Safari Ltd - New for 2022

[suspsy]

It should be noted that Victoria Arbour herself has stated that she loves the Safari Zuul and doesn't mind that the armour and the proportions are slightly off.

[Flaffy]

It should be noted that Victoria Arbour herself has stated that she loves the Safari Zuul and doesn't mind that the armour and the proportions are slightly off.

Well aware, I was the one who asked for her opinion on the Safari ltd Zuul initially.

[suspsy]

It bears reemphasizing. As important as accuracy is, I feel that there are times when we should just shrug our shoulders, say "Oh well," or something along that line, and go ahead and buy the toy anyway because it's a really cool piece regardless. I feel the same way about the CollectA Anomalocaris.

[Flaffy]

It bears reemphasizing. As important as accuracy is, I feel that there are times when we should just shrug our shoulders, say "Oh well," or something along that line, and go ahead and buy the toy anyway because it's a really cool piece regardless. I feel the same way about the CollectA Anomalocaris.

True, but as every collector follows a different mentality to the hobby, I don't think generalisations can be made.

There are times where I purchase figures despite their inaccuracies just because I like the figure a lot (e.g. the Patagotitan), or when figures become out of date from no fault of their own; and on the other hand, there are times where the inaccuracies are inexcusable due to lack of proper research, especially cases when the information in question is widely & easily accessible e.g. the Anomalocaris.

And of course the nature of the company / product is taken into consideration as well. For example I don't hold Mattel to nearly the same standard as Safari, CollectA, PNSO etc when it comes to scientific accuracy; but will be judged on an entirely different metric like screen accuracy and such.

[Shane]

Look, the bottom line is that every dinosaur or prehistoric figure is going to be a "snapshot" of the time it was released. New discoveries are happening all the time, new papers are published almost daily it seems, and it's just not practical to expect that any prehistoric figure is going to be "future proofed". It's really not possible.

Sometimes even between the time it takes to sculpt a figure and the time it takes to actually get it to market, new information can come out that suddenly renders a brand new figure "outdated".

To each their own in terms of how they collect, but I think there's a level of "accuracy purity" that is just a recipe for being disappointed.

Could Safari have waited until this paper was published to have a slightly more accurate Zuul? Perhaps, but then you'd get the figure maybe two years from NOW, and by then, who knows what other papers could be published on Zuul in the interim? There's always a next paper, and a next paper, and a next paper.
 

[Carnoking]

Look, the bottom line is that every dinosaur or prehistoric figure is going to be a "snapshot" of the time it was released. New discoveries are happening all the time, new papers are published almost daily it seems, and it's just not practical to expect that any prehistoric figure is going to be "future proofed". It's really not possible.

Very well said, and I think so called "snapshot models" have value in collecting as they demonstrate our evolving understanding of a given animal. It's why I still hold on to my Carnegie Spinosaurus, why I won't be canceling my order of the BotM Eotyrannus, and why I go out of my way to pick up niche pieces like REBOR's Retrosaurus figures. Outside of the artistic merit of these examples (and many more!), they still represent milestones in our understanding and depiction of prehistoric animals.
And this doesn't apply to just models; Prehistoric Planet had the rug pulled out from under their Carnotaurus design mere months before the show's premiere. I don't think such sudden changes in our understanding should also take the wind out of our enjoyment of what came before.

That said, as Flaffy pointed out, there are times when these criticisms are warranted, I.e. when a figure is released and sold as "up to date" and "accurate" when it very obviously is not either of those things and anyone can tell (the new Star Ace T. rex is a good recent example). There's still room to appreciate the work that goes into these figures, but...

And of course, there's always the argument that Safari's Zuul isn't meant to represent the real animal seeing as its design is inspired by a very specific look from a tie-in television show. The old Toyway models are no longer accurate as dinosaur models, but they're still VERY accurate as models based off a specific design.

[suspsy]

Look, the bottom line is that every dinosaur or prehistoric figure is going to be a "snapshot" of the time it was released. New discoveries are happening all the time, new papers are published almost daily it seems, and it's just not practical to expect that any prehistoric figure is going to be "future proofed". It's really not possible.

Sometimes even between the time it takes to sculpt a figure and the time it takes to actually get it to market, new information can come out that suddenly renders a brand new figure "outdated".

To each their own in terms of how they collect, but I think there's a level of "accuracy purity" that is just a recipe for being disappointed.

Could Safari have waited until this paper was published to have a slightly more accurate Zuul? Perhaps, but then you'd get the figure maybe two years from NOW, and by then, who knows what other papers could be published on Zuul in the interim? There's always a next paper, and a next paper, and a next paper.
 

This.

