Dinosaurs of China by Safari Ltd.

[Ikessauro]

I had a question about this line, but couldn't find a topic on it anywhere, even with the search tool, so I'm creating one. I suppose most of us here is familiar with this set of models produced in 1993 by Safari, sculpted by Ely Kish. It features dinosaurs from... can you guess? Yep, China, of course. The models are Mamenchisaurus, Yangchuanosaurus, Therizinosaurus and Velociraptor. All of them were sold in boxes and each had a fossil backdrop made of plastic, the Velociraptor being the exception. Here's a few pics.
Mamenchisaurus



Yangchuanosaurus


Therizinosaurus



The thing is, I am confused about the Velociraptor origin. I'm not sure anymore it belongs in this set/collection at all. For the past few years since I started collecting, every time I saw this model it was described as part of the Dinos of China set. But looking at the box, it's totally different from the DoC design and has no mention to the line whatsoever. Also, the Velociraptor does not have the fossil backdrop.
Recently Randy's website (Dinosaur Collector Site A) was sort of updated, I'm sure you all notice that. On Safari DoC section he only lists the first 3 models as part of the set, the Velociraptor being a special limited release from Safari, non related to any line.
BTW, if anyone can ID the sculptor of this Velociraptor (LoRusso maybe?) Just remembered that it's by Greg Wenzel. LoRusso himself told me that via Facebook.

Velociraptor



I do not have the Velociraptor box, so I took the liberty to post these pics from Google here, if the owner/author of them is here, please, id yourself to get the proper credit.

So, the question is. Should we consider it as a unique, special edition as listed no Randy's site or keep considering it as part of the DoC line?

EDIT: So, it seems it really does NOT belong in this collection. Here's the evidence:

1 - The box is completely different, does not even mention Dinosaurs of China collection or the other models;
2 - Does not come with the fossil backdrop;
3 - Was sculpted by a different sculptor, Greg Wenzel;
4 - Serial Number is different;
5 - Has it's own name, "Speedy Predator" written on the box.
6 - Someone from Safari Ltd. Facebook Page (Moni Rubel) confirmed it's not from the set;
7 - Dan LoRusso, who at the time was a business partner of Greg Wenzel confirmed it was not made for the set. According to him, it was done to profit on the Velociraptor hype created by Jurassic Park.

EDIT 2: I got proof from Safari Ltd. that the Velociraptor is not from the Dinosaurs of China set. Check out the catalog picture a few posts below and a print screen of Safari's comment on the subject on Facebook. They confirmed it was not meant as part of the set.

By the way, did anyone notice the Velociraptor had a special display sold separatelly?

[amargasaurus cazaui]

There are two seperate paint apps for this model. The one that came boxed as part of the Dinosaurs of China set, does not have the fossil backdrop, but is part of the set. If you read the box back you will note it refers to Velociraptor  mongoliensis, naturally the species from China. The boxes for the Dinosaurs of China are all numbered 2600-29 except the raptor, and it is numbered 2500-29. The dinosaur was also released loose with no box and a different color app for the regular safari line.In addition you would note the release date for the Dinosaurs of China set, is 1993, the same date as stamped on the raptor model.

[Ikessauro]

There are two seperate paint apps for this model. The one that came boxed as part of the Dinosaurs of China set, does not have the fossil backdrop, but is part of the set. If you read the box back you will note it refers to Velociraptor  mongoliensis, naturally the species from China. The boxes for the Dinosaurs of China are all numbered 2600-29 except the raptor, and it is numbered 2500-29. The dinosaur was also released loose with no box and a different color app for the regular safari line.In addition you would note the release date for the Dinosaurs of China set, is 1993, the same date as stamped on the raptor model.

From the things you mention, the only one I think helps to prove it is part of the set is the release date. The fact that Velociraptor is from China is a given, that's why people immediately think it belongs to DoC set.

The number being different doesn't say much. Take my Therizinosaurus for an example, it is numbered 2601-29 instead of 2600-29 as you said. So, not all of them carry the same number. The 2500-29 number from the Velociraptor box should prove it was produced before the others, if you think they are numbered chronologically.

The new paint app you speak of is the brownish one from the last picture I suppose.

Doesn't make any sense to create a line of dinosaurs, with all models done by the same artist and with same box design except one. It could be explained if the Velociraptor was a later release, but since it's from the same year, things doesn't seem right to me. Unless it was designed before the others by Greg Wenzel and for some reason he or Safari didn't want him to keep doing the line, so Ely Kish took over.

