Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[Fossilized-Rubber]

You buy a regular car because you want to go places, carry stuff and people.

You buy a Ferrari because you want to DRIVE. The experiences are very, very different.

To borrow your poetic structure:

You buy a scientific dinosaur model because you want to see dinosaurs as they once were.

You buy chinasaurs and monofigs because you want to see dinosaurs as they could be.

[Eatmycar]

I'll never put a Chinasaur on my shelves, frankly. I collect 1/18 Mattel Jurassic and BoTM and Chinasaurs do not hit that 'more enjoyable for the average person' feeling at all.

They look radioactive from a color perspective, they're hardly dinosaurs, to be frank. I also simply don't understand this notion that scientific accuracy is restrictive or inhibiting when it comes to the features of an animal. While I believe that there is a conservative bend in dinosaur toy aesthetics (especially on DTF), we can see unique, individualized designs based on scientific accuracy in the world of paleoart.

Frankly, I think it's a shame more toy companies don't take risks with figure designs. Maybe I'm misunderstanding where you're coming from, and if I am, I mean no harm or aggression towards you, but perhaps I'm missing something here?

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I collect China-saurs because I had them as a kid and have a lot of nostalgia tied up in them.

[Stegotyranno420]

Is it because they are very expensive and its unfortunate when they break/get lost. Kind of like how I'd prefer to drive a regulsr car over some Ferrari

As someone that owns and drives an Italian sportscar, I can say that's not really a good analogy.

You buy a regular car because you want to go places, carry stuff and people.

You buy a Ferrari because you want to DRIVE. The experiences are very, very different.

If driving a regular car is collecting cheap chinasaurs, then driving a Ferrari is riding a live T.rex.

I guess, I am not that much of a car guy, but I imagine the pain when it gets dented.
I much rather drive a German tank, where i can assume the part of the apeal is to be rugged and resistant.

@Fossilized-Rubber well here on the forum we are super classist and elitist especially when it comes to plastic dinosaurs. No laymen allowed

(im kidding)

[Crackington]

Hi everyone, I wonder if folk wouldn't mind using the term "cheaposaur" in place of "chinasaur"?

We've had discussions on this before and I think reached a concensus that it avoids using a somewhat derogatory and in any case inaccurate term:

https://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=8735.0#msg259512

Most of the modern models are actually manufactured in China (Safari and Collecta), with some of the best (e.g. PNSO) wholly originating from there. They are no longer just the cheap and cheerful fare of the 80s and 90s!

Thanks 

[Eatmycar]

Honestly, that's a great point.

I'll leave my first use of that term to stay (because I'm complicit in saying it), but you make an excellent point. It is not that far from a slur the more I think about it!

Thanks, @Crackington - I'll avoid that going forward.

[Duna]

Hi everyone, I wonder if folk wouldn't mind using the term "cheaposaur" in place of "chinasaur"?

Some chinasaurus from the 90s weren't cheap at the time and some cheaposaurus aren't considered that although being cheap (or at least most people don't consider them) for example Marx, Nabisco, Linde ...
What most people consider chinasaurus are figures from the 80s-90s made in China mostly (some in Hong Kong) and from the manufacturers Imperial, UKRD and Dor Mei and that's what it must be said. "cheaposaurus" means nothing.

[BlueKrono]

While I agree with @Duna's definition, language is a mutable thing. I will use the term cheaposaurs going forward if that will be understood not to mean finely-made nickel bucket dinos like Marx.

[Shane]

To be fair, "chinasaur" doesn't necessarily "mean anything" either. I understand "cheaposaur" better than "chinasaur".

As was mentioned, most reputable companies manufacture their products in China. Some like PNSO are based there. It's a pretty outdated term.

[Gwangi]

Here's my controversial dinotoy opinion: cheap knockoff monocolour toys with dramatic curves, textures and goofy features are superior to scientifically accurate highly painted toys.

My own collection is a mix of scientifically accurate figurines, action figures, and vintage toys. I can see the appeal in all of them and understand why the "cheaper" toys might be someone's preference.

Firstly, it should be the styles being compared, not the price point, especially since so many of the monochrome vintage toys are often more expensive than modern figures are. It's not a cheap car vs. a Ferrari, it's more like a classic car vs. a modern, or something unique and stylized like a DeLorean compared to something more ergonomic. People in this group generally gravitate toward accuracy and like to put the scientifically accurate figures on a pedestal, but that doesn't make them superior, and scientific accuracy is not the only metric through which a toy can be judged, nor is it wrong for your preference to be something besides scientific accuracy.

