vilified for not having access to all the facts & discovery data that are available now.

Now, other folks I've talked to don't care about the "excuses"....the figure is either "right" or "wrong" and that's that. Sort of like the mentality of the folks who grew up on Star Wars making fun of a classic movie like "Forbidden Planet" for it's "cheesy" special effects (and even today, young folks criticize Star Wars for ITS cheesy effects! haha). But it's not really fair to judge a movie (or dinosaur figure) made 40 years ago with the knowledge & technology that was prevalent then and expect to hold them to today's standards. Just 2 different lines of thought.

So that said, I find the Invicta line very charming, realistic for their time (that's the critical part here) and judge them for "how good were they in accordance to 70s & 80s standards?". For instance, the Mamenchisaurus gets alot of criticism for its neck posture, which is not known to be inaccurate but what what they thought the neck to could do BACK THEN. So can you really fault the figure?

They were the first line to at least make some attempt at scaling their figures with each other and many of the dinos hold up reasonably well today. The fact that they aren't accurate by today's standards and are considered more "retro" than anything else is kind of irrelevant to me. They are very much a product of their time. Just like Marx, Linde, ROM, and the rest of the "vintage" crew.

And one thing about Papo...they have definitely had some hits & misses as far as (again) scientific accuracy. But for me, the thing that they DO have going for them and makes this collector keep coming back & having faith in them is the fact that whether or not they give pronated hands to a theropod who didn't have them, shrink-wrapped a dino's head when it shouldn't have been (and in my opinion that's debatable at best.....we really don't know exactly how much muscle/fat was on a dino's skull and I've always thought far too much ado is made over "shrink-wrapping", which has never been decisively proven or disproved as far as I know, as it's a soft tissue issue...however, the pronated wrist thing is definitely a proven mechanical & physiological impossibility & should never be done in a figure), Papo figures always look "alive". If you stick one in your yard and walk 4 feet away, just about all of their figures look like they are living animals standing there (from the point of view of someone who isn't picking apart all the physiological errors or isn't aware of them), and I give Papo major points for that. No other comparably-priced dino figure line can make that claim.
No matter how scientifically accurate Safari or CollectA may make a dinosaur figure, it never looks like anything more than a toy or a model. It could never be mistaken for a living animal. I just wish Papo could/would take their amazing skills at recreating and sculpting a living breathing animal and give them all of the latest scientifically accurate features & details.

THAT would be a company no one could complain about.

I absolutely see where you are coming from with the Invicta dinosaurs. They just aren't appealing to me. I think I worded it a little too harsh.

[Skorpio V.]

I kinda like it when members start discussing early on, sometimes even when a figure isn't announced yet. This allows the conversation to divulge into different topics like tooth size, feathering, etc. that may not have already been discussed for certain genera using such a wide range of knowledge instead of narrowly nit-picking off the figure. E.g. in the Eofauna New for 2022 thread (http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=9846.240), the members in discussion take from what the brand has previously published in books and posts, different papers, and past experiences.  This pre-discussion keeps the audience on the website, instead of being a ghost town until the figure is released.

[Halichoeres]

The thing about vintage vs. modern is that everything that is now modern will eventually be vintage, and since we're dealing with extinct animals, chances are they'll also eventually be outdated and inaccurate. If the goal is to only have a collection of accurate figures then it will require periodically having to replace figures, you're forever chasing an unreachable goal, and to me that's somewhat sad. That's why I just collect what I like, accurate or inaccurate, modern or vintage. Chances are if I like the figure today I'll still like it in 10 or 20 years, when it's no longer accurate or modern.