[Ikessauro]

I asked about it on Safari's Facebook page and someone named Moni Rubel from Miami answered saying it was not part of the set. Do you guys know if this person is an employee from Safari?

EDIT: I asked Dan LoRusso and here's what he said:

"Elly Kish did the Chinese dinosaur set. The Velociraptor was a stand alone riding the Jurassic Park theme at the time."

So, the Velociraptor in fact does not belong in the Dinosaur of China collection.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I still believe you are mistaken for several reasons. First the numbering does indicate it as a set...-29 is consistent for both the raptor and the set. Secondly, being a velociraptor from China is hardly a given, unless the species is the mongolian one. Finally and most certainly, any Safari catalog or add from the time always advertised them as a complete four piece set including the raptor, and Safari themselves always listed it as such, wether by the same artist or not. The retailers that offered them also always offered them as a set. I purchased mine new and boxed during the time they were issued, and as a four piece set as well. The other paint app, was not offered as this version, from the set of four. It was offered seperately , as you are suggesting.
EDIT- Have also verified the sculpt was originally offered as part of the Dinosaurs of China set originally and subsequently released with the darker brown color app at a later time, after the release of the boxed set, so yes it very definitely is part of and has always been part of the set.

[Ikessauro]

I still believe you are mistaken for several reasons. First the numbering does indicate it as a set...-29 is consistent for both the raptor and the set. Secondly, being a velociraptor from China is hardly a given, unless the species is the mongolian one. Finally and most certainly, any Safari catalog or add from the time always advertised them as a complete four piece set including the raptor, and Safari themselves always listed it as such, wether by the same artist or not. The retailers that offered them also always offered them as a set. I purchased mine new and boxed during the time they were issued, and as a four piece set as well. The other paint app, was not offered as this version, from the set of four. It was offered seperately , as you are suggesting.
EDIT- Have also verified the sculpt was originally offered as part of the Dinosaurs of China set originally and subsequently released with the darker brown color app at a later time, after the release of the boxed set, so yes it very definitely is part of and has always been part of the set.

In my opinion, the fact that they were sold together doesn't prove anything. What I think is you and everyone else who bought them as a set just fell for a marketing trick as everyone else at the time, knowingly or not. I would guess that Safari decided to release the Velociraptor and the DoC set separately, but sellers and perhaps the people at Safari themselves spotted a chance to cash even more on the model selling the four together.

Think about it. Imagine you are a retailer of the models, who sells the DoC set and the Velociraptor in your store. When a consumer asked for the DoC set you would present him the models, but also make sure the consumer would see/know about the raptor.

Supposing said consumer asks you about the raptor, if it's part of the set, would you prefer to say it's not and don't sell it? If I were a retailer I would place the DoC set and the raptor pretty close to each other on the shelves, it's a matter of making money.

What I was trying to find out here is the original intention behind the model, not how it was sold. You see, the Mamenchisaurus from DoC was later sold as part of the Carnegie collection, but that doesn't matter. It was originally a DoC model.

Same thing with the raptor, it's a limited special edition model, not part of any set, but sold with one because it fits well together. It's a dinosaur from China, so why not buy it with the rest, even if it's not officially from the set?

I personally don't understand how the numbering works in the models, which part of the number means what. If you can enlighten me I'd be glad. I guess that to settle if for good I would need to see a scan of a Safari Catalog showing it as the set.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

It looks to me like you are doing a lot of what if and why not guesswork. I know for a fact that when safari advertised the Dinosaurs of China figures they stated the four pieces were all part of the same set. That is good enough for me. I am unsure why one figure was handled differently boxwise and by a different artist. In their brochures and artwork they presented them all as a single grouped set. All four ARE dinosaur species from China. It was not a sales ploy or effort to sell another figure, it was clearly stated the four pieces were all part of the set. To further underline that fact, the boxed figure that was part of the set bears an entirely different paint APP than the ones sold seperately and were sold BEFORE the seperate figures were released. All four figures bear bar codes ending in -29 to further support this. Further the retailers that sold these figures all listed them as a single set, not a three piece set with another figure being added , as a sales ploy.It is entirely possible that Ely Kish was only able to do three of the figures, or perhaps that The raptor was originally done in the format they intended and then the decision was made to switch to the box style offered with the sculpts by Ely Kish. We do know by the time they were brought to market that Safari considered them a set , wether they all matched or not. If the company that made and released them calls them a set that is in my opinion enough to prove that they are. When Carnegie produced a mammoth and smilodon, even though they are not dinosaurs, they are still part of that set. When Carnegie also offered dinosaurs in scales that are not consistent with the rest of the series they stated they were still part of the collection. If you later choose to go back and attempt to place them as a seperate thing that is your choice,but it does not alter the original maufactures intent. Every dinosaur figure site, aside from the one you mentioned bears this fact out as well. The dinosaur model database does state it as part of the set as well. So does the dinosaur collector.com. I also never saw the Mamenchisaurus offered in any Carnegie catalog or listing as part of the other line.The brochures were quite clear printed by Safari, four pieces, all dinosaurs of china....mamenchisaurus, raptor, yang , and theri. That is enough for me, aside from the seperate paint app.

