REBOR 1:35 Tyrannosaurus rex museum class replica official photos updated!

[tanystropheus]

Taking into account individual variations (outliers and such), the REBOR King T-rex seems reasonably accurate, within standard deviation.

I don't see the point in rehashing the debate over the model's purported accuracy, but it's worth noting that by this logic the average number of digits on a human hand would be more or less than five and the average number of noses on a human face would be less than one.

The T-rex at least has the correct number of anatomical markers (nose, eyes...etc.) with a few exaggerated features. Occasionally, we see perfectly normal cats with manes...huskies with eyes of 2 different colors, over muscled kangaroos, lop rabbits with helicopter ears...frequency-wise, they are neither common, nor particularly uncommon.

[Tyrannosauron]

The T-rex at least has the correct number of anatomical markers (nose, eyes...etc.) with a few exaggerated features. Occasionally, we see perfectly normal cats with manes...huskies with eyes of 2 different colors, over muscled kangaroos, lop rabbits with helicopter ears...frequency-wise, they are neither common, nor particularly uncommon.

Yes, that's my point. Consider the following:


I can point to that figure and, using the justification that (when we include outliers!) a T. rex with three digits on its hand is "reasonably accurate within standard deviation," reasonably argue that the figure has an accurate number of visible fingers. I really doubt that anyone would be satisfied with that. If the logic doesn't work in the one case then it doesn't work in any case.

This is not to say that the conclusion for which you're arguing is false (again, we've had that debate and the evidence for both sides is on previous pages); it's to say that if you are right then it has to be for different reasons.

[tanystropheus]

What I'm trying to say is that the REBOR T-rex may probably make for a relatively not-so-uncommon T-rex phenotype, especially given geographical distribution, subsets, individual variations and so forth...

It certainly isn't a good approximation of what the average T-rex looked like, though.

[Dinoguy2]

What I'm trying to say is that the REBOR T-rex may probably make for a relatively not-so-uncommon T-rex phenotype, especially given geographical distribution, subsets, individual variations and so forth...

It certainly isn't a good approximation of what the average T-rex looked like, though.

So, it's a T. rex with physical deformities? Maybe it has Crash McCreeritis

The examples you cited in domestic animals are all the results of genetic mutations due to over breeding, and they're all minor soft tissue variation, not changes to the underlying bone structure. If a person had slightly thicker brows and jaws they'd be Neanderthals, usually considered a different species, and those are only slight variations.

In fact, if that Scotty eye socket example above wasn't due to preservation, which it is, that kind of difference is usually more than enough for paleontologists to make it s new species if not genus. Albertosaurus and Gorgosaurus don't differ in more than a few of that kind of detail. That's also why they need to be careful of differences that are actual deformities, like probably Nedoceratops with its asymmetrical frill openings and Tatankaceratops, which might just be a Triceratops with dwarfism.

[tanystropheus]

What I'm trying to say is that the REBOR T-rex may probably make for a relatively not-so-uncommon T-rex phenotype, especially given geographical distribution, subsets, individual variations and so forth...

It certainly isn't a good approximation of what the average T-rex looked like, though.

If a person had slightly thicker brows and jaws they'd be Neanderthals, usually considered a different species, and those are only slight variations.

I disagree.

I know plenty of individuals with thickened jaws and brows that are not Neandartals. Strangely enough, these individuals are highly successful entrepreneurs. There is an enormous spectrum of variation in the human race. This sometimes poses a technical hurdle for neuromodulation devices (rTMS, dTMS, h-coil and figure of 8 coil).

[stargatedalek]

You're missing the point entirely. The variations of the REBOR Tyrannosaurus skull are far to extensive to be purely flesh, the skull itself would have to be shaped very differently.

[tanystropheus]

You're missing the point entirely. The variations of the REBOR Tyrannosaurus skull are far to extensive to be purely flesh, the skull itself would have to be shaped very differently.

And the skulls displayed on page 24 are fairly "standardized"?

[tanystropheus]

First off - Outstanding job, REBOR! Really great sculpt with obvious love to detail and realism.