There's some truth to the idea that our understanding will change, but if you compare figures released in 2021 to ones released in 2001, the best ones released in 2001 are not actually out of place among modern figures. In contrast, comparing the best 2001 figures with the best 1981 figures is a pretty severe mismatch. Some contemporary reconstructions will age poorly, but given the sheer volume of discoveries that have been made in the last 30 years, I think it's unlikely that the next 30 years will be nearly as disruptive to our understanding of ancient life. There will be surprises, and there will be new taxa, and they will be given new context by further research. But I just don't think the best 2021 figures will look as goofy in 30 years as 30-year-old figures generally look now. (And this is saying nothing of improvements in manufacturing.) Paleontology moves unevenly but inexorably closer to correct answers, so the opportunities for misunderstanding become smaller.

I'm not the first to bring this up on this thread, but I think it bears repeating: there can be no such thing as a definitive figure of an organism known only from fossils.

Not sure if I agree... While what you said is true, I believe there can be (and there are) figures that lack any inaccuracy, so it could be said they're "definitive" at a particular time. We don't know (in many cases, there are exceptions, as @stargatedalek pointed out) if the actual creature necessarily looked like that, but we can't discard the idea. That's how I would define "definitive" as, at least in this context. Of course, this is subject to change in light of new discoveries, and I don't think older, outdated reconstructions should be put down, as long as they are accurate for the time they were created.

Even if it is theoretically possible to create a "definitive accurate" reconstruction, a "definitive best" version won't ever really be a thing. There are always going to be variations in preference of scale, art style, and material, for even a provably 100% correct interpretation. This is why there can never be a single definitive version of a modern animal model either.

If there are more than 1 "definitive accurate" reconstructions of a particular creature, I also don't think there's a "definitive best". If you like one interpretation more than others (as long as they're perfectly reasonable with the currently available evidence) it doesn't make that particular interpretation any better. Preferences about scale and all that you mention is purely subjective, and it shouldn't make any reconstruction inherently better or worse.

A figure can lack any knowable inaccuracies, but it will still have unknowable inaccuracies. For that reason I don't think there can be a definitive version. The closest you can get is something where we know a lot about integument and pigment distribution, but it's worth remembering that only some kinds of pigments preserve. Things like xanthins, porphyrins, and carotenoids do not readily fossilize, so in cases where they contributed to coloration we are unlikely to be aware of it. Then there are odd things like turacoverdin--who knows what kinds of molecules organisms used for coloration in the past that we wouldn't even know how to look for.

[Gwangi]

The thing about vintage vs. modern is that everything that is now modern will eventually be vintage, and since we're dealing with extinct animals, chances are they'll also eventually be outdated and inaccurate. If the goal is to only have a collection of accurate figures then it will require periodically having to replace figures, you're forever chasing an unreachable goal, and to me that's somewhat sad. That's why I just collect what I like, accurate or inaccurate, modern or vintage. Chances are if I like the figure today I'll still like it in 10 or 20 years, when it's no longer accurate or modern.

There's some truth to the idea that our understanding will change, but if you compare figures released in 2021 to ones released in 2001, the best ones released in 2001 are not actually out of place among modern figures. In contrast, comparing the best 2001 figures with the best 1981 figures is a pretty severe mismatch. Some contemporary reconstructions will age poorly, but given the sheer volume of discoveries that have been made in the last 30 years, I think it's unlikely that the next 30 years will be nearly as disruptive to our understanding of ancient life. There will be surprises, and there will be new taxa, and they will be given new context by further research. But I just don't think the best 2021 figures will look as goofy in 30 years as 30-year-old figures generally look now. (And this is saying nothing of improvements in manufacturing.) Paleontology moves unevenly but inexorably closer to correct answers, so the opportunities for misunderstanding become smaller.

By and large, I agree with what you're saying. But then you have example like Spinosaurus, Atopodentatus, Edmontosaurus, and Dilophosaurus where new studies change their appearance and collectors start clamoring for an updated version of that animal, even when decent representations of it already exist but are overnight deemed inaccurate. I don't think dinosaur appearance is going to change dramatically like it did during the Dinosaur Renaissance, because of what you said, but many of these animals are still so poorly known that all it takes is the discovery of another specimen to significantly change its appearance. Safari gave us an accurate Dilophosaurus, then a paper came out and it was inaccurate in the same year. Now guess what the collectors want again? An accurate Dilophosaurus.