[Ikessauro]

It looks to me like you are doing a lot of what if and why not guesswork. I know for a fact that when safari advertised the Dinosaurs of China figures they stated the four pieces were all part of the same set. That is good enough for me. I am unsure why one figure was handled differently boxwise and by a different artist. In their brochures and artwork they presented them all as a single grouped set. All four ARE dinosaur species from China. It was not a sales ploy or effort to sell another figure, it was clearly stated the four pieces were all part of the set. To further underline that fact, the boxed figure that was part of the set bears an entirely different paint APP than the ones sold seperately and were sold BEFORE the seperate figures were released. All four figures bear bar codes ending in -29 to further support this. Further the retailers that sold these figures all listed them as a single set, not a three piece set with another figure being added , as a sales ploy.It is entirely possible that Ely Kish was only able to do three of the figures, or perhaps that The raptor was originally done in the format they intended and then the decision was made to switch to the box style offered with the sculpts by Ely Kish. We do know by the time they were brought to market that Safari considered them a set , wether they all matched or not. If the company that made and released them calls them a set that is in my opinion enough to prove that they are. When Carnegie produced a mammoth and smilodon, even though they are not dinosaurs, they are still part of that set. When Carnegie also offered dinosaurs in scales that are not consistent with the rest of the series they stated they were still part of the collection. If you later choose to go back and attempt to place them as a seperate thing that is your choice,but it does not alter the original maufactures intent. Every dinosaur figure site, aside from the one you mentioned bears this fact out as well. The dinosaur model database does state it as part of the set as well. So does the dinosaur collector.com. I also never saw the Mamenchisaurus offered in any Carnegie catalog or listing as part of the other line.The brochures were quite clear printed by Safari, four pieces, all dinosaurs of china....mamenchisaurus, raptor, yang , and theri. That is enough for me, aside from the seperate paint app.

Ok, I have to agree with you that most of what I said on the "sales plot" is coming from my imagination.

Regarding the catalogs and brochures, I am still waiting for someone who might have one to scan and post here, then I'll be happy.

About this part of your comment: "To further underline that fact, the boxed figure that was part of the set bears an entirely different paint APP than the ones sold seperately and were sold BEFORE the seperate figures were released."

I know that the later release was brown, a totally different paint app. I also know that among the first releases, the orange/yellow version had some variants. That I'm aware of not just because of photos, but because I have two of these raptors and the colors are slightly different.

About this: "Further the retailers that sold these figures all listed them as a single set, not a three piece set with another figure being added , as a sales plot"

Of course they were, who in their right mind would advertise the plot! Yeah, I know I sound crazy, but I'm saying it anyway. If they were doing the "plot" as you said, it is obvious that the advertisement would mention them as a set, not as a three figure set and an extra, that is what makes it work!

I agree with you on the Carnegie part, just because the mammals are not dinosaurs it doesn't mean they do not belong in the collection, same with the different scale models. But they were all sold with tags, clearly labeled as Carnegie Collection. If you look at any old Carnegie Collection brochure, Smilodon and Australopithecus are there. You can be sure it's part of the set. With the raptor it's not that simple.

You see what I'm trying to say? It's the same thing you just said but in reverse. If you look back and decide the Velociraptor is part of the set, you can do that, but it doesn't change the fact that it was not intended originally as a part of it by Safari Ltd.

About the dinosaur figure sites. You said that all of them aside from the one I mentioned lists the raptor as part of the DoC set. But remember, all of these sites are pretty new, they probably did what I have been doing, copying information from whatever source is available. People say the raptor is part of the set, the site owner will write that, better than nothing.