That being said it's funny how some people are like "hey but it looks like Rex from JP! IT'S NOT ORIGINAL!!!" - Because museum quality replicas like this has allways to be "original" and not represent the real animal, right? If you know the anatomy of a T-Rex (for example "Sue") you can say that Stan Winston did an amazing job recreating the beast, even tho there are some inaccuracies with it. How about the fact that this sculpt is indeed based on the actual skeleton of the animal (it's even shown in the paper work..) and even if it looks like JP rex - that doesnt change the fact that this thing is just fantastic. How about you people watch some reviews (so far there are two) and look how reviewers are amazed by this thing.

Like Jurassic Collectables said - you are pretty much getting a Sideshow quality model for a ridiculously low price compared to Sideshow itself. Ofc it will cost a lot more than Papo's or any other "mainstream" manufacturer's figures, because the sculpt and the detail on this things is just on whole another level. So cut the crap with this "too high price" nonsense. You are not buying a toy, you are buying a museum quality replica. It's not the same. I myself own three Sideshow models (T-Rex vs Tric diorama, Old T-Rex with scars and Spino) and I can easily say that I love Rebor's T-Rex more than those that I already own despite the fact that I paid a LOT more for them. So im not concerned about the price.

This is clearly plagiarized from the JP rex and does not resemble any rex skull I've ever seen.

It seems that you haven't seen much of Tyrannosaurus skulls then.




I for example seen a lot worse sculpts from many manufacturers who seem to completely don't give a sh*t about the skeletal structure of the animal and in My eyes - REBOR is far from that. That being said - noone is forcing you to buy it, but don't bash it because you simply don't like the resemblance to JP T-Rex since many people consider JP head sculpt to be a close reconstruction of the animal itself.

I think that this was an elegantly written post that demonstrates that the REBOR T-rex is reasonably accurate (although, not the most representative T-rex specimen).

[stargatedalek]

Nonononononononono that user was a laughing stock please don't denounce yourself to their level. I like to think you do generally make good points but nothing she ever said was of merit to any discussion, she actually posted similar comments to that in topics for other brands and knowingly started a lot of arguments.

Even that biased comparison is showing how it doesn't fit. Look at the shape of the upper and lower jaw, and look at the "eye brows", there is simply no way this can fit even the most robust of any skull, and that goes for the JP rex too.

[Sim]

Ironically, that post by Tyrant Lizard Queen shows inaccuracies in the Rebor Tyrannosaurus's head, which stargatedalek pointed out.  Here's another comparison:



Even from the front the lower jaw is a completely different shape on the Rebor T. rex!  Tyrannosaurus is also known to have good binocular vision, not very little like the Rebor T. rex.  Even the JP T. rex has better binocular vision than Rebor's: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=3099.msg102604#msg102604

Frankly, the head on Rebor's T. rex is wrong in many major ways and is not like a real Tyrannosaurus's head even with individual variation taken into account.

[tanystropheus]

Nonononononononono that user was a laughing stock please don't denounce yourself to their level. I like to think you do generally make good points but nothing she ever said was of merit to any discussion, she actually posted similar comments to that in topics for other brands and knowingly started a lot of arguments.

Even that biased comparison is showing how it doesn't fit. Look at the shape of the upper and lower jaw, and look at the "eye brows", there is simply no way this can fit even the most robust of any skull, and that goes for the JP rex too.

Now that you mention it, there are some issues with the mouth. Not sure if the teeth could all fit realistically inside the mouth, and the eyebrow ridges seem more like an allosaurid attribute.

[tanystropheus]

Ironically, that post by Tyrant Lizard Queen shows inaccuracies in the Rebor Tyrannosaurus's head, which stargatedalek pointed out.  Here's another comparison:



Even from the front the lower jaw is a completely different shape on the Rebor T. rex!  Tyrannosaurus is also known to have good binocular vision, not very little like the Rebor T. rex.  Even the JP T. rex has better binocular vision than Rebor's: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=3099.msg102604#msg102604

Frankly, the head on Rebor's T. rex is wrong in many major ways and is not like a real Tyrannosaurus's head even with individual variation taken into account.

I agree with most of the points stated. However, my personal REBOR model does feature a very obvious binocular orientation. Sorry to disappoint.