I love the modern, lifelike, accurate figures we're getting these days but when I joined this forum over a decade ago these things did not exist. If you wanted stuff like what PNSO and Haolonggood are doing you had to get statues and kits, not toys. The only company approaching our modern sensibility was Papo. In terms of realism, not accuracy of course. For accurate figures you were still buying TOYS. Toys by Safari/Carnegie, CollectA, Battat, Bullyland etc. And make no mistake, they were toys. Hand sculpted, often garishly painted, oddly proportioned toys. Those are the toys that got me into collecting and a hand sculpted toy by Doug Watson will always have something over a toy designed on and 3D printed from a computer. I can see why for some people there might be something lacking in many modern figures. These hyper-realistic toys lack a certain charm, character, or whimsy that older figures have. To use another couple analogies, it's like preferring stop motion over CGI, or caricatures over portraits.

[Fembrogon]

Well, said, @Gwangi. There's a lot of nuance to the options available on the market, and it's worth recognizing how those options changed over time.

I totally get where you're coming from, @Fossilized-Rubber; and I think you bring up interesting points! Even the "cheaposaurs" we make fun of can have a fascinating history and variety to them, sometimes with quite remarkable results.

E @Eatmycar brings up a valuable point too, though: scientifically accurate figurines don't have to be mundane in nature. Sure, there are some trends we see a lot of in poses and colors from the main brands; but the same can be true of the stylized or knocked-off figures too (JP T-rex, anyone?).
...And we DO see some attempts at experimentation within "accurate" models today. PNSO has tried plenty of times to pose their dinosaurs in more unique ways (consider the prancing mini Sinosauropteryx, the perky Ankylosaurus, the resting "Andrea" T. rex, or the recent running Albertosaurus); and Beasts of the Mesozoic is all about presenting scientifically reasonable scuplts with cool poseability and elaborate color schemes.
These aren't direct parallels with all cheaposaurs or vintage figures (especially the paint-vs-monochrome angle), but there's room for "accurate" toys to be "fun" toys, too - at least room to try.


As an aside:

Hi everyone, I wonder if folk wouldn't mind using the term "cheaposaur" in place of "chinasaur"?

We've had discussions on this before and I think reached a concensus that it avoids using a somewhat derogatory and in any case inaccurate term:

https://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=8735.0#msg259512

Most of the modern models are actually manufactured in China (Safari and Collecta), with some of the best (e.g. PNSO) wholly originating from there. They are no longer just the cheap and cheerful fare of the 80s and 90s!

Thanks 

Reading this discussion, and @DinoToyForum's conversations with his friend, I suddenly find myself wishing for a dedicated blog article about the history and usage of the term "chinasaur". That could be an interesting and informative read.

[Fossilized-Rubber]

Hi everyone, I wonder if folk wouldn't mind using the term "cheaposaur" in place of "chinasaur"?

I concede that the term Chinasaur is in the least case misleading and in the worst case misconstrued as racially derogatory.

I call them Chinasaurs because they have the word CHINA stamped on them, whereas most higher fidelity models will have the species name on their underside. I find cheaposaur a more derogatory term than Chinasaur. The implication that they're cheap or tacky just because they're not scientifically accurate or from an official brand seems somehow more elitist.

I think I need to invent a better term for what I collect, because not all of them have the CHINA mark, and the manual labour involved in sculpting pure imagination is not cheap. I'll start a thread when I've got some suggestions.

To use another couple analogies, it's like preferring stop motion over CGI, or caricatures over portraits.

I think you capture nicely the grubby, anti-sterilized image I'm trying to conjure when I talk about the toys I collect and why they're superior (I'll show my hand now, I made this dramatic claim for comedy reasons - a preference is not a fact).

...And we DO see some attempts at experimentation within "accurate" models today. PNSO has tried plenty of times to pose their dinosaurs in more unique ways (consider the prancing mini Sinosauropteryx, the perky Ankylosaurus, the resting "Andrea" T. rex, or the recent running Albertosaurus); and Beasts of the Mesozoic is all about presenting scientifically reasonable scuplts with cool poseability and elaborate color schemes.

Can you drop some links, pictures, or somewhere I can look these up? They sound both cool and adorable.

As a new user here on the forum I apologise for rocking the boat in the controversial opinions thread.

[Fossilized-Rubber]

They look radioactive from a color perspective, they're hardly dinosaurs, to be frank.

This is why I collect them. They're ugly and unloved and I find the models tell a story more of the sculptor and the culture that made them than they do about the creatures that lived a long time ago. The (non-scientifically accurate, often mass produced and pop-pulp-plastic figures) are monsters, not creatures. They definitely would not fit on your shelf of finely tuned collection. I didn't take any aggressive vibes from what you wrote and I don't send any in return :~)

[Shane]

I find cheaposaur a more derogatory term than Chinasaur. The implication that they're cheap or tacky just because they're not scientifically accurate or from an official brand seems somehow more elitist.

