2013 Figures

[John]

Woah, I got one right in my prediction!   Really liking these new Safaris.

Elasmo: Awesome and accurate, everything's good about it! except for the color.
Dimorpho: Very very nice!  Like others have said, some parts (hind legs) don't really look up to par with their previous pterosaurs, hopefully that's just the photo.
Diablo: Better than this year's Vaga in my opinion.  Looks like they used the same scale pattern too.
Gastornis: Easily my favorite of the bunch!
Grypo: Very good, but I agree with Seijun, a non-terrified hadrosaur would be nice.
Cambrian Life Toob: Love it, but it seems like they're getting skimpy on the paint jobs for the toob figures.

Did anyone else like the pterosaur minis in the catalogue? With a little work, they would probably make good customized figures.

What do you like better about the diablo than the vaga?  Im a little unsure from an accuracy point of view still.  I can't be sure judging but the pic alone but the front limbs may be too erect and the belly is a little high.  Again it could just be the photo.  Detail and color wise i think its gorgeous though.

Also I was looking at the dimorphodon again and does anyone else think this one could be a flexible bendy figure?  It sort of gives me that impression for some reason.  (i hope its not)

I could be wrong about this,but there is no indication in Safari Ltd.'s 2013 catalog that the Dimorphodon has any bendable parts in it

[Gwangi]

What do you like better about the diablo than the vaga?  Im a little unsure from an accuracy point of view still.  I can't be sure judging but the pic alone but the front limbs may be too erect and the belly is a little high.  Again it could just be the photo.  Detail and color wise i think its gorgeous though.

I know this was not directed towards me but I felt compelled to chime in. I think the vaga is more accurate for the reasons you listed but also the overall anatomy of the front limbs. That said this Diablo looks very good and I think I might prefer it over the vaga. It looks more realistic to me, in part because of the paint job. Pictures can be deceiving though (as many CollectA 2012 pictures showed us) so perhaps it is more accurate than it looks? I don't know why Safari would pay so much attention to this this years ceratopsian in terms of accuracy but not the upcoming one.

[Trexroarr]

I am really digging (see what I did there?) this year's Safari releases. I will definitely be getting all of them. I'm surprised to see nothing new from the Prehistoric Landscapes line.

Question for Dan: Dan, will you be carrying the Good Luck Mini Dinos? I really want them lol.

[Yutyrannus]

The Gryposaurus didn't strike me as looking terrified. It looks more to me as though it's bellowing to the herd or something of the kind. Everything else about its posture looks pretty neutral.

I agree.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Since the new Safari figures have been revealed by Urzeitshop, I can say that, as with the WS Liopleurodon before, I worked with the sculptor of the Elasmosaurus to make sure it is as accurate as possible. Which it is. I'm very excited about it!

I wished to comment on this, Adam. I have a small, albeit special collection of the various water monsters from the age of dinosaurs that I began as somewhat a fluke, in that I have them signed by consultant for the figure....ie. my Carnegie tylosaurus is signed by Michael Everheart, etc. If I were to acquire these two you mentioned as working with, and sent them to you, would you consider signing them for me? I know that might sound odd, but it is my unique twist on collecting the waterbound reptiles, thanks

I'd be happy to, drop me a PM. Of course, the sculptors themselves are the real creative input and they are ultimately responsible for the overall design and feel of the figures - I wouldn't want to take any credit from them

I seperate it in my mind in this manner. Your autograph on the figure for me has value (to me) as representing a paleontological figure. I am not collecting the animals or signatures for their artistic merits as sculpture per-se, so much as for their paleontological significance, especially when cross collected with the signature from the person responsible for the the "paleo" understanding of the animal.I am sure that came out like so very much babble to everyone, but I really did have a meaning in there somewhere....I think...well maybe. Thanks for your consideration Adam.

[ZoPteryx]

I've identified the trilobite from the toob, it's a Tricrepicephalus sp from the upper Cambrian.

What do you like better about the diablo than the vaga?  Im a little unsure from an accuracy point of view still.  I can't be sure judging but the pic alone but the front limbs may be too erect and the belly is a little high.  Again it could just be the photo.  Detail and color wise i think its gorgeous though.

I know this was not directed towards me but I felt compelled to chime in. I think the vaga is more accurate for the reasons you listed but also the overall anatomy of the front limbs. That said this Diablo looks very good and I think I might prefer it over the vaga. It looks more realistic to me, in part because of the paint job. Pictures can be deceiving though (as many CollectA 2012 pictures showed us) so perhaps it is more accurate than it looks? I don't know why Safari would pay so much attention to this this years ceratopsian in terms of accuracy but not the upcoming one.

This.

[Balaur]

That Elasmosaurus would be a great collectable for my tiny but still in progress Niobrara collection from Kansas.