[Fembrogon]

I'm pretty pleased with my Zuul, regardless of the new paper and having never seen Dino Dana. I'm delighted that Safari chose to produce this model, and that Safari was the one to do this genus first (as opposed to, say, Mattel).
If anything, the new information should provide all the more impetus for the OTHER brands (eg. Collecta, PNSO, etc) to do versions of their own now!

[Sim]

I was just watching a video of the Safari Cryolophosaurus by A @Andysdinosaurreviews and I noticed the name is misspelt on the underside of the figure.  It reads "Cryolophosaurs".  Still, I'm thinking of getting it and the Safari 2022 Albertosaurus.  I would be more sold on the Cryolophosaurus if it had feathers though.  I don't know why it doesn't have feathers while the Safari Coelophysis does.

[Shane]

Very well said, and I think so called "snapshot models" have value in collecting as they demonstrate our evolving understanding of a given animal.

This is my thinking. It's the only way to stay sane in this hobby really.

It's why I don't get upset with Spinosaurus figures, I think it's cool to see how they've changed as understanding of the dinosaur has been updated with new discoveries.

[Lynx]

Very well said, and I think so called "snapshot models" have value in collecting as they demonstrate our evolving understanding of a given animal.

This is my thinking. It's the only way to stay sane in this hobby really.

It's why I don't get upset with Spinosaurus figures, I think it's cool to see how they've changed as understanding of the dinosaur has been updated with new discoveries.

This is why I don't toss a model out as soon as a better one comes around. I have the Schleich Spinosaurus, and while outdated, is still a lovely figure that I will keep on display with other Spinosaurus, even if said others are more accurate

For a short amount of time, I had my collection on display as a sort of timeline of reconstruction. I enjoy buying older figures, just to compare them to more accurate and modern ones.

There's no true way to have a 'perfect' or completely accurate collection, and honestly? I think snapshot models are a fine thing to have, even if they are not perfectly up to the times.

[SidB]

"Snapshot models" is a good term. As a person with both a strong interest in historical development and a touch of nostalgia, I buy into this approach (literally). It works very well with the Safari lines , as well as collecting the classic Invictas and Battats also. BTW, I have the Schleich Spino too and value it for its quality of detail and material and as yet anther moment of development. Accordingly the great 2009 Forest Rogers piece is on display too. Wouldn't consider ditching it.

[SpartanSquat]

Look, the bottom line is that every dinosaur or prehistoric figure is going to be a "snapshot" of the time it was released. New discoveries are happening all the time, new papers are published almost daily it seems, and it's just not practical to expect that any prehistoric figure is going to be "future proofed". It's really not possible.

Great wise words shane! Trying to collect accurate dinosaur figure its an impossible task, Basically like you said each dinosaur figure is a snapshot or a time capsule of its time. Ant not only figures and toys, this could count books, documentaries, tv series, movies, etc...
Its also really good to see each figures represeting their times how science saw them

[Shane]

Ant not only figures and toys, this could count books, documentaries, tv series, movies, etc...

Definitely this! I was just at my parents' house for Thanksgiving and found a treasure trove of old books that I still absolutely love even though they're wildly outdated.

Including:
- Two books from David Peters (back before...you know).
- A dinosaur book with a ton of Brian Franczak illustrations (RIP).  EDIT: This one - https://twitter.com/tetzoo/status/1244012704307781632

And a bunch of other books that are definitely not current, but still very close to my heart.

[Halichoeres]

S @Shane I have the David Peters Gallery of Dinosaurs and Other Prehistoric Reptiles and it is really good, especially for the time. A shame about his subsequent trajectory.

I am not too concerned about the Zuul. Once a dinosaur genus has been made into a figure, I think the likelihood of it being made into another figure later on increases, whether by Safari or someone else. Add in the evocative name and its recency, and I think we'll see another before long. Meanwhile, the Dino Dana one is better than the average ankylosaur figure, even if could be considered out of date and a little shaky on proportions. I'm happy to have it on my shelf for now at least.

That said, I think it's worth drawing a distinction between something like Zuul, which is being revised by the preparation and publication of additional material that definitely belongs to the same species, and Spinosaurus. The current model(s) of Spinosaurus are based on a neotype from 5000 km away from the original holotype. That's not saying that they couldn't have been the same species, but I don't think it's really been established. And companies are falling over themselves to make new ones every time a new paper is published, even though only some of them add any new data on fossils--most are instead just salvos in an ongoing public debate about its ecology. Maybe that debate should be had despite its shaky foundations, but it mostly doesn't help us understand what the animal looks like or what exactly the taxonomy should be.

I can see why someone would want to have different models for competing concepts of the appearance of Spinosaurus, but I get a little annoyed by how many iterations major companies are putting out, when at least in theory they could be devoting some of that energy to making something that doesn't already have dozens of figures. In 2021 it was a particular bummer that Spinosaurus was one of only 3 figures that year, especially since one of the other two was also a spinosaurid and they had just released a figure of the genus two years earlier. It doesn't necessarily follow that if they hadn't made the 2021 Spinosaurus there would have been something I liked better, but it's hard not to imagine what else could have been.

