Review and photographs by Indohyus, edited by Suspsy
The last time I reviewed a Geoworld figure, I mentioned I had bought a figure from each of the first three lines. I reviewed my favourite of the three first, which in my opinion was the best of what I have. Now it’s time for the worst of the three, a waste of money and plastic: Protoceratops. This early ceratopsian is a very common herbivore in the Upper Cretaceous rocks of Mongolia, often nicknamed the ‘sheep of the Cretaceous’, so you’d think it’d be easy to create an accurate model from even a small amount of research. Evidently, Geoworld disagreed.
Geoworld is infamous for claims of scientific accuracy that are quickly proven wrong, and massive amounts of plagiarism. The First Expedition, as it’s known, is a good example of these problems. The first culprit is the fact card provided with each figure. While it does have useful information that children will appreciate and learn from, the picture of Protoceratops is clearly a plagiarised picture from early dinosaur books (can‘t find the exact author).
Onto the figure itself. It measures 6.2” long and 3.0” high, making it oddly large for a Protoceratops. On the underbelly of the figure, it has a scale of 1:10, as the figures are made at a similar size and given different scales, which is very bizarre. The pose seems very odd, looking like the animal is prowling around like a big cat rather than in something more appropriate for a herbivorous dinosaur. The colour scheme is a mix of beige and browns, with a pair of reddish-brown stars on the frill as a possible display feature for the animal. While not directly plagiarising any palaeoartist, it does seem fairly similar to several pieces, such as the one from Charlie McGrady Studio.
Onto scientific accuracy. If you have seen any of the early Geoworld figure reviews, you can probably see where this is going. We’ll start with the good points. The raised spines on the tail are present, the skull is the correct shape, and the front legs are shorter than the back legs. Now for the bad points. The skull and frill, though correctly shaped, seem much too small in comparison to the rest of the body. The neck far too long and the figure is very skinny in general. Though Protoceratops is generally thought to be more lean than the bulkier early incarnations, this seems way too skinny. While the front legs are fairly accurate, the back ones aren’t, as the ankle joint is far too far apart from the foot.
Looking over this early figure from Geoworld, I am surprised they managed to get to a second line, let alone a further two more lines beyond that. This figure is very ugly in general, and its flaws stand out very badly. I really can’t recommend this figure, especially with the blatant plagiarism that is connected to it. There are much better figures of Protoceratops out there. This one can be avoided.
Disclaimer: links to Ebay and Amazon on the DinoToyBlog are affiliate links, so we make a small commission if you use them. Thanks for supporting us!
Well, there’s ugly-cute, and then there’s . . . this.
I wouldn`t rate this specific model as bad as other Geoworld toys. Some anatomical inaccuracies may, used in a diorama, be overseen, or be considered within individual variability (humans tend to look different, too). And for a mongolia diorama, you need a couple of protoceratops 🙂