Rebor Diplodocus carnegii "CATCH THE RAINBOW" & "STARGAZER"

[Carnoking]

Camera and lens please?

These photos were taken with my Sony A6500 with what I believe was my Sigma 18-50mm lens.

[SidB]

I still love the Battat , It's a big rearing up posed model..which in itself makes it unique. Also love both Safri/Carnegie models.  This one though does hit on pretty much every level.

Except for accuracy.

Care to elaborate?

L @Leyster, are you saying that it is slightly inaccurate (whatever that implies), somewhat inaccurate, quite inaccurate, or very inaccurate? It's not constructive to be so vague here. Please elaborate.

[Faelrin]

Agree with S @SidB. Like what are the issues with it for those less informed? Best guess I could make is the integument and musculature maybe? Rest seems on point though, like as far as the general proportions, lips, and feet.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I still love the Battat , It's a big rearing up posed model..which in itself makes it unique. Also love both Safri/Carnegie models.  This one though does hit on pretty much every level.

Except for accuracy.

Care to elaborate?

L @Leyster, are you saying that it is slightly inaccurate (whatever that implies), somewhat inaccurate, quite inaccurate, or very inaccurate? It's not constructive to be so vague here. Please elaborate.

Yes I'm a bit confused. I went through all 8 pages of this thread and couldn't really anything against it in regards to accuracy? One member mentioned skin bumps and the lack of spines but at this scale the bumps aren't a big issue..heh heh  and the spines are a likely as not? 

[Lynx]

Maybe the real inaccuracies were the friends we made along the way

[Leyster]

S @SidB @Faelrin @Blade-of-the-Moon I didn't mention them before just because I didn't want to start another "Kiss is not accurate, deal with it" thing, anyway:

The most glaring issues are the limbs. I just don't understand why Rebor insists in overmuscling their models when they do not know how muscles work. Anyway, I need to explain a thing or two before coming to the model. Sauropods have very peculiar forelimbs: in all quadrupedal dinosaurs except for sauropos, the forelimbs touches the ground, contributes in dissipating the weight load, but cannot generate a push. Basically, quadrupedal dinosaurs are bipedals whose forelimbs touch the ground (this is also the reason why dinosaurs cannot gallop: they cannot push themself with the forelimbs, unlike mammals). Sauropods bypassed this limit by twisting the forearm so that the ulna has a fossa which houses the radius. You can see it below (image from PNSO)

This allowed them to reach a fully columnar forelimb (and it's the reason why no other dinosaur even came close to the size of the biggest sauropods). The muscles followed the bones accordingly. In the schematics below, you can see the muscle anatomy of two sauropods: Diplodocus itself, by Matt Dempsey:

and Mamenchisaurus, by PNSO

And Rebor got it wrong. If you want so see a sauropod model with actually accurate forelimbs, look at PNSO Lingwulong, PNSO Mamenchisaurus v2 or Eofauna Diplodocus.
What's funny is that they could've bypassed all this by using the old good tubular forelimbs without too much definition, Carnegie Diplodocus v2 style I mean: it's hard to actually tell if the forelimb is correct or not (not talking about the hand shape, of couse, and I suspect that the answer is not, but whatever), but instead insisted with their ripped, overmuscled appearance. Now their forelimbs are not only wrong, but looks like that poor Diplodocus had a bad cause of lymphedema (or, as somebody else pointed out, took steroids without proper training). The difference with a model where a proper study on the anatomy was done (like the Eofauna) is glaring.
Some papers on the matter are Vidal 2020, Vidal 2019, Klinkhamer et al. 2018, Ortero et al. 2017, Remes 2008. All these informations are summarized in "La rivoluzione piumata - volume terzo" by Andrea Cau.
There is more. We have actually skin impressions of Diplodocus, which don't look at all like the skin of the Rebor model, which is cracked, heavy lined and with little resemblace to the real thing. It was enough that it was "looking good", probably.
And, of course, bendy neck and tail means the muscles there will be wrong. Animals are not bendy wires, muscles twist and pull under the tegument. Have a look at WDragon's Giraffatitan from above and see how it's not simmetrical. Why this? Because it's taking a step, and the whole body follows the movement, it's not just limbs swinging back and forth. The very same is for neck and tail. Tail should also be waaay more tapered (it's not called "whip like" just for fun), but of course they needed to included the bendy bendy wire, which prevents it to be thin as it should be.
And that's just what I came up with a quick look at the model. I'm sure that if I have a talk with some paleoartists I know, I'd be back with a whole new lot of inaccuracies. The head itself, I'm not convinced with, even if I can't exactly pinpoint why atm (apart for being too big, probably to house the articulation or idk).
Basically, have a look at Battat's Diplo: that's a more accurate Diplodocus rendition (despite being 20 and more years older) than the Rebor. I'm not even bringing the Eofauna one because it'd be too cruel.

