Safari Ltd: New for 2023

[TheCambrianCrusader]

The three plesiosaurs should probably have tail flukes of some kind but I think the Liopleurodon and Elasmosaurus were sculpted before that was known (and even now to my knowledge the actual shape of the fluke isn't known).

[Lynx]

How do you know figures with the mouth wide open have 0 lips?

[TheCambrianCrusader]

I wouldn't say the Safari is slightly bigger, it's quite a bit bigger than the Battat.  The point is it's larger than 1:35 scale and not small.

They both look pretty close to 1:40 to me

[Faelrin]

@Lynx It's not so much as figures with a mouth wide open, so much as there is a clear evident lack of oral tissue covering the teeth. Nearly all the figures from 2019 and onwards have had lips, particularly those sculpted by Doug Watson, who has done the bulk of the Safari Ltd figures for the past decade, and continuously works to improve based on the latest research (at the time, as science always marches on as we've seen with quite a few recent figures, but one can't blame the sculptor for when that occurs). Even with an open mouth there's still a clear covering around the teeth that can be seen in those figures that were sculpted with lips, such as in the case of the 2019 Allosaurus, 2019 Carnotaurus, 2020 Qianzhousaurus, 2021 Daspletosaurus, 2022 Albertosaurus, 2022 Cryolophosaurus, and this year's figures. Edit: 2018 Dimetrodon as well.


@Sim I was under the impression the placement of the first toes was incorrect from watching the Your Dinosaurs are Wrong video on Archaeopteryx a while back. Is that no longer thought to be the case? They particularly covered the Safari Ltd figure in that video. I could have sworn there was discussion in the past (like years back) on the wing feather anatomy being incorrect too, but it's been a while, and memory isn't the best.

I think from the images shared by @TheCambrianCrusader that the Ceratosaurus is about the same size as the Battat? I recall seeing it in store a while back and thinking it was on the small side. But looking at the size comparison on wikipedia, maybe it wasn't a particularly large animal to begin with, so I'll correct that. Edit: Now that makes me curious as to what scale the large Rebor one is supposed to be in? I have both the Battat Terra and Rebor Ceratosaurus in my collection (and of course several of Mattel's).

Also thanks regarding the Mosasaurus name. I'll correct that as well. I noticed it was called as such Toyanimalwiki, and wasn't sure if it was previously called that or not, though the Safari Ltd website does currently call it Mosasaurus.

[japfeif]

Dino Dana ended in 2020 with the movie. And then Safari released the Dino Dana T. rex in 2021. It has always seemed odd to me that Safari is making merchandise for a television show that is no longer in production. 

On the subject of the Dino Dana 2021 Tyrannosaurus, so this figure IS the same exact sculpt as the 2017 feathered Tyrannosaurus, but just with a different paint job, correct? I've always thought that was the case but wasn't 100% positive (although the pics of her certainly look like the 2017 T. rex!)

What has been the general consensus on which one most folks here seem to prefer? I have the 2017 one and am happy with it but wondered how the Dino Dana one compared when both are in hand

[SidB]

Dino Dana ended in 2020 with the movie. And then Safari released the Dino Dana T. rex in 2021. It has always seemed odd to me that Safari is making merchandise for a television show that is no longer in production. 

On the subject of the Dino Dana 2021 Tyrannosaurus, so this figure IS the same exact sculpt as the 2017 feathered Tyrannosaurus, but just with a different paint job, correct? I've always thought that was the case but wasn't 100% positive (although the pics of her certainly look like the 2017 T. rex!)

What has been the general consensus on which one most folks here seem to prefer? I have the 2017 one and am happy with it but wondered how the Dino Dana one compared when both are in hand

J @japfeif , here's some comparison pictures. Note that the Dino Dana one stands and has always stood with perfect stability, unlike my original 2017.

[Sim]

@TheCambrianCrusader, thanks for those photos, I've owned both of those figures in the past and was sure there was a larger size difference between the two.  I must have been remembering incorrectly.  However, they would be close to 1:40 if Ceratosaurus reached 8m, as far as I'm aware it was 7m at most?