[Arul]

We discuss this before, and the answer is "you have to hold rebor model in your hands to find the answer" because someone who hold the figure will know the reality of rebor model shape itself

[tyrantqueen]

We discuss this before, and the answer is "you have to hold rebor model in your hands to find the answer" because someone who hold the figure will know the reality of rebor model shape itself

What is it about "holding it in your hands" that makes it so different than looking at a picture? Photos don't lie.

[Arul]

We discuss this before, and the answer is "you have to hold rebor model in your hands to find the answer" because someone who hold the figure will know the reality of rebor model shape itself

What is it about "holding it in your hands" that makes it so different than looking at a picture? Photos don't lie.

You have 3D visual, photo is 2D.

[tyrantqueen]

We discuss this before, and the answer is "you have to hold rebor model in your hands to find the answer" because someone who hold the figure will know the reality of rebor model shape itself

What is it about "holding it in your hands" that makes it so different than looking at a picture? Photos don't lie.

You have 3D visual, photo is 2D.

Unless you have difficulty in perceiving depth, I'd say the difference is negligible.

[Dinoguy2]

Sorry, double post, can an admin delete this one?

[Dinoguy2]

Ironically, that post by Tyrant Lizard Queen shows inaccuracies in the Rebor Tyrannosaurus's head, which stargatedalek pointed out.  Here's another comparison:



Even from the front the lower jaw is a completely different shape on the Rebor T. rex!  Tyrannosaurus is also known to have good binocular vision, not very little like the Rebor T. rex.  Even the JP T. rex has better binocular vision than Rebor's: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=3099.msg102604#msg102604

Frankly, the head on Rebor's T. rex is wrong in many major ways and is not like a real Tyrannosaurus's head even with individual variation taken into account.

I agree with most of the points stated. However, my personal REBOR model does feature a very obvious binocular orientation. Sorry to disappoint.

Can you post a pic? Do you have a different sculpt...? Note that binocular means the entire eye socket faces forward and both eyes look at you when viewed from the front. I get the impression some people think (not saying you do, but it's a common misconception) that forward-facing eyes mean the pupils are shifted to the front inside the eye socket (which his not possible in dinosaurs or most birds, the pupil is locked into position with little movement, another minor error in this figure).

First off - Outstanding job, REBOR! Really great sculpt with obvious love to detail and realism.

That being said it's funny how some people are like "hey but it looks like Rex from JP! IT'S NOT ORIGINAL!!!" - Because museum quality replicas like this has allways to be "original" and not represent the real animal, right? If you know the anatomy of a T-Rex (for example "Sue") you can say that Stan Winston did an amazing job recreating the beast, even tho there are some inaccuracies with it. How about the fact that this sculpt is indeed based on the actual skeleton of the animal (it's even shown in the paper work..) and even if it looks like JP rex - that doesnt change the fact that this thing is just fantastic. How about you people watch some reviews (so far there are two) and look how reviewers are amazed by this thing.

Like Jurassic Collectables said - you are pretty much getting a Sideshow quality model for a ridiculously low price compared to Sideshow itself. Ofc it will cost a lot more than Papo's or any other "mainstream" manufacturer's figures, because the sculpt and the detail on this things is just on whole another level. So cut the crap with this "too high price" nonsense. You are not buying a toy, you are buying a museum quality replica. It's not the same. I myself own three Sideshow models (T-Rex vs Tric diorama, Old T-Rex with scars and Spino) and I can easily say that I love Rebor's T-Rex more than those that I already own despite the fact that I paid a LOT more for them. So im not concerned about the price.

This is clearly plagiarized from the JP rex and does not resemble any rex skull I've ever seen.

It seems that you haven't seen much of Tyrannosaurus skulls then.




I for example seen a lot worse sculpts from many manufacturers who seem to completely don't give a sh*t about the skeletal structure of the animal and in My eyes - REBOR is far from that. That being said - noone is forcing you to buy it, but don't bash it because you simply don't like the resemblance to JP T-Rex since many people consider JP head sculpt to be a close reconstruction of the animal itself.

I think that this was an elegantly written post that demonstrates that the REBOR T-rex is reasonably accurate (although, not the most representative T-rex specimen).