[tyrantqueen]

Something has always bothered me about Safari's releases lately. Their dinos and prehistoric creatures often have deformed anatomy. Like the enormous clown shoes on the theropods. Compare the anatomy of the Safarisaurs to the Paposaurs. Complain about Papo's inaccuracies all you want, but their figures look alive. They were obviously sculpted by someone who knows their anatomy. Safarisaurs often have the details in claws and teeth "blunted out" and it kind of ruins the look of the toy.

I look at a Safari Tyrannosaurus for example and I can't imagine it as a real life animal. But looking at Papo's Tylosaurus, I can imagine such a creature existing (anatomical inaccuracies aside)

I guess since Safari is more aimed at the children's market, their figures reflect this more.

This is hard for me to put into words, but it's something I feel whenever I look at Safari's most recent releases. Like they have a "squashed" look, as though the sculptor was trying to cram in as much detail as possible but didn't know the anatomy of real animals as well as they should.

Just my two pennies

[Gryphoceratops]

Something has always bothered me about Safari's releases lately. Their dinos and prehistoric creatures often have deformed anatomy. Like the enormous clown shoes on the theropods. Compare the anatomy of the Safarisaurs to the Paposaurs. Complain about Papo's inaccuracies all you want, but their figures look alive. They were obviously sculpted by someone who knows their anatomy. Safarisaurs often have the details in claws and teeth "blunted out" and it kind of ruins the look of the toy.

I look at a Safari Tyrannosaurus for example and I can't imagine it as a real life animal. But looking at Papo's Tylosaurus, I can imagine such a creature existing (anatomical inaccuracies aside)

I guess since Safari is more aimed at the children's market, their figures reflect this more.

This is hard for me to put into words, but it's something I feel whenever I look at Safari's most recent releases. Like they have a "squashed" look, as though the sculptor was trying to cram in as much detail as possible but didn't know the anatomy of real animals as well as they should.

Just my two pennies

I totally agree with you that papo dinosaurs look more life-like.  But it has nothing to do with anatomy.  If the sculptor really knew his/her anatomy on dinosaurs they wouldn't be so inaccurate.  The papo dinosaurs just have a LOT of detail and the paintjobs are usually spot on.  I think the biggest issue with safari dinosaurs (not all of them) is cruddy paint application and not enough layers/blending with the colors. 

[Gryphoceratops]

What do you like better about the diablo than the vaga?  Im a little unsure from an accuracy point of view still.  I can't be sure judging but the pic alone but the front limbs may be too erect and the belly is a little high.  Again it could just be the photo.  Detail and color wise i think its gorgeous though.

I know this was not directed towards me but I felt compelled to chime in. I think the vaga is more accurate for the reasons you listed but also the overall anatomy of the front limbs. That said this Diablo looks very good and I think I might prefer it over the vaga. It looks more realistic to me, in part because of the paint job. Pictures can be deceiving though (as many CollectA 2012 pictures showed us) so perhaps it is more accurate than it looks? I don't know why Safari would pay so much attention to this this years ceratopsian in terms of accuracy but not the upcoming one.

Yeah thats whats weird to me.  The diablo's hands look wrong too.  Unless it was sculpted at the same time or before and isn't being released until now?

[Himmapaan]

With Papo, it's more morphology than anatomy that makes them look life-like. Even then, the extraordinary level of detail is only secondary (but it's hard to overlook and often becomes the factor most talked about); even without it, the overall external appearance and fluidity of posture make them look more convincing as creatures. In this respect (and only in this, not in accuracy, were it even necessary for me to add!), Papo far surpasses even Carnegie. If you imagined the figures from all companies without any surface detail and in monochrome then compared them, Papo figures would still look more alive.

[Horridus]

I look at a Safari Tyrannosaurus for example and I can't imagine it as a real life animal. But looking at Papo's Tyrannosaurus, I can imagine such a creature existing (anatomical inaccuracies aside)

Fixed. That Papo Tylosaurus is bloody awful but I do otherwise agree with you. 

The thing is, Safari's are actually more anatomically correct; as others have said, it's all down to sculptural detail and the paintwork. To be fair, Safari are getting better at this. The Vagaceratops and Postosuchus in the WS line are up to Papo standards in terms of sculpting quality, and very nearly in terms of paintwork.

[tyrantqueen]

I look at a Safari Tyrannosaurus for example and I can't imagine it as a real life animal. But looking at Papo's Tyrannosaurus, I can imagine such a creature existing (anatomical inaccuracies aside)

Fixed. That Papo Tylosaurus is bloody awful but I do otherwise agree with you. 

The thing is, Safari's are actually more anatomically correct; as others have said, it's all down to sculptural detail and the paintwork. To be fair, Safari are getting better at this. The Vagaceratops and Postosuchus in the WS line are up to Papo standards in terms of sculpting quality, and very nearly in terms of paintwork.

Erm, no, I meant what I said. It doesn't look like a Tylosaurus, no, but some kind of fantasy sea creature, yes. It is believeable in that respect.