[Halichoeres]

By and large, I agree with what you're saying. But then you have example like Spinosaurus, Atopodentatus, Edmontosaurus, and Dilophosaurus where new studies change their appearance and collectors start clamoring for an updated version of that animal, even when decent representations of it already exist but are overnight deemed inaccurate. I don't think dinosaur appearance is going to change dramatically like it did during the Dinosaur Renaissance, because of what you said, but many of these animals are still so poorly known that all it takes is the discovery of another specimen to significantly change its appearance. Safari gave us an accurate Dilophosaurus, then a paper came out and it was inaccurate in the same year. Now guess what the collectors want again? An accurate Dilophosaurus.

That's a fair point, I wasn't really accounting for the fact that as major inaccuracies start to disappear, a subset of fans will seize on smaller and smaller inaccuracies and declare that no serviceable version of their favorite genus exists. We've had half a dozen solid Carnotaurus figures in the last few years and now there are some who are dissatisfied with all of them because of a paper that found the enlarged scales to have a different arrangement than had been thought. That strikes me as pretty trivial but for some it is evidently a deal breaker. And for sure there will always be some organisms that surprise us when more remains are found or described.

Anyway, the above reminds me of another controversial opinion I have:
Everyone who is less concerned than I am with accuracy is an antiscientific nincompoop who needs to go back to school and learn geology, comparative anatomy, and evolution.
Everyone who is more concerned than I am with accuracy is an insufferable pedant who needs to get a life.
I alone have struck the correct balance between an eye for accuracy and a tolerance for artistic license.

Edited to add: It's the same rule that George Carlin described for distinguishing between 'idiots' and 'maniacs' on the road.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWPCE2tTLZQ

[Strepsodus]

I'm not sure if this opinion as already been posted on this thread, but there are a ton of genera with great fossil remains and no figures, and a lot of genera known from little to nothing, that have figures. 

[Halichoeres]

I don't think that's even very controversial, at least not around here. Lots of us wish for some of the more completely known animals to get figures instead of the ones based on an ankle or a tibia. Like nobody has made a decent Stegoceras despite its being probably the most complete pachycephalosaur.

[Gwangi]

I agree, not terribly controversial. I've been annoyed by this phenomenon for years. We only just recently got some decent Centrosaurus figures.

[Sim]

On this note, Mark Witton has said this about Rhamphorhynchus:

It also arguably has the best fossil record of any pterosaur. It's known from over 100 specimens, many of them being complete, articulated skeletons with at least some three-dimensionality, as well as providing excellent soft-tissues remains. Excepting embryos, we have complete growth series from tiny juveniles to chunky adults with 1.8 m wingspans, and its preservation is such that fine details of bones can be gleaned through careful mechanical or acid preparation. Its osteology is subsequently better known that any other pterosaur.

From here: http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-lives-and-times-of-flying-reptiles.html

And yet there isn't even one good figure of this iconic, distinctive and well-preserved pterosaur.  Yet there's plenty of Quetzalcoatlus northropi figures based on fragments.  It's frustrating.

[Concavenator]

I don't think that's even very controversial, at least not around here. Lots of us wish for some of the more completely known animals to get figures instead of the ones based on an ankle or a tibia. Like nobody has made a decent Stegoceras despite its being probably the most complete pachycephalosaur.

I agree to some extent. For example, in my case I have wanted to have a Megaraptor figure since basically forever. Since Megaraptor isn't a popular genus, and thereby nobody makes them, over time I have become less rigurous and just wanted to have a megaraptoran, whatever it is. In this case, yeah, a more complete one like Orkoraptor would make more sense than a fragmentary one, and I would also take another megaraptoran rather than no megaraptoran at all...

Also worth mentioning that megaraptorans are clearly less popular than pachycephalosaurs and azhdarchids, so that doesn't help either.