I don't get it, nothing in this post seems to actually match! That's obvious just from looking at the green outlines. One is even a cheat, the back most opening has a double outline, the top one clearly going over the top of the skull bone in the model, to try and make it even remotely match the specimen. It doesn't, which makes the back of the skull too low and makes the whole profile look more like the JP model. The front view is even more different. The jugals are way too narrow compared to the skull and the face region is totally wrong, the postorbital bosses should flare out to the side and surround forward facing eyes (this would make it look much less scary, more like an owl, because there's no downward facing angry eyebrow in this setup, but it's clearly shown in the fossil photo). The middle to of the skull, the solid part between the antorbital fenestrae (i.e. the nasals), is clearly three times too wide in the model compared to the skull (this is also much wider than the JP rex, which had a nasal bridge that was a bit too wide to start with). Even the nostrils are obviously way too far apart. And there's no mention of the classic JP devil horns - is this a T. rex or a Carnotaurus?

That's not even mentioning the skin, which matches the JP Rex almost exactly (big scales on the jaws, pattern of folds on the neck and ridge of the spine) and don't look anything like any known tyrannosaurid skin impressions.

I'm not saying that makes it a bad model. It's technically gorgeous. I love JP and always wanted to have a movie-faithful model of the T. rex (that would still be Papo, since REBOR added some extra bells and whistles to make it seem different). Again, I'm not saying this to put down the model or the company. But saying it's scientifically accurate or, even worse, that it's based on the real specimens, is simply wrong.

Here's what a T. rex should look like from the front:


Note that the snout viewed from the front is a triangle, not a square, the wide face, and low, bumpy ridges around the snout and eyes rather than crests.

As for this bing a "non-representative specimen" or something, anybody familiar with how dinosaur species are identified and diagnosed can tell you this is far beyond individual variation for a theropod. So lets try to classify it! These differences are enough to place it in a new genus if not new subfamily separate from T. rex. This is more different from T. rex than Daspletosaurus or Bistaheversor are. Arguably more different than Gorgosaurus. I'd classify this as a new genus and species Reborus tyrannus within the new tribe Reborini, possibly descended from a "daspletosaur"-grade tyrannosaurid that evolved hugely expanded nasals and allosaur-like lachrymal crests. The fact that the premaxilla and squamosal are greatly reduced to the point that the nares and ant orbital fenestra overlap each other and the temporal fenestra is shrunk in half means there is an evolutionary trend towards skull shortening as in Teratophoneus. In fact, the posterior skull looks a lot like Teratophoneus, with which Reborus also shares prominent lachrymal horns and more oval rather than keyhole-shaped orbital, so I suggest Teratophoneus is its closest relative among tyrannosaurids. In fact, if it wasn't for the super-wide nasal, I'd say this figure is actually a pretty good match for Teratophoneus. Tyrannosaurus, not so much. If you want to say this is within the range of individual variation for T. rex, then you have to also include Teratophoneus and pretty much all other tyrannosaurids in a single species.

[Simon]

It should be noted that the aforementioned user "Tyrant Lizard Queen" was banned from this board for vexatious interlocution, and, if memory serves me correctly, appears to have been one of the "spamming shills" that plagued this company's threads late last year and into 2015 ... the unfortunate post  quoted above, while it may have appeared to be legit at first glance, was nothing more than one such spamming attempt.

As other members have already pointed out, a closer examination reveals that the "evidence" presented in that post did not support the stated conclusions of the same post....

The beautiful head-on-view reconstruction of TRex posted above ought to remove any and all doubt about the inaccuracy of the head reconstruction of the "King TRex" sculpt ... here's a scarier one of "Sue":

[tanystropheus]

We discuss this before, and the answer is "you have to hold rebor model in your hands to find the answer" because someone who hold the figure will know the reality of rebor model shape itself

What is it about "holding it in your hands" that makes it so different than looking at a picture? Photos don't lie.

On the contrary, photos do lie, indeed.

Binocular Vision of REBOR T-rex :Definitive Photographic Proof

https://picasaweb.google.com/VikingSpawn/TYRANNOSAURUSREXKINGTREX#6160374591801550706

https://picasaweb.google.com/VikingSpawn/TYRANNOSAURUSREXKINGTREX#6160374653539008418

What direction is the T-rex' eyes facing in the above photos?