When I said anatomy, I meant not general dinosaur anatomy, but rather the anatomy of living animals. Like how muscles look underneath the skin etc. I guess morphology would be the word for that. I also think the sculptor who created the Papo dinos has a strong grasp of anatomy. Because to exaggerate certain features, or to create a fantasy animal, you need to know what a real life animal looks like before you can deform the anatomy to suit your needs.

Yeah thats whats weird to me.  The diablo's hands look wrong too.  Unless it was sculpted at the same time or before and isn't being released until now?

Technically speaking, they're not hands. They are objects of propulsion, not manipulation. Therefore the correct word would be front feet.

[Yutyrannus]

I look at a Safari Tyrannosaurus for example and I can't imagine it as a real life animal. But looking at Papo's Tyrannosaurus, I can imagine such a creature existing (anatomical inaccuracies aside)

Fixed. That Papo Tylosaurus is bloody awful but I do otherwise agree with you. 

The thing is, Safari's are actually more anatomically correct; as others have said, it's all down to sculptural detail and the paintwork. To be fair, Safari are getting better at this. The Vagaceratops and Postosuchus in the WS line are up to Papo standards in terms of sculpting quality, and very nearly in terms of paintwork.

In my opinion, the new safari Gryposaurus fully meets Papo's standards in both paintwork and sculpting quality.

[Horridus]

Yeah thats whats weird to me.  The diablo's hands look wrong too.  Unless it was sculpted at the same time or before and isn't being released until now?

Technically speaking, they're not hands. They are objects of propulsion, not manipulation. Therefore the correct word would be front feet.

It's semantics, really. I don't mind people using the word 'hand' to mean 'forefoot' - to me it just sounds like using 'manus', which would also be correct...but a bit pompous-sounding.

I guess the point is that, anatomically, it's the same structure (the manus).

[tyrantqueen]

I look at a Safari Tyrannosaurus for example and I can't imagine it as a real life animal. But looking at Papo's Tyrannosaurus, I can imagine such a creature existing (anatomical inaccuracies aside)

Fixed. That Papo Tylosaurus is bloody awful but I do otherwise agree with you. 

The thing is, Safari's are actually more anatomically correct; as others have said, it's all down to sculptural detail and the paintwork. To be fair, Safari are getting better at this. The Vagaceratops and Postosuchus in the WS line are up to Papo standards in terms of sculpting quality, and very nearly in terms of paintwork.

In my opinion, the new safari Gryposaurus fully meets Papo's standards in both paintwork and sculpting quality.

I don't agree. In fact, I consider it to be one of the weakest of the bunch. The front feet are too thick. I much prefer Angie Rodrigues' depiction of this dinosaur.

It's semantics, really. I don't mind people using the word 'hand' to mean 'forefoot' - to me it just sounds like using 'manus', which would also be correct...but a bit pompous-sounding.

I dunno...have you ever tried walking on your hands? It's not that easy.

[Roselaar]

Looks good! But not as good as I had hoped. The Carnegie Collection's anniversary is "celebrated" with just a single new sculpt...?

The Concavenator was originally scheduled for 2012, along with the new Brach. Why it happened this way, I'm not sure, but it means the other Carnegies got pushed forward in the release schedule. If you want to see what they really had in mind for the "anniversary", you'll have to wait until 2014. 

Seriously...?  Too bad. So Safari is celebrating this birthday a year too late?

[John]

Looks good! But not as good as I had hoped. The Carnegie Collection's anniversary is "celebrated" with just a single new sculpt...?

The Concavenator was originally scheduled for 2012, along with the new Brach. Why it happened this way, I'm not sure, but it means the other Carnegies got pushed forward in the release schedule. If you want to see what they really had in mind for the "anniversary", you'll have to wait until 2014. 

Seriously...?  Too bad. So Safari is celebrating this birthday a year too late?

Actually the Carnegie Collection didn't come out until 1989,so 2014 will be the 25th anniversary of their release.

[postsaurischian]

Actually the Carnegie Collection didn't come out until 1989,so 2014 will be the 25th anniversary of their release.

I bought my first "Schleich-versions" of the Carnegie Collection in Germany in early 1989, so I'm sure they were already available in the U.S. in 1988.

[Gwangi]

When I said anatomy, I meant not general dinosaur anatomy, but rather the anatomy of living animals. Like how muscles look underneath the skin etc. I guess morphology would be the word for that. I also think the sculptor who created the Papo dinos has a strong grasp of anatomy. Because to exaggerate certain features, or to create a fantasy animal, you need to know what a real life animal looks like before you can deform the anatomy to suit your needs.

Or watch Jurassic Park and rip off those fantasy animals. Which when you think about it is probably easier than trying to make something scientifically accurate, just watch a movie and use your imagination for the rest.  No, that was too easy. I get what you're trying to say and mostly agree with you. Papo's dinosaurs do look like living animals even if they didn't look like the actual animals they represent. Personally I like both companies but lean towards Safari, the accuracy is a big draw for me.