[Shane]

S @Shane I have the David Peters Gallery of Dinosaurs and Other Prehistoric Reptiles and it is really good, especially for the time. A shame about his subsequent trajectory.

I am not too concerned about the Zuul. Once a dinosaur genus has been made into a figure, I think the likelihood of it being made into another figure later on increases, whether by Safari or someone else. Add in the evocative name and its recency, and I think we'll see another before long. Meanwhile, the Dino Dana one is better than the average ankylosaur figure, even if could be considered out of date and a little shaky on proportions. I'm happy to have it on my shelf for now at least.

That said, I think it's worth drawing a distinction between something like Zuul, which is being revised by the preparation and publication of additional material that definitely belongs to the same species, and Spinosaurus. The current model(s) of Spinosaurus are based on a neotype from 5000 km away from the original holotype. That's not saying that they couldn't have been the same species, but I don't think it's really been established. And companies are falling over themselves to make new ones every time a new paper is published, even though only some of them add any new data on fossils--most are instead just salvos in an ongoing public debate about its ecology. Maybe that debate should be had despite its shaky foundations, but it mostly doesn't help us understand what the animal looks like or what exactly the taxonomy should be.

I can see why someone would want to have different models for competing concepts of the appearance of Spinosaurus, but I get a little annoyed by how many iterations major companies are putting out, when at least in theory they could be devoting some of that energy to making something that doesn't already have dozens of figures. In 2021 it was a particular bummer that Spinosaurus was one of only 3 figures that year, especially since one of the other two was also a spinosaurid and they had just released a figure of the genus two years earlier. It doesn't necessarily follow that if they hadn't made the 2020 Spinosaurus there would have been something I liked better, but it's hard not to imagine what else could have been.

I do understand that 2021 was a disappointing year from Safari for some dinosaur fans, but it was an unfortunate reality of the worldwide situation at the time. With COVID in full swing at the time, it caused many in-development items to be placed on hold, albeit temporarily.

Regarding Spinosaurus specifically, I would imagine many companies are probably at a saturation point. I used it as an example because it's one of the more extreme cases, where lots of new information has reshaped our understanding of this dinosaur in a relatively short span of time.

I think this was something that toy companies had to adjust to, and I would probably not expect too many new Spino figures from the main companies, at least until the dust has settled a bit and there's a more solid consensus among paleontologists. That's just speculation on my part though, don't quote me on it.

[Sim]

@Halichoeres, the way you feel about Spinosaurus is very similar to how I feel about Quetzalcoatlus and azhdarchids in general.  Aside from Zhejiangopterus which has been made by Vitae, and Quetzalcoatlus lawsoni which is the species all modern Quetzalcoatlus figures are modelled after, azhdarchids are known from poor remains.  The ones with known appearances have that appearance represented as a figure.  And Quetzalcoatlus keeps getting attention despite that the species companies want to represent (Q. northropi) might not be related to the species they base the appearance on (Q. lawsoni).  And you don't have to do much looking to see people ask for more azhdarchid figures despite all of the above and the fact that there are whole families of interesting pterosaurs without any good figure.

[Halichoeres]

Yeah, I definitely understand why 2021 in particular was a difficult year. I hope you're right that we're reaching saturation on Spinosaurus!

@Sim yeah I think part of it is that a lot of manchildren have an unwholesome preoccupation with the largest member of any particular category.

[Stegotyranno420]

@Halichoeres to be fair, it is the biggest, that is always something of interest.  Indeed the smaller ones can be interesting too.

[Faelrin]

@Sim That's why I prefer Queztalcoatlus lawsoni and did long before it was named. For me skeletal completeness is more important then it being the largest.

As far as pterosaurs go the only exceptions to this for me is Cryodrakon, because although there is only scant material, it is from the Dinosaur Park formation, one of my favorite formations. Another exception is Ikrandraco, which although has fragmentary, or partial postcranial remains, does have some good skull material to work from, that sets it apart from other pterosaurs. I suppose Hatzegopteryx slightly appeals to me as well, by ecologically being the largest predator in an island ecosystem with small dinosaurs is certainly unique.

Honestly the only one of these I'd like a figure of now is Ikrandraco though. I'd rather hold off on the other two until more material is found, despite their ecological importance. Granted I also seldomly collect pterosaurs as it is, or at least I don't prioritize them above dinosaurs. I only have the Safari Ltd Pteranodon, and the Bullyland Geosternbergia/Pteranodon, outside of the few Mattel ones I have (their 2022 Dominion Dsungaripterus is surprisingly decent). Though honestly there is also a shortage of accurate pterosaur figures outside of CollectA's which are typically too big for me, space wise.