And let me add up a final tought: if Rebor made a giraffe with issues of equivalent severity and it was posted on ATF or STS, it would've been absolutely destroyed. You may like it for the way it looks (I do not, but that's a thing I can understand, the Sinraptor is among my favorite PNSOs despite having criticized its accuracy), but it's not accurate.

NB: in this pos I used the word "accurate" loosely, just because "close to the current understanding of this animal" was too long to write every time. Of course no (non avian) dinosaur model (not even, like, Sinosauropteryx or Microraptor) may be fully accurate.

[REBOR_STUDIO]

S @SidB @Faelrin @Blade-of-the-Moon I didn't mention them before just because I didn't want to start another "Kiss is not accurate, deal with it" thing, anyway:

The most glaring issues are the limbs. I just don't understand why Rebor insists in overmuscling their models when they do not know how muscles work. Anyway, I need to explain a thing or two before coming to the model. Sauropods have very peculiar forelimbs: in all quadrupedal dinosaurs except for sauropos, the forelimbs touches the ground, contributes in dissipating the weight load, but cannot generate a push. Basically, quadrupedal dinosaurs are bipedals whose forelimbs touch the ground (this is also the reason why dinosaurs cannot gallop: they cannot push themself with the forelimbs, unlike mammals). Sauropods bypassed this limit by twisting the forearm so that the ulna has a fossa which houses the radius. You can see it below (image from PNSO)

This allowed them to reach a fully columnar forelimb (and it's the reason why no other dinosaur even came close to the size of the biggest sauropods). The muscles followed the bones accordingly. In the schematics below, you can see the muscle anatomy of two sauropods: Diplodocus itself, by Matt Dempsey:

and Mamenchisaurus, by PNSO

And Rebor got it wrong. If you want so see a sauropod model with actually accurate forelimbs, look at PNSO Lingwulong, PNSO Mamenchisaurus v2 or Eofauna Diplodocus.
What's funny is that they could've bypassed all this by using the old good tubular forelimbs without too much definition, Carnegie Diplodocus v2 style I mean: it's hard to actually tell if the forelimb is correct or not (not talking about the hand shape, of couse, and I suspect that the answer is not, but whatever), but instead insisted with their ripped, overmuscled appearance. Now their forelimbs are not only wrong, but looks like that poor Diplodocus had a bad cause of lymphedema (or, as somebody else pointed out, took steroids without proper training). The difference with a model where a proper study on the anatomy was done (like the Eofauna) is glaring.
Some papers on the matter are Vidal 2020, Vidal 2019, Klinkhamer et al. 2018, Ortero et al. 2017, Remes 2008. All these informations are summarized in "La rivoluzione piumata - volume terzo" by Andrea Cau.
There is more. We have actually skin impressions of Diplodocus, which don't look at all like the skin of the Rebor model, which is cracked, heavy lined and with little resemblace to the real thing. It was enough that it was "looking good", probably.
And, of course, bendy neck and tail means the muscles there will be wrong. Animals are not bendy wires, muscles twist and pull under the tegument. Have a look at WDragon's Giraffatitan from above and see how it's not simmetrical. Why this? Because it's taking a step, and the whole body follows the movement, it's not just limbs swinging back and forth. The very same is for neck and tail. Tail should also be waaay more tapered (it's not called "whip like" just for fun), but of course they needed to included the bendy bendy wire, which prevents it to be thin as it should be.
And that's just what I came up with a quick look at the model. I'm sure that if I have a talk with some paleoartists I know, I'd be back with a whole new lot of inaccuracies. The head itself, I'm not convinced with, even if I can't exactly pinpoint why atm (apart for being too big, probably to house the articulation or idk).
Basically, have a look at Battat's Diplo: that's a more accurate Diplodocus rendition (despite being 20 and more years older) than the Rebor. I'm not even bringing the Eofauna one because it'd be too cruel.

