Best of the Best Carnegi Models

[Takama]

Ok, Recently I have been Dividing my carnegi Collection into two groups,  Authentic and Classic.   What i need help with are the Authentics


First of all, Im not refering to those little Figures released in the 90s I talking about the Best Carnegi models in terms of acuracey.  Pronated arms are fine BTW but anything else is helpful.

What i like to know the most is

Acuracey opinon on the Allosaurus (Sculpt two)

The Second Triceratops(orange and black)

and the Baryonx.

I know some of them are reviewd but i like multiple opinons

[Gryphoceratops]

I reviewed the triceratops a few years ago.  My view on it since then have changed though.  Its pretty wrong. 

I reviewed the allosaurus as well.  Its okay overall but could use an update.  The skull is a little weird. 

[Takama]

I was talking about this one.    I only found a review of the Original

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

The leg/foot orientation may have changed since but overall I like it quite a bit and I don't see any accuracy issues.

The Allosaurus is okay..but needs a re-do again. Something more in line with the WS Allo I think would be better.

The Bary..I'm sure it could look better now, but I suppose it's still pretty accurate.

[Patrx]

I really like that Trike, overall - but I've never been able to justify buying it because of the foot issues Great color scheme, though!

[suspsy]

I think the Carnegie Tylosaurus is hands down the best plastic incarnation of that mighty oceanic squamate ever.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I think the Carnegie Tylosaurus is hands down the best plastic incarnation of that mighty oceanic squamate ever.

Great as it is..it has to be 2nd to Malcom's figure of it.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

My two cents isnt that rich, but the two figures I personally favor as they were issued from Carnegie would have to be the newer model Diplodocus, and the Carnotaurus. There are other figures they have done that I would perhaps be a tad fonder of if the paint schemes were not so .......mediocre

[Takama]

Here are the ones i justifiyd worthy of Authentics

Diplodocus 2008

Camarasaurus

Brachiosaurus 2012

Carnotarus 2011

Miragaria

Triceratops Resculpt

Icthyosaurus

Tylosaurus

Tanystropheus

Spinosaurus 2009

Crylophosaurus

Deltadromeus

Sinraptor

both Oviraptors

Deinosucus

Saltasaurus (lack of head in the fossil record is acceptable on this model)

Giganotosaurus

Albertasaurus

Concavenator

Recent redo of Aniversery Rex(the one without Googly Eyes)

Dimetrodon

Miasaura with nest

Corythosaurus

Cuideptryx

Beipesaurus

Armagasaurus

Ankylosaurus

Thats it off the top of my head.    Agreee, or Disagree, or did i miss any you guys think are worthy

[amargasaurus cazaui]

The psittacosaurus is close, if not perfect. The body is perhaps a little too "pudgy" or rounded overall. They also painted in the fourth finger claw on each hand which seems non existent in the fossil record generally
The head legs, hands, and rest of the model appear rather accurate according to most opinions. The big knock against the figure is the rather ..ho hum uminspired paint job. I think you could argue for authentic for the piece.

[Takama]

awe yes that Rare gem, i thoght all that wrong with it is the lack of Quils

[Patrx]

The quills, and the hands. But, if I remember correctly, Mr. cazaui (sorry, I do not know your real name  ) does not regard the quills as a necessary feature for an accurate Psittacosaurus.

Aside from those two things, all I dislike about it is that it leans on its tail, which is just a pet peeve of mine. At least it's not a quadruped!

[amargasaurus cazaui]

The quills, and the hands. But, if I remember correctly, Mr. cazaui (sorry, I do not know your real name  ) does not regard the quills as a necessary feature for an accurate Psittacosaurus.

Aside from those two things, all I dislike about it is that it leans on its tail, which is just a pet peeve of mine. At least it's not a quadruped!

The hands are a simple blow dryer or hot water treatment from being accurate at least. The quills, I am 50/50 for, divided as they are known from one specimen of the thousands known . I always wonder if that might be a male/female marker trait, or perhaps found in only one of the sixteen known species of Psittacosaurus. We say there could be as many as sixteen species of Psittacosaurus, however if you were to look at the birds we live with today, from the vantage point of the fossil record in fifty million years, you would name considerably less species than we see around us because so many species rely on color, behavior or their actions to be distinguishable from another species, and none of those things preserve in the fossil record. I cannot help but think there must have been dozens of different species of Psittacosaurus and perhaps one such might have been quilled.
  And for the record, my name is Michael. I dont think i have told most anyone, so there you go. I dont mind being named after a dinosaur though, i find that endearing HA

[Patrx]

Good point! I always forget that such things can be fixed with heat. Anyway, I didn't mean to suggest your were wrong about the quills, only to specify that not everyone considers the fact the the Carnegie Psittacosaurus lacks them to be a problem

At any rate, good to have a name to attach to the moniker! In case it was not obvious, I am called Patrick Being named after a dinosaur could indeed be interesting. There's a guy in a neighboring town named Tyrannosaurus Rex; and yes, he changed it himself.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Good point! I always forget that such things can be fixed with heat. Anyway, I didn't mean to suggest your were wrong about the quills, only to specify that not everyone considers the fact the the Carnegie Psittacosaurus lacks them to be a problem

At any rate, good to have a name to attach to the moniker! In case it was not obvious, I am called Patrick Being named after a dinosaur could indeed be interesting. There's a guy in a neighboring town named Tyrannosaurus Rex; and yes, he changed it himself.

Quite alright and always a pleasure Patrick. I think that I have mostly determined to get as many different painted versions of the Carnegie Psittacosaurus as I can just .....well because. As to the quills, I was just throwing out there how I view them, and providing perhaps a different perspective. I always welcome your ideas and thoughts, you are always informative and helpful, as long as I dont let you glue feathers on my dinosaurs !!!!

[suspsy]

The Carnegie Spinosaurus is definitely a beautiful sculpt, but the fact of the matter is that until more complete remains are discovered, there's no saying as to how accurate it really is.

[Gryphoceratops]

The carnegie psittacosaurus is really good accuracy-wise.  Like said before you can't assume every individual matched exactly to one specimen.  I'd be willing to bet that if carnegie re-did that animal, it would have quills, but the point still stands. 

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

The Carnegie Spinosaurus is definitely a beautiful sculpt, but the fact of the matter is that until more complete remains are discovered, there's no saying as to how accurate it really is.

As far as I know it's accurate except maybe the legs are too long. It's unfortunate the teeth rounded so much in that sculpt as well. :/

[Balaur]

I think that the best Carnegie is probably the 2012 Brachiosaurus. It's absolutely beautiful! The Concavenator for this year also looks great! I can't wait to have it in less than a month! Or in january, where, at that time people are going to read this post, so, still, I'll have my hands on it very soon!