I mean, the ones that I envision when I heard the term chinasaur or cheapasaur ARE cheap. I'm thinking of the open mouthed, splayed armed, wild eyed dinosaurs of no real provenance, or the ubiquitous yellow pterodactyl bird thing that was in every dinosaur toy baggie when I was a kid.

The goal of these figures IS to be cheaper alternatives to more scientifically accurate or detailed, intricately painted product.

They are often sold in bulk, with little tracking info on the manufacturer. There's nothing inherently wrong with them being cheaply produced, but that is literally describing what they are.

You and everyone else are free to enjoy and like these figures, but I don't know that I'd call it elitist to call them what they are.

[Fembrogon]

Can you drop some links, pictures, or somewhere I can look these up? They sound both cool and adorable.

As a new user here on the forum I apologize for rocking the boat in the controversial opinions thread.

All four examples have reviews or announcements on the main blog (see here, here, here, and here). I have a couple of shots for the Ankylosaurus and Sinosauropteryx in my collection thread as well (as do others in their own threads). Hope this helps! These aren't extremely dramatic postures, mostly, but they're attempts at something more unusual and lively all the same.

...And no need to apologize! Rocking the boat (in a friendly manner) is exactly what this thread is for. 

[Crackington]

I was just drafting the same point as @Fembrogon! Agreed no need for any apologies in expressing a controversial views on dino toys here.

I used to use the term "Chinasaur" myself until hearing other views on the Forum and realising it could be perceived as hurtful and even a racial slur. It's important that we make Forum a safe place for everyone.

I also agree that most people did use it to mean cheap, unbranded models (often literally just "China" on their tummies) as you and Shane point out.

"Cheaposaur" was suggested by a long term member* as an alternative, but I take your point that it could be problematic in itself.

Perhaps some of the more specific names would be more apt, like "Screamers" for those cool monstrosities with the wide open mouths and sharp teeth whether herbivore or carnivore. "Bendasaurs" for those now illegal dangerous skinny rubber toys with the coat wire running through them! The 1970s was a different planet!

Or we could just call them boring old "Unbranded".

I wish that old Realm of the Rubber Dinosaurs site still existed, I think you would have loved it. There was a thread here on ugly dinos, I'll see if I can find the link (it had some corkers on it!).**

* The member does like old monochrome toys and oddities, so I don't think they were looking down on them as such, more looking for a good generic term.

** Edit - here's the link  https://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=349.0

[Eatmycar]

I'd also like to suggest some of CollectA's more unique animals if we're talking about a balance of distinction and accuracy.

Daspletosaurus
T. rex with Struthiomimus
Quilled Triceratops!
Swimming Spino!
"Sleeping" Triceratops

While I don't own any of these critters, they certainly stick out in my mind as unique, and respectful towards modern science. Could they be better? For sure, absolutely to be quite honest, but for what they are, they're a welcome breath of fresh air as opposed to theropod-in-mid-stride with a gaping maw screaming into the void. Hell, for as much flak as they get (and deserve) these days, the original Papo figures were pretty dynamic in posture and pleasant to look at, JP rip-offs aside.

[Paleo Flo]

The swimming Spinosaurus is one of my fav models.

[Fossilized-Rubber]

Swimming Spino!


I feel like this is the Bond girl we could've had.

Perhaps some of the more specific names would be more apt, like "Screamers" for those cool monstrosities with the wide open mouths and sharp teeth whether herbivore or carnivore. "Bendasaurs" for those now illegal dangerous skinny rubber toys with the coat wire running through them! The 1970s was a different planet!

Or we could just call them boring old "Unbranded".

I like the subcategories of "Bootleg", "Bendosaur", "Screamers" etc. I feel like toys of a certain scale and hand-wavey form should have their own category like "monster" or "pocketables" or something. There's a distinction between a toy that is cheaply made and one that is cheap.

I'll think on this more. I have an idea for grouping my collection but I can't articulate it beyond mapping the dinos to a grid: some are more something x and others are more something y. I don't know what the grid is measuring, but it's something. It's frustrating not to have the words to articulate it.

I wish that old Realm of the Rubber Dinosaurs site still existed, I think you would have loved it.

Even if it's down, do you have the URL to the old site? I might be able to find it on archive.org. (I think I found it)

[Halichoeres]

Here's my controversial dinotoy opinion: cheap knockoff monocolour toys with dramatic curves, textures and goofy features are superior to scientifically accurate highly painted toys.

Superior, huh? Hard to argue with that, heck, sometimes it's right in the name.

On terminology, I tried to get "dime-a-saur" going a while back but it didn't catch on, maybe just because "dime" doesn't mean anything to people who use a currency other than dollars, or have never heard of a dime store.