And let me add up a final tought: if Rebor made a giraffe with issues of equivalent severity and it was posted on ATF or STS, it would've been absolutely destroyed. You may like it for the way it looks (I do not, but that's a thing I can understand, the Sinraptor is among my favorite PNSOs despite having criticized its accuracy), but it's not accurate.

NB: in this pos I used the word "accurate" loosely, just because "close to the current understanding of this animal" was too long to write every time. Of course no (non avian) dinosaur model (not even, like, Sinosauropteryx or Microraptor) may be fully accurate.

Limb muscles: I'm pretty sure we know how muscles work and are experts in animal anatomy cus we have a surgeon and a vet in our team, remember we made the Compsognathus Dissection Specimen with a chart showing each and every organ? FYI our diplodocus was built muscle by muscle and we can name and pinpoint every single one of them, the sculpt took us 90 days to finish and the first 30 days was the research period, We even changed volumes of muscle strains for limbs with different postures which is why they are asymmetrical. Take a look at PNSO Lingwulong and Mamenchisaurus again and tell me that you can't see muscle definition.

Skin impressions: Take a look at Figure 9 again, see those red lines? Those are what we call "flow lines" i.e. creases&skinfolds generated by muscle movements and gravity. You are mistaken skin impressions(scale shapes to be exact) with skin textures unfortunately. By the way what made you think that we haven't seen those skin impression images and used them as reference? Plus our diplodocus sculpt has more than 10 different scale shapes, scales in areas that are likely to bump into other things are larger than rougher, scales around areas with frequent movements are finer and narrower, scales in broad areas(torso and belly) with less movements are more regular. Two words: educated guess.

Bendy neck&tail and muscles: I'll pretend you didn't say that cus by that measure every single BOM figure isn't accurate yet they look pretty accurate to us

The head: we used a direct 3D scan of Dippy's skull to build soft tissues around it so if you are not convinced then we are all ears.

The word "accurate"：Michelangelo's David is a masterpiece and a pretty accurate representation of a young male Homo sapiens yet most of us don't have David's muscle definition or body ratio, guess we aren't accurate enough for alien abductors then

[Leyster]

Dear Rebor Studio

? FYI our diplodocus was built muscle by muscle and we can name and pinpoint every single one of them, the sculpt took us 90 days to finish and the first 30 days was the research period,

You might as well have taken two years, those are still wrong. That's not how sauropods forearms looks like. You can check the papers I posted, your model is wrong. If you have a different idea about sauropod forelimb muscles arrangement, you're free to try submitting it to a journal and, if it passes peer-review, I'll be happy to have a look at it.

remember we made the Compsognathus Dissection Specimen with a chart showing each and every organ

It's... the damned Jurassic Park Compsgnathus. It's not accurate, like, by default.

ake a look at PNSO Lingwulong and Mamenchisaurus again and tell me that you can't see muscle definition.

There's a clear difference between a figure with the correct muscolature and one overmuscled to the point of looking like a caricature of the real thing. The limbs of your Diplodocus are exagerated (on top of being wrong).

(from Tieba Baidu)
As I said, the funny thing is that you could've avoided all this by not making them overly ripped and thus harder to pinpoint.

You are mistaken skin impressions(scale shapes to be exact) with skin textures unfortunately.

Please expand this point, cause it's kinda hard to get what are you trying to say. I'm not a native speaker. What I know is that, when I compare your model to the skin impressions of Diplodocus we know, they do not match. To me, it look like you might have used an elephant as a model, but I might be wrong.

I'll pretend you didn't say that cus by that measure every single BOM figure isn't accurate yet they look pretty accurate to us

Guess what? I agree... in a way. Action figures are compromises to reality due to playability. As far as I remember (but I might be wrong) I think at some point BOTM were even advertised as toys. But you didn't advertise it as an action figure, nor - as far as I know - is supposed to be such.

