Battat, Terra series - New for 2014

[stargatedalek]

I get its personal interpretation, but I think feathers would be the conservative route
nothing wrong with not being conservative, but just saying that with therizinosaurs (all maniraptors) feathers are the conservative

[JakobVicent]

They're not.

Yes,they are.The palms of its hands are looking down.

Ah. No. I have the figure right in front of me. On neither hand are the palms facing down. The stabilizing arm is rotated a bit, but the tucked one is not. Even the rotated one is not palm down. Look at it dead on from the front, it is tilted but not face down.

As to the lack of feathers, Dan has explained his decision on that already. It is a personal interpretation. There is no DIRECT evidence of feathering on THIS animal, so he (as many sculpters seem to do) went the conservative route. You may disagree, and I understand why. But that does not mean the figure is inaccurate. It is a conservative, but accurate, interpretation of available evidence.  It truly is a wonderful little figure.They all are so far, a nice sense of weight to them, of bulk without seeming clunky. They are most welcome additions.

well said amanda

[amanda]

I get its personal interpretation, but I think feathers would be the conservative route
nothing wrong with not being conservative, but just saying that with therizinosaurs (all maniraptors) feathers are the conservative

Well, we could argue that point for years. Even then we will not agree. More importantly, Dan doesn't agree. And, that matters, because that is the path he has chosen for his style. What that means in certain animals, even though YOU may feel there is good reason for feathering, he may well not. Which boils down to this figure perhaps not being the only one that will disappoint you. In which case the new Battat may just not be what you hope it would have been. I on the other hand am completely content with all of them so far.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I think there might be a flip side to this entire thing most people miss, My personnal collecting style is to buy any rendering of a psittacosaurs I might find, just to have as many different possible viewpoints as possible how the dinosaur could be seen. I set the not so likely in a group in one corner and the rest are displayed more prominently. In this way I get most ideas of how the dinosaur might have been viewed as knowledge advances.

   I remember Himaapaan , a regular here for as long as I remember saying something once that kinda stuck with me. Understand he was not endorsing accepting inaccurate models, but simply giving a bit of wisdom to the collector.
he said something to the effect...." surely there can be only joy in owning more than one version of the dinosaur "....not sure I got it exactly but his point does have some purpose, even here.

[loru1588]

Dinolord: Point taken, my Nanshiungasaurus is somewhere between Deinonychus & Eoconfuciusornis

Stargatedalek: "conservative : adjective : holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation." Feathers on every theropod/maniraptor/ornithimimid would be, dare I say, liberal

Amanda: Thank you for your clarity!!

[Concavenator]

I do hope future theropods in this line start to look a bit more accurate - the original Battat line was famous for being very up-to-date, yet much of what can be seen so far in this line misses the mark. The Gigantoraptor's wings are no good and the therizinosaur is totally bald.
Aesthetically, the Dacentrus looks excellent, but maybe someone who knows more can verify the correct shape of the hands? They look like they might be off, which would be a shame.
So far, I really like the looks of the Pachyrhinosaurus (correct number of manual claws, and a great pose!) and the Gastonia. Checking my local Target stores tomorrow!

The new sculpts LOOK like they belong with the old Battat line, which to me seems to be a good thing.  If they are going to re-issue the entire old line (confirmation anyone?) it would make sense to make new figures similar in style.  With Dan LoRusso as the sculptor, that is assured.

Battat was always a "niche" line of figures, probably THE most distinct looking series with its own style.

Continuing that "look" seems to be to be the best way to get back in the game - you don't want your dinosaurs to look like everyone elses ...

I think I could get Simon's point of Battat being the best dinosaur model line.They boomed the dinosaur collecting when Marx and Invicta figures (that's what I've heard I wasn't around by that time  ).When the Battat line went extinct,the Carnegie Collection upped their game until being the best line.They make neat models,with the latest accuracy,but they don't have much personality.Loving this line,the theropods are in te same boring pose.A problem of style.Battat has much personality,but the sculpts are sometimes hit or miss.
Carnegie's sculpts are hits,but they (lately) end up obscured by the paintjob or whatever.
This line is coming strong,their Cryolophosaurus is probably the best model of this species so far,even better than Gorgonzola's cryos,imo  .Then again,the paintwork is hit or miss.On the Gastonia and Cryolophosaurus are hits ( as well as the sculpt itself),but the Pachyrhinosaurus' miss (excellent model,though).
They have to be cautious with things like what they've done with the Nanshiungosaurus.It was the model I was most looking for,until I saw the pics,and saw it's bald.I see this line having a powerful future,though.
BTW,has anyone seen this?:
https://www.facebook.com/TheDinosaurStudio/photos/pb.166381366846205.-2207520000.1409920153./291831484301192/?type=3&theater

[amanda]

Again, one final time reason will chyme in and ask. Why be careful with "things like what they've done with the Nanshiungosaurus"? Why? I get it. It let you down. But the artist has again and again explained his decision. And stated that his decision will veer the same direction EVERY time he feels the hard (non claudistic only) evidence is iffy. He already stated he does confer with experts for opinions before making the final decision. In this case he decided that in HIS opinion and that of the EXPERTS he referred to, there was not enough strong evidence beyond the usual inferences and guesses (sorry, ducks) to feather that piece. And certainly you need not agree. And have certainly everyone has been quick to judge. It's a shame, it's a great little sculpt. But ok, beyond that? You vote your wallet. But it will not really deter "nakedness".

