Protoceratops (Starlux)

3.5 (8 votes)

Review and photographs by Loon, edited by Suspsy

I know what you’re all thinking: “Another Protoceratops review by Loon? It must be a day that ends in ‘y’!” This time it’s the one from Starlux, which is around 40 years old.

Being made in the 1970s, it’d be incredibly unfair to judge this figure by modern scientific standards; what kind of idiot would do that? This figure is definitely old school, and I suppose that’s where one would find its charm. The best description I can give it is a cross between a potato and a toad (a “potatoad,” if you will). That seems about right for a figure of this age. The frill seems to be strangely attached to the back, akin to something from a John McLoughlin drawing, which I don’t believe was a popular idea at the time. The figure measures about 3.9” (10 cm) long.

Still, even with all the old school charm you can glean from this figure, it isn’t a very appealing thing to look at. There’s a very visible seam down the middle and the sculpt is very rough. Sure, it was the 70s’ and toys weren’t sculpted as nicely as they are today, but when you consider this was contemporaneous with Invicta, the faults become less and less excusable.

Another area where this figure suffers is the paint. Again, it’s important to remember this figure’s age and that paint is bound to vary from figure to figure, but this is just so bad. The claws are all painted black and are. unfortunately, the only good spots on this figure. It goes downhill when we reach the head, where my copy is the roughest. 

Between the lopsided Glasgow frown and the disgruntled eyes, this has to be the most irritated looking dinosaur toy I’ve ever seen. Objectively, this is pretty cheap and nasty-looking, but this is the area where I’ve found the most charm. It’s funny how mad this thing looks; I haven’t seen a ceratopsian this angry since Cera’s dad from The Land Before Time (who is canonically named “Daddy Topps.” No, I’m not kidding).

So, is this Protoceratops “the most miserable-looking little thing I’ve ever seen” like I once thought? No. Sure, this isn’t a figure that is very aesthetically appealing, but it’s important to remember that this figure is from a time where high quality replicas of prehistoric animals were the exception, not the norm. And in that sense, it’s nowhere near as bad as I once made it out to be. So, if simpler figures like this are appealing to you, I’d recommend this figure.

Support the Dinosaur Toy Blog by making dino-purchases through these links to Ebay and Amazon. Disclaimer: links to Ebay.com and Amazon.com on the Dinosaur Toy Blog are often affiliate links, when you make purchases through these links we may make a commission

Share this:

Comments 2

  • I found the pile-on in response to the original review more objectionable than the original review.

  • It may not be pretty or accurate, but I have a little soft spot for Status, though the mammals are definitely better. Least they are a plastic and not lead like early Britain’s animal figures.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Search

  • Brand

  • Dinosaur Name

  • Classification

  • Age

  • Product Type

  • News Categories

  • Video Playlists

error: Content is protected !!