Michelangelo's David is a masterpiece and a pretty accurate representation of a young male Homo sapiens yet most of us don't have David's muscle definition or body ratio, guess we aren't accurate enough for alien abductors then

It's very funny that you say that, because - you know? - Michelangelo's David is NOT accurate to an human body. In fact, hands and head are oversized, because the statue was meant to be observed from below and thus this corrected the perspective distortion.

[SidB]

Seeing the three displayed together makes me want three. Reminds me of Ballad of Big Al.. Oh no...

I'm glad I parted with my Eofauna, even if it is superior in accuracy. I feel as though the neck and tail "articulation" would add the individuality presence on my shelf.

Myself, I'm settled with my decision to hold onto Eofauna's diplodocus. There's always going to be a place for that which is the "most" - in this case well-researched and accurate, even though there are other attributes that I do value (aesthetics, shelf-presence, coloration, brute size, historical value, sheer sentimentality, etc.) that keep a figure in my collection.

[Faelrin]

So it is exactly what I thought. The musculature and integument being off. I mean at least there's always Eofauna's, which at least that does get those thing right, albeit at a smaller scale (and of course without the bendy wire neck and tail). I still think Rebor did a good job with the rest of it otherwise.

And, of course, bendy neck and tail means the muscles there will be wrong. Animals are not bendy wires, muscles twist and pull under the tegument.

This (and the whip tail section) to me stood out and doesn't feel like a valid argument compared to the rest. There are obviously going to be some sacrifices in anatomy when implementing a play feature, rather that be articulation or bendy wire, because of the limitations of such when working with plastic and rubber. I think Rebor makes a good point with mentioning BotM, which often have a mix of both. It's applicable to human action figures as well. If you don't like those things that's fine, but sometimes those things are part of the appeal for others, and makes that sort of anatomical trade off acceptable. A lot of people that got these are reporting that they are having a lot of fun with posing them, and all the display possibilities it opens up. Eofauna's on the other hand had a pose that was criticised when first revealed, and this avoids that by opening up options.

Early in development they mentioned it would have a bendy wire neck and tail. And at least on BBTS it mentioned it in the product description. Rebor has also been doing things like this for years now. I wouldn't exactly say they are action figures just because they have features like this. Action figures typically have more articulation going for them, like BotM.

[REBOR_STUDIO]

Seeing the three displayed together makes me want three. Reminds me of Ballad of Big Al.. Oh no...

I'm glad I parted with my Eofauna, even if it is superior in accuracy. I feel as though the neck and tail "articulation" would add the individuality presence on my shelf.

Myself, I'm settled with my decision to hold onto Eofauna's diplodocus. There's always going to be a place for that which is the "most" - in this case well-researched and accurate, even though there are other attributes that I do value (aesthetics, shelf-presence, coloration, brute size, historical value, sheer sentimentality, etc.) that keep a figure in my collection.

We really like Eofauna's Diplodocus and we have two copies in our collections. They too are great paleoartists and know well about animal anatomy. We don't believe in the "most accurate" concept cus to us as long as it isn't too far fetched then there isn't right or wrong, only preferences.

[Mattyonyx]

There's something I really don't understand about this kind of discussion. L @Leyster pinpointed some inaccuracies on this Diplodocus, like any of us can do on other models by different brands, and shared them publicly, to help fellow users learn something interesting about dinosaur anatomy (they even asked for a full explanation, which is one of the goals of the forum).

Now, anyone can decide to like a model or not, to buy it or not despite having paleontological inaccuracies (personally, I immediately bought Papo's Pentaceratops even though I was fully aware of the incorrect hands), but those issues would still be there.

And please @REBOR_STUDIO, mentioning The Compsognathus dissection kit is not a wise choice. Not only it's Compy from The Lost World, but it doesn't take into consideration one of the greatest gifts from the past, Scypyonyx: we know this particular specimen since 1998, with an immense monography and even a fully available 3D reconstruction of its perfectly preserved organs, and yet you decided to sculpt an internal anatomy that looks largely based on that of other animals. That kit is peculiar and entertaining, of course, but not educational from a paleontological point of view.

So yes, although many of your recent models are moving away from the Pop Culture clichè, they still have something that doesn't reflect our current understanding of these animals, which is not a problem per se, but your answer reminds me of the way your representative reacted to the comments on Y-Rex.