Going through Target means that while they are aware of (of course) and care about collectors, they are not in any way dependent on them. I went to pick up the Dacentrurus and Cryolophosaurus yesterday. Those were the two I thought most likely to sell slower and my gamble paid off. They had 3 each, 1 Pachyrhinosaurus and NO therizinosaur. So whether various forum members like it or not, buy it or not, they are flying off the shelves. I do not think Battat is unaware of the history or esteem their original line produced. They know that putting anything out under their name will pour a universe of scrutiny onto the figures. I don't know if I'd say a lot is riding on it for them? But surely they would not whimsically throw away the opportunity (and reputation)? Surely Dan has every reason to produce the best figure he can scientifically and artistically?

So, I don't see the naked animals as failings or mistakes. They are deliberate, thought out artistic decisions. Reasoned decisions. Dire predictions and warnings are not going to accomplish anything. I am not surprised though. The reissue of the old line, and even more so, releasing of new figures has been a fan dream for a long time. Dreams of what species could could have looked like what filling collector heads everywhere. NOT having the line riding the edge scientifically is likely a huge disappointment, but IS a reasonable direction. Meh. I have had my two cents (8 bucks?) of say. I withdraw from the line. Perfectly happy with my new collection so far.

Oh, one final thought. Battat was the most accurate line at the time. "Cutting edge" in pose and accuracy. Yes. But, the science and accuracy being presented was in no way controversial science. Everything about the figures was well founded in accepted science, it just took a long time for any other company (or many museums) to catch up with actually DOING the research. The line was never "cutting edge" in including speculative detail. Nothing beyond well established science. Just saying, Dan and Battat have always been working in this mode...

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I do hope future theropods in this line start to look a bit more accurate - the original Battat line was famous for being very up-to-date, yet much of what can be seen so far in this line misses the mark. The Gigantoraptor's wings are no good and the therizinosaur is totally bald.
Aesthetically, the Dacentrus looks excellent, but maybe someone who knows more can verify the correct shape of the hands? They look like they might be off, which would be a shame.
So far, I really like the looks of the Pachyrhinosaurus (correct number of manual claws, and a great pose!) and the Gastonia. Checking my local Target stores tomorrow!

The new sculpts LOOK like they belong with the old Battat line, which to me seems to be a good thing.  If they are going to re-issue the entire old line (confirmation anyone?) it would make sense to make new figures similar in style.  With Dan LoRusso as the sculptor, that is assured.

Battat was always a "niche" line of figures, probably THE most distinct looking series with its own style.

Continuing that "look" seems to be to be the best way to get back in the game - you don't want your dinosaurs to look like everyone elses ...

I think I could get Simon's point of Battat being the best dinosaur model line.They boomed the dinosaur collecting when Marx and Invicta figures (that's what I've heard I wasn't around by that time  ).When the Battat line went extinct,the Carnegie Collection upped their game until being the best line.They make neat models,with the latest accuracy,but they don't have much personality.Loving this line,the theropods are in te same boring pose.A problem of style.Battat has much personality,but the sculpts are sometimes hit or miss.
Carnegie's sculpts are hits,but they (lately) end up obscured by the paintjob or whatever.
This line is coming strong,their Cryolophosaurus is probably the best model of this species so far,even better than Gorgonzola's cryos,imo  .Then again,the paintwork is hit or miss.On the Gastonia and Cryolophosaurus are hits ( as well as the sculpt itself),but the Pachyrhinosaurus' miss (excellent model,though).
They have to be cautious with things like what they've done with the Nanshiungosaurus.It was the model I was most looking for,until I saw the pics,and saw it's bald.I see this line having a powerful future,though.
BTW,has anyone seen this?:
https://www.facebook.com/TheDinosaurStudio/photos/pb.166381366846205.-2207520000.1409920153./291831484301192/?type=3&theater

I am sorta curious about that line, were you referring to the original Battats as well, or just the new set......we are four models in so far. We have a stegosaurid, a cryolophosaurus, a ceratopsian, and a therizinosaurus, and we are already spotting trends like hit and miss?
   I always play this scenario out in my mind backwards. Forget you ever heard of Battat or Dan Larosso, and this set of dinosaurs appears in your local target store.  As you look them over, and check them out you realize wow, these are really well done. The are sure not Chinasaurs, nor are they Carnegie figures........someone took alot of work to make these. Oh hey check that price....eight dollars a box ...thats tough to beat. So you rush to the forum to post your new find before anyone else does, because you found some great figures at a really nice price. It really plays out different like that I think.
  But for some reason, add Dans name and Battat and all of a sudden nothing is quite well done enough, and the bar keeps moving higher.
   I keep wondering when someone will ask...why is this set called the Terra line? Perhaps because it was not intended to be a MUSEUM line of figures? Dan has those coming out, but perhaps we should see this set for what it is meant to be.
  I dont really get it I guess, i grabbed two sets of the first four, cause to me they look nice. besides this way I can get a set autographed and another to resell in a few years to the same people who are sitting now complaining about them, when they are asking....what was I thinking?