Then you contradict yourself when you mention Dinosaur Collector.com as a site that says it is part of the set. Dinosaur Collector is the same site I listed in my original post! It belongs, as far as I know, to Randy Knoll. Here's the most recent version on the Safari models.
http://www.dinosaurcollectorsitea.com/SafariLegacy.html

I have to say that about the Mamenchisaurus being part of the Carnegie collection, I don't have proof of it, so I'll have to agree with you.

The only thing I want in the end, after all of this debate, is to define a timeline of the models releases. Which one came out first? Did they all came out together? No one can tell for sure.

Maybe we are both right, the raptor was indeed sold separately, but also as part of the set. What doesn't make sense is why they bother to design the different box, which would probably be more costly (just a conjecture here). Why it didn't have the fossil display? Even if Ely Kish could do only three models, Safari would've/should've asked the other sculptor for a model with the display anyway, no matter who was doing the job.

I also notice that the DoC boxes had variants too. One version had a yellow logo, while the other like my figures had the red logo. Some other minor things also were different on the box.

[Blackdanter]

There was something niggling me about this conversation. Now, I'm no great fan of Safari figures but they've figured in my awareness for some time. I went back to my archive of old catalogues and found the Dinosaurs of China figures masquerading as something else in Safari's 2008 issue. By which time, it seems that the Therizinosaur was already retired and the remaining three are shunted into Dino Discoveries which broadens the set at that date to 7 figures. The catalogue numbers tell a tale here though, as previously said in this thread, the last 2 digits indicate a grouping or separate set of figures and the remaining DoC figures (as of 2008) all end in 29. The catalogue numbers give the game away here and you can clearly see that 2 separate sets have been bolted together to form Dino Discoveries. I don't have any Safari catalogues predating this one unfortunately but you can see how confusion arises as, anyone starting from this point would be looking at a larger set and, be completely unaware of the Therizinosaur.

[tyrantqueen]

Now, I'm no great fan of Safari figures but they've figured in my awareness for some time.

You're not? How come?

[Ikessauro]

There was something niggling me about this conversation. Now, I'm no great fan of Safari figures but they've figured in my awareness for some time. I went back to my archive of old catalogues and found the Dinosaurs of China figures masquerading as something else in Safari's 2008 issue. By which time, it seems that the Therizinosaur was already retired and the remaining three are shunted into Dino Discoveries which broadens the set at that date to 7 figures. The catalogue numbers tell a tale here though, as previously said in this thread, the last 2 digits indicate a grouping or separate set of figures and the remaining DoC figures (as of 2008) all end in 29. The catalogue numbers give the game away here and you can clearly see that 2 separate sets have been bolted together to form Dino Discoveries. I don't have any Safari catalogues predating this one unfortunately but you can see how confusion arises as, anyone starting from this point would be looking at a larger set and, be completely unaware of the Therizinosaur.

Thank you Blackdanter! This helps a  bit. We can now understand the last part of the time line, the models, including the raptor repaint, have been sold in a set called Dino Discoveries. But, regarding the number, doesn't the first two also have to be the same to indicate a set? I see that all DoC dinos there have the number starting with 26, but velociraptor has got the number 25. Also, notice that what changes is the middle part of the number. Yangchuanosaurus is 260029, Therizinosaurus is 260129, Mamenchisaurus is 260229, it follows a pattern. But the Velociraptor is numbered like a new model, the first of a line, numbered 250029 (note 00 in the middle). Anyway, I am pretty sure we won't be seeing a 93 catalog so soon, guess I'll have to hold on for now and keep searching.

[Patrx]

"Oviraptors were bird-like dinosaurs with actual feathers unlike today's bird feathers. These ancient feathers were actually hollow bones."

What?? 

[Ikessauro]

HERE IS THE DEFINITIVE PROOF THAT THE VELOCIRAPTOR WAS NOT PART OF THE DINOSAURS OF CHINA SET.

The catalog scan, provided by Safari via Facebook under my request.


If that is not good enough for you, maybe Safari's comment and explanation will satisfy.



So, it all comes down to a misunderstanding due to the poor choice of placement of the raptor in the catalog, next to the DoC set, without clear separation between them. The blue line was indeed supposed to indicate it didn't belong to the set.