We're here to learn more about dinosaurs, even you.

[Flaffy]

Told you we have a surgeon and a vet in our team. Your argument regarding muscle arrangement is invalid, not even going to waste another second on the topic.

OK let's check out what you said: Sauropods have very peculiar forelimbs: in all quadrupedal dinosaurs except for sauropos, the forelimbs touches the ground, contributes in dissipating the weight load, but cannot generate a push.

Do you have any idea how physics works, even the GCSE level ones? Cus according to your concept even a one degree slope would be proven too difficult for any sauropod to handle cus it requires a "push". And how would sauropods walk exactly? Cus surely they'd need to lift one of their limbs at some point right? As soon as they did that reaction force on other three limbs would certainly increase, that's also a "push". By your logic they just couldn't mate could they cus it presumably requires far more complex limb movements than a "push", right?

Have you seen those mythical creature anatomy arts? You really should check out The Resurrectionist: The Lost Work of Dr. Spencer Black, turn out as long as you know anatomy well enough then you'll be able to reconstruct an anatomically correct Sphinx.

And did you just assume that we are not familar with David? WOW. Guess anything beyond basic perspective is simply too difficult for you to grasp?

The fact that you mentioned bendy neck and tail aren't correct shows that you are judging our works with extreme prejudice, otherwise who in right mind would say anything like that? Basically you assumed we know absolutely nothing at all from the very beginning then shoehorning in any excuses you can come up with to support your narrative. This is just sad.

Seems like the previous PR manager for Rebor got rehired.

[REBOR_STUDIO]

There's something I really don't understand about this kind of discussion. L @Leyster pinpointed some inaccuracies on this Diplodocus, like any of us can do on other models by different brands, and shared them publicly, to help fellow users learn something interesting about dinosaur anatomy (they even asked for a full explanation, which is one of the goals of the forum).

Now, anyone can decide to like a model or not, to buy it or not despite having paleontological inaccuracies (personally, I immediately bought Papo's Pentaceratops even though I was fully aware of the incorrect hands), but those issues would still be there.

And please @REBOR_STUDIO, mentioning The Compsognathus dissection kit is not a wise choice. Not only it's Compy from The Lost World, but it doesn't take into consideration one of the greatest gifts from the past, Scypyonyx: we know this particular specimen since 1998, with an immense monography and even a fully available 3D reconstruction of its perfectly preserved organs, and yet you decided to sculpt an internal anatomy that looks largely based on that of other animals. That kit is peculiar and entertaining, of course, but not educational from a paleontological point of view.

So yes, although many of your recent models are moving away from the Pop Culture clichè, they still have something that doesn't reflect our current understanding of these animals, which is not a problem per se, but your answer reminds me of the way your representative reacted to the comments on Y-Rex.

We're here to learn more about dinosaurs, even you.

Of course anyone can say they don't like our models, they can even say something like "REBOR I don't like your models cus you guys are a bunch of w*nkers" and we would still happily accept it, however we just can't stand still when he talks rubbish to our months long hard works using accuracy as an excuse. He even said "The head itself, I'm not convinced with, even if I can't exactly pinpoint why atm" and became silent after we told him that it was a 3D scan of Dippy, does such prejudice have anything to do with learning about dinosaurs at all?

[REBOR_STUDIO]

Told you we have a surgeon and a vet in our team. Your argument regarding muscle arrangement is invalid, not even going to waste another second on the topic.

OK let's check out what you said: Sauropods have very peculiar forelimbs: in all quadrupedal dinosaurs except for sauropos, the forelimbs touches the ground, contributes in dissipating the weight load, but cannot generate a push.

Do you have any idea how physics works, even the GCSE level ones? Cus according to your concept even a one degree slope would be proven too difficult for any sauropod to handle cus it requires a "push". And how would sauropods walk exactly? Cus surely they'd need to lift one of their limbs at some point right? As soon as they did that reaction force on other three limbs would certainly increase, that's also a "push". By your logic they just couldn't mate could they cus it presumably requires far more complex limb movements than a "push", right?