@Faelrin, I noticed the first toes of the Safari Archaeopteryx match in position to those of Jaime Headden's skeletals on Wikipedia, but looking at Scott Hartman's skeletal shows them in a different position.  Wikipedia says Archaeopteryx had a partially reversed first toe, so now I'm not sure what is correct for it.

Something you might want to add as an inaccuracy is the huge feet on the Safari Ceratosaurus.

[Shane]

J @japfeif , here's some comparison pictures. Note that the Dino Dana one stands and has always stood with perfect stability, unlike my original 2017.

While I can't comment on the status of any relationship with Dino Dana at this time, I CAN comment on this.

The Feathered Rex has undergone some minor adjustments in paint and overall stance during its run. If you compare original/first run examples to newer ones, you'll notice some color differences (such as brighter red used on the nose bumps). Also, to help increase stability, more recent Rexes have a slightly more upright posture. This is true of both the DD Rex and any newer examples of the original Safari Feathered Rex figure.

[Dinoguy2]

I don't think you're going to see much traction on the too small/too large issue. From what I've heard, the reason most companies stopped doing scale model lines is because retailers wanted a fairly consistent size, or maybe 2-3 size classes, in any line where each model was about the same size in each size class. This makes them easier to stock or keep track of or something, who knows. Modern companies have settled in around 1:30 scale because for the majority of popular dinosaurs, this feels like a good size model, and then you can do slightly bigger ones for the bigger (and often most popular) species like T. rex and Giga. Nobody is going to do a 1:35 Microraptor, not even as a mini - it would be maybe 4cm long! If this were the 80s, you could get away with sculpting it as a diorama like the Carnegie Protoceratops. But alas, those days are over (I've often imagined a possible 80s era Carnegie Burian-esque Archaropteryx perched on cycad diorama in that style).

You can literally see this transition taking place by looking at the Carnegie line. In the early 2000s they had 2 scales, 1:40 and 1:10. And while they weren't afraid to do small 1:40s like Styracosaurus or Sinraptor, all the 1:10s were around the same size. Then with the feathered dinosaur set, the scale goes haywire. They could have easily done a 1:10 Microraptor and Caudipteryx, but they didn't because they (or maybe the AMNH) wanted those to be big an detailed, so only Dilong and Beipiaosaurus were made 1:10. Then they start doing intermediate scales even for dinosaurs that would easily have worked in slightly larger or smaller sizes (Cryolophosaurus, Carnosaurus, Miragaia, Concavenator, Brachiosaurus) probably because retailers were not willing to order small theropods or very large sauropods anymore.

[SidB]

I don't think you're going to see much traction on the too small/too large issue. From what I've heard, the reason most companies stopped doing scale model lines is because retailers wanted a fairly consistent size, or maybe 2-3 size classes, in any line where each model was about the same size in each size class. This makes them easier to stock or keep track of or something, who knows. Modern companies have settled in around 1:30 scale because for the majority of popular dinosaurs, this feels like a good size model, and then you can do slightly bigger ones for the bigger (and often most popular) species like T. rex and Giga. Nobody is going to do a 1:35 Microraptor, not even as a mini.

You can literally see this transition taking place by looking at the Carnegie line. In the early 2000s they had 2 scales, 1:40 and 1:10. And while they weren't afraid to do small 1:40s like Styracosaurus or Sinraptor, all the 1:10s were around the same size. Then with the feathered dinosaur set, the scale goes haywire. They could have easily done a 1:10 Microraptor and Caudipteryx, but they didn't because they (or maybe the AMNH) wanted those to be big an detailed, so only Dilong and Beipiaosaurus were made 1:10. Then they start doing intermediate scales even for dinosaurs that would easily have worked in slightly larger or smaller sizes (Cryolophosaurus, Carnosaurus, Miragaia, Concavenator, Brachiosaurus) probably because retailers were not willing to order small theropods or very large sauropods anymore.

