Brachiosaurus (UKRD)

There is only a certain set of collectors that will probably recognize the name UKRD. In quality they ranked well below the museum quality models produced during their time. There was, however, a wide assortment of them, in a range of sizes, and a lot of kids in the early 90s had them. They were certainly good enough to play with. There aren’t a lot of UKRD reviews on the blog, and probably for good reason. This is a line hardly worth collecting. That said I have a couple laying around, so I might as well write about them.

We’ll start off with that sauropod classic, Brachiosaurus. Every toy line has one of these, right? Well UKRD has at least three that I can think of offhand, including one really big and ugly one. This one we’re looking at is a bit on the smaller side, and probably one of their better renditions. That’s not saying much though.

Measuring about 5” in length and standing 4” tall this toy was produced back in 1992, and the date is stamped on the bottom. Also stamped on the bottom are the brand name, where it was made, model number, and of course the designation “Brachiosaurus”. But this toy is only a shadow of the actual Brachiosaurus, and a shadow of the toys that actually do the animal justice.

In just about every respect this is a terribly proportioned and anatomically lousy toy. It has the characteristic head crest of the genus, but it looks like it’s tacked on as an afterthought. It certainly doesn’t look like a natural part of the animal’s anatomy. The neck is way too short, the tail too long, and the legs are poorly proportioned with each other. The hands and feet are generic and sculpted with four digits on each. The tail is swung low, almost touching the ground.

The only real positive feature on this toy might be the head. The head is decent looking, better even than the monstrous Carnegie that was released around the same time. This is mostly due to the teeth, they’re individually carved into the mold. Not just painted on or omitted altogether. But that’s really the only saving grace on this one. Other details are almost non-existent. There is little indication of underlying skeletal or muscular anatomy. Even the wrinkles that are cut into the toy don’t flow well with the anatomy.

Maybe I’m being a little too hard on this toy. After all, it is 24 years old and it doesn’t really have aspirations to be anything other than what it is; a child’s toy. But sometimes we just need to tell it like it is, especially when there isn’t much that’s positive to say.  This toy will only appeal to those who have nostalgia for it, which I do not despite being the right age for it. I can’t really recommend it to anyone else but if you want it, heck, you can have mine!