Have you seen those mythical creature anatomy arts? You really should check out The Resurrectionist: The Lost Work of Dr. Spencer Black, turn out as long as you know anatomy well enough then you'll be able to reconstruct an anatomically correct Sphinx.

And did you just assume that we are not familar with David? WOW. Guess anything beyond basic perspective is simply too difficult for you to grasp?

The fact that you mentioned bendy neck and tail aren't correct shows that you are judging our works with extreme prejudice, otherwise who in right mind would say anything like that? Basically you assumed we know absolutely nothing at all from the very beginning then shoehorning in any excuses you can come up with to support your narrative. This is just sad.

Seems like the previous PR manager for Rebor got rehired.

That PR manager just happened to be the very founder and sole owner and the only decision maker of REBOR. I never left and this is my 9th year on this forum 

[Leyster]

@REBOR_STUDIO dear, I might not have espressed the concept clearly enough in English, but that dinosaurs' locomotion is hindlimb-generated, by the caudofemoralis to be exact (as opposed to at least some forelimb component in quadrupedal mammals) is no matter to debate.
But I'll be nice and explain it once again for you (and mostly, for those which are curioous): gravity attracts bodies to the ground, isn't it? That's basic physics.
The basalmost dinosaurs are small and bipedals, thus when they walked all their weight reached ground from their hindlimbs, which are their mean of pushing themself forward due to the caudofemoralis muscle action. When some dinosaurs became bigger and heavier, some started elongating their forelimbs, which now touch the ground. So these dinosaurs are secondarily quadrupedals, ok? Because they came from earlier archosaurian which were quadrupedals, developed a bipedal stance and then went back to a quadrupedal stance.
Remember that dinosaur ancestors are the first fully bipedal animals. We, as mammals, never underwent through a similar process: from basal terapods to the first mammals, it's a lineage of quadrupedals (NB: being able to temporary rise on the hindlimbs as some squamates do is nothing comparable to the bipedal stance of archosaurs... or ourself... and it's a temporary locomotion before resting again on all fours.)
But archosaurs with a fully erect forelimb, due to the morphology of their joints, cannot use the forelimb to anchor themselves to the ground and push temselves forward, which is what pre-archosaurian with their sprawling limbs and mammals with their erect limbs, do. Instead, the forelimb "simply" touches the ground, helping the animal in dissipating the body weight so that it doesn't weight all on the hindlimb, but it cannot be used to push the animal forward like it was (to put it simply) "a second pair of hindlimbs". This, however, puts a limit on the size an animal can obtain, since all the movement comes only from the hindlimb (and it's probably around 20 tons, the weight of the largest hadrosaurs and non-erect limbed sauropodomorphs).
By changing their forelim structure sauropods were able to bypass this limit, thus allowing their forelimb to help themself walk insted of simply as a support for their weight.
You can read further about this in papers like Bonnan et al. 2007, Otero et al. 2017,  VanBuren & Bonnan, 2013 and Hutson 2015.




Sigh... NOW I remember why I wanted to stay clear from these conversations. I pointed out the issues of your model, and I'm not convinced by your answers. Neither I am from your behaviour. I've nothing more to add, there's enough over there to let users decide if this model is accurate enough for them or not.

[Flaffy]

Told you we have a surgeon and a vet in our team. Your argument regarding muscle arrangement is invalid, not even going to waste another second on the topic.

And what qualifications do they have in paleontology? Surgeons and vets are cetainly incredibly useful resources to advise anatomical reconstructions, but with extinct organisms such as dinosaurs, it's equally if not more important to consult paleontologists when attempting to create the most accurate/plausible reconstruction of any given extinct taxa. In this case working with sauropod specialists should've been the very first step in the process.

If I'm not mistake, surgeons deal with human anatomy, while most vets primarily treat mammal patients, save for those that go into exotics or poultry. I do wonder if there has been mammalian influences in your dinosaur sculpts based on this. I can't speak for the vet on your team of course without further information, but unless if the surgeon/vet on their team specialises in avian and archosaur anatomy, the information they'd be able to provide would most likely be from a mammalian perspective.

We can trust that Eofauna's Diplodocus is an accurate reconstruction precisely because credible paleontologists have been consulted and worked on it alongside paleoartists, to the point where the reconstruction was used in actual scientific publications. The same cannot be said for the Rebor Diplodocus however. We don't know who the surgeon & vet are behind the model, hence we question the credibility and authority of said individuals; and iirc we don't know of any paleontologists that have worked with Rebor on this.