[tyrantqueen]

HERE IS THE DEFINITIVE PROOF THAT THE VELOCIRAPTOR WAS NOT PART OF THE DINOSAURS OF CHINA SET.

Slam dunk

[Blackdanter]

Nicely done. You got to the bottom of it in the end. 

I quite like the DoC line. I still have most of mine and a few odd Safari figures. I gave the majority of my Safari figures (some 60 odd) to a local school some years back as they were just taking up valuable shelf space. I think it's the lack of personality that finally turned me off of them. I still haven't forgiven them for the 10th anniversary half head Rex with the deformed toes .......................................   

[Gwangi]

I guess that settles it. Good to finally know. I figured it was part of the set myself but was always a bit skeptical. Still, whenever I referred to it I described it as the "DoC Velociraptor."

[CityRaptor]

Well, that confirms that I only miss the Mamenchisaurus to complete the set... Still will try to get this guy. Although I think one could make it an honorable member of the set.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

The answer given seems quite logical and appears correct. It does raise some questions I wondered if you might pose to Safari regarding their response however, as the catalog page is problematic for a couple of reasons. Did they give a suggested date for the page? The reason I ask is because you will make note the raptor shown appears to be the repaint, second later APP used and not the original version which also came boxed. You will also note the raptor is not shown boxed although the other models for the page are, despite using two pictures. It had already been stated the raptor was repainted and sold lose apart from the set later in its history which is what this page seems to be reinforcing. A date for the scan might be useful , or possibly a scan from the original catalog offering the raptor, in its original paint app, or boxed would help underline the answer given to verify that the dinosaur was released seperately.
  My eyes are not as good as they used to be, however that does look too dark to be the original paint scheme, and is positively not boxed . This does make the timeline at least uncertain.
  The fact they are themselves having to research it suggests the answer could be either. Either way good work in nailing this down and providing some answers that seem to suggest the entire thing was a mistake for years.

[Ikessauro]

The answer given seems quite logical and appears correct. It does raise some questions I wondered if you might pose to Safari regarding their response however, as the catalog page is problematic for a couple of reasons. Did they give a suggested date for the page? The reason I ask is because you will make note the raptor shown appears to be the repaint, second later APP used and not the original version which also came boxed. You will also note the raptor is not shown boxed although the other models for the page are, despite using two pictures. It had already been stated the raptor was repainted and sold lose apart from the set later in its history which is what this page seems to be reinforcing. A date for the scan might be useful , or possibly a scan from the original catalog offering the raptor, in its original paint app, or boxed would help underline the answer given to verify that the dinosaur was released seperately.
  My eyes are not as good as they used to be, however that does look too dark to be the original paint scheme, and is positively not boxed . This does make the timeline at least uncertain.
  The fact they are themselves having to research it suggests the answer could be either. Either way good work in nailing this down and providing some answers that seem to suggest the entire thing was a mistake for years.

That's the 1993 catalog.
EDIT: The yellow logo on the box proves it's from the first release because the Doc set was sold with that box when it first came out. AFAIK the red logo box came out later and was also used on the Dino Discoveries set.
The raptor on the photo is the prototype, so it's understandable it's darker in color or looks different than the final product. And I don't think Safari had to research it to confirm my hypothesis, because the first time I asked at their Facebook wall the answer came a few minutes later, not enough time to do a big research.
Here's a few additional pics of the raptor.
Prototype resin, posted on Facebook a while ago by Dan LoRusso.

Prototype painted (note the sharper claws and more detailed stripes, totally different from the actual thing. This was the shot used in the catalog.


Here is a comparison of my two models. The version with above in each photo seems to be a later release. I am suggesting that based on a few things, including differences in paint app and the fact that detail is less evident, what might be a sign of mold degeneration over time. Most importantly, this version has a number 2 stamped on the belly under the traditional information. I imagine this could mean it's a second version.
Another thing about the paint, is the version below in each photo shows more stripes and more evident ones. We all know that any figure has it's paint app at it's best right after the first release. Over time, the company starts to focus on newer models, new releases get more attention to detail and older things tend to be produced in less quality, paint wise.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I think that answers my doubts and issue with the scan of the brochure very well. Makes perfect sense the prototype would not have the same paint app used and not be boxed. I am sold on it.Thanks for clarifying my question regarding that. To my understanding your two models do represent the two seperate paint apps with the darker one being the second darker app, sold later than the original model. It all makes good sense now, with what I saw as they were issued. Well done , and thanks for the answers !!!