This is one reason why the move away from brick and mortar stores to online shopping is a positive one, since 1/35 or so scales for the smaller dinosaurs such as Protoceratops becomes feasible. It is a very solid reason why we should wholeheartedly support little companies such as Wild Past. Not only do we get small dinos at a scale consistent with the larger types, but shipping costs are reduced due to their minimal weight.

[Shane]

I will say with regards to scale, most consumers would rather figures are similar in size and "look good on a shelf" and are also large enough to showcase details, as opposed to being super concerned that they are all properly scaled together. As D @Dinoguy2 alluded to, the audience that wants a teeny tiny Microraptor to scale properly with a ginormous sauropod is not a majority of customers.

It's good that people who are scale-conscious have options, but personally I've always been dissatisfied with the sacrifice in detail when you go below a certain size. But I also understand that there are those out there who want to set up a full "in scale" display.

[Faelrin]

D @Dinoguy2 S @Shane I totally get why things like a true to scale 1:35 Microraptor would be unfeasible. Instead for example despite being oversized for 1:35 the smaller PNSO Microraptor does still look nice alongside true 1:35 of larger animals, because it would still be smaller among them. On the other hand, an Amargasaurus for example, would probably still be feasible at that scale, and in my case would be preferred when displaying next to other similar scaled sauropods for example.

In any case my point (assuming this was directed at my list of all the current offerings on the website, and the included notes) was just to show a size idea for comparison with the many 1:35 scale figures. In some cases the larger scales do lend to a more detailed figure such as with the Safari Ltd Deinonychus, one of my favorites, when compared to the smaller 1:35 or so Rebor trio.

Then there's also things like this year's Estemmenosuchus that is in a similar scale range with the retired Scutosaurus and Inostrancevia that really hits. I think this is where a similar scale is most helpful, such as for animals of a similar time or period, or even relation. They were all from Russia, and the Permian period although not from the exact times.

In any case I appreciate this discussion. If anyone has a comprehensive scale ranges for Safari Ltd's current figures I think that would be much better than just stating too small or large, and better for folks with preferences outside just 1:35. I guess I can dig in @Halichoeres thread, and if I recall right, I compiled a list of scales from Doug's sculpts based on his responses to folks in the yearly threads. I'll have to dig for that.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I will say with regards to scale, most consumers would rather figures are similar in size and "look good on a shelf" and are also large enough to showcase details, as opposed to being super concerned that they are all properly scaled together. As D @Dinoguy2 alluded to, the audience that wants a teeny tiny Microraptor to scale properly with a ginormous sauropod is not a majority of customers.

It's good that people who are scale-conscious have options, but personally I've always been dissatisfied with the sacrifice in detail when you go below a certain size. But I also understand that there are those out there who want to set up a full "in scale" display.

I'd be happy with a 1:1 or 1:2 Microraptor.. 

[EmperorDinobot]

I saw the feathered T.rex at Michael's a few weeks ago, and I took it in my hands, but...it looked really beat up, and I could not justify paying the asking price for a dinosaur that looked used. It broke my heart, truly, but things have changed around here. I would have liked to get it and maybe have one of you touch it up.

[Halichoeres]

@Faelrin I used to own the Rebor Ceratosaurus, which is about 1:25 if you extrapolate from the fragments of C. dentisulcatus. As C. nasicornis it's more like 1:18.

[Faelrin]

@Halichoeres Thanks. It's around the size of the Mattel ones, so that makes sense.

[SpartanSquat]

New reveal this month?

[Shane]

New reveal this month?

There are a lot of reveals incoming this month.

There are prehistoric items in the reveal pipeline, but not sure when they'll get announced.

I don't think any prehistoric are on the docket for this week, but like I said the reveals will be ramped up starting this month and likely keep going for a while.

[JimoAi]

New reveal this month?

There are a lot of reveals incoming this month.

There are prehistoric items in the reveal pipeline, but not sure when they'll get announced.

I don't think any prehistoric are on the docket for this week, but like I said the reveals will be ramped up starting this month and likely keep going for a while.

any aquatics this month?

[Halichoeres]

Me, I'm just waiting for the Estemmenosuchus to become available...