[amanda]

Exactly. How many of us had the chance at the originals, but for whatever reason decided to pick and choose (or had to financially?)? I held all in my hand at one time or another, but still I had to choose. Now, here we are. 8 dollars is nearly unbeatable for price. You have to see them in person. They are AMAZING figures. Regardless of anything else, the detail is crisp, and the anatomy is believable. You see HOW the animal would work. They feel.."there". But what I ask the collectors. Those who HAVE to get the whole line. Why pass up the 8 dollar opportunity now on a certain 60 dollar figure later?

[Patrx]

There were two very useful articles on the topic of paleoart written this week: Mark Witton's Patterns in Palaeontology, and Darren Naish's The changing life appearance of dinosaurs. Both touch on different and interesting points, but a few highlights that I think are relevant to this discussion are:

• Paleoart is more important to the science of paleontology than it might seem - rather than being merely sculptures or paintings, they are "visualizing palaeobiological hypotheses".


• "At the heart of palaeoart beats a technique known as phylogenetic bracketing, in which the position of an organism in a phylogeny (essentially an evolutionary tree) is used to objectively infer information about its appearance and behaviour."


• "The simplest evolutionary scenario is assumed to be the most likely", which is why a featherless Nanshiungasaurus, while plausible, must be regarded as "more speculative" than a feathered one.


• "Don't go assuming that palaeontologists are necessarily useful on this sort of stuff. Those who work on phylogenetics, diversity across time, histology and so on are often not up to speed on soft tissue anatomy. Exhibit A: all those execrable and hopelessly inaccurate dinosaur images published in books that were supposedly authenticated by august working scientists."

[amanda]

I am not assuming anything. I am not even discussing my personal thoughts on feathers vs no feathers. I am merely re-articulating what this particular artist has said IS his thinking. Meaning, he has no real intention to change his point of view on the matter. Whether I think he is right or not, his style and decisions for this and the MOS line are not going to change.

I was able recently to ask the Wild Safari sculpter (Doug? **hope, hope**) a question regarding his ceratopsian figure's details. On the Diabloceratops and Pachyrhinosaurus, aside from the scale pattern there are oval shaped flat discs. I asked him why these were flat discs, and not raised bumpy scutes as most figures show. He was gracious and kind enough to humor me, and stated that what the preserved skin impressions actually seem to show is a round flat area (he may have said with a slight central ridge). He said that raised scutes were a purely speculative detail not supported by the available evidence and hence he took the more literal and conservative approach. He added that the bony ridge down the spine was itself purely speculative and about as far out as he was willing to go. Now, first, I understand and respect that. I also know not to be expecting any future ceratopsian figures of his to suddenly go all "bumpy". No big, I just like the really reptilian look on the ones we think still had it. But now it is my choice. Do I buy the next figures? But absolutely he has the right to follow his own reasoning on it.

Anyhow, I support Dan's choice to go conservative, as he sees fit. And I support your choice to disagree with the decisions, and to not buy the figures. But I do not think you are going to change his viewpoint on the matter.

[Patrx]

For the record, I understand and respect Dan's decision to restore his Nanshiungasaurus without feathers. I just wanted to explain that a featherless restoration should be regarded as more speculative than a feathery one for that taxon, because it is not, as Witton put it, "the simplest evolutionary scenario".

[stargatedalek]

For the record, I understand and respect Dan's decision to restore his Nanshiungasaurus without feathers. I just wanted to explain that a featherless restoration should be regarded as more speculative than a feathery one for that taxon, because it is not, as Witton put it, "the simplest evolutionary scenario".

^ this
thats what I was trying to say earlier

[loru1588]

There are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule are there not!?

[Patrx]

Quite so. Witton himself points out how interesting it can be to utilize speculation in reconstructions. A featherless Nanshiungasaurus is technically possible, just like a Camarasaurus with a camel-like hump or a wooly Pachyrhinosaurus. It's just not the most parsimonious guess based on the available evidence. I'm not saying it's demonstrably wrong, just kind of "out there".

[Gwangi]

There is no reason to think any therizinosaur had a scaly hide. The evidence shows feathers for this group, in Beipiaosaurus. There are no skin impressions for any other genus of therizinosaur that suggest any of them lost feathers. What intrigues me is that the same people up in arms over Tyrannosaurus feathers are the same ones alright with a scaly therizinosaur which really shows it is more about