Reconstructing dinosaurs is a collaborative effort really. Paleontologists informing the core science, anatomists aiding in the reconstructive process, and paleoartists bringing the artwork to life. Paleontologists study these animals for their entire lives, so their word and publications holds a lot of value in the subject matter; and IMO certainly more than unnamed surgeons and vets on a toy/model production company. Unfortunately you're not giving us a lot to work with here @REBOR_STUDIO , one can claim to have done the most meticulous sculpting possible, but without credible sources backing you up, you can't lash out at people validly questioning the accuracy of your models.

I feel like it's important to emphasise the following:
Time spent on sculpting =/= Accuracy
Claiming you're working with surgeons and vets =/= Accuracy
Patronising and insulting people with valid concerns =/= Accuracy

[Dusty Wren]

Told you we have a surgeon and a vet in our team.

I work with doctors, pharmacists, and clinical researchers at my job. They are all very smart people, but their areas of expertise are extremely narrow. They will be the first to admit that you need to consult with a range of specialists when you're trying to treat a patient, because being an expert at one area of medicine does not make you an expert in all areas.

All that is to say that having a surgeon and a vet on your team doesn't cover everything you could possibly need to know when reconstructing the biology of extinct reptiles.

Have you seen those mythical creature anatomy arts? You really should check out The Resurrectionist: The Lost Work of Dr. Spencer Black, turn out as long as you know anatomy well enough then you'll be able to reconstruct an anatomically correct Sphinx.

Yeah, I own this book. It's charming, and I like it. But the author leans pretty hard on mammal anatomy when recreating the creatures in the book. Turns out, non-mammals may have different musculature than mammals. Who knew.

[Mattyonyx]

Of course anyone can say they don't like our models, they can even say something like "REBOR I don't like your models cus you guys are a bunch of w*nkers" and we would still happily accept it, however we just can't stand still when he talks rubbish to our months long hard works using accuracy as an excuse. He even said "The head itself, I'm not convinced with, even if I can't exactly pinpoint why atm" and became silent after we told him that it was a 3D scan of Dippy, does such prejudice have anything to do with learning about dinosaurs at all?

I'm 100% sure there's no prejudice behind L @Leyster's comment, he does the same with models from all brands, on his reviews on Paleo-Nerd.com especially.

What it did here is share his opinion like everyone else, and since you talked about Dippy, the comparison with Eofauna is a perfect example. Both figures are based on scanned bones of CM 84 and are the results of months of work, with different outputs: one that meets Leyster and others' need for paleontological accuracy, and one that will please other collectors.

Dempsey's artworks and PNSO's sauropod models show what Leyster is talking about, and since we're talking about actual paleoartists usually working with paleontologists his opinion is perfectly legit, even if it may not be shareable by some.

After all, vets and surgeons are not paleontologists and paleoartists...

[Faelrin]

@REBOR_STUDIO I think it's also important to be honest when you've made a mistake, or you know just be transparent it isn't intended to be fully scientifically accurate from the start, because of the added artistic license. Being able to take constructive criticism is also important for any company or artist to grow. If people share scientific papers (if accessible) take the time to read and learn from them, so you can do better next time. I do a lot of that just for my reviews now, and I'm certainly not out here making figures.

Your new Spinosaurus for example does have an issue with the feet atm. The first toe should be weight bearing, but you've fallen into the trap of sculpting it like any other theropod foot which is incorrect. It may be minor, but if you are truly trying to go for a scientifically accurate model, you need to fix that.

Look at Haolonggood. After recieving feedback the hands were incorrect they actually updated the model to now have them. I'm not saying you need to go that far (update molds) but it pays better to be receptive then defensive in situations like this when you can clearly do better.

Edit: I'm saying this also as someone, or customer, or fan, or whatever, who does enjoy and buy your models on occasions (I mean I collect a ton of things, so obviously not all the time), and this Diplodocus is still on my wishlist. I want to display it next to the Ceratosaurus, and the Woodland Stegosaurus I pre-ordered on BBTS, since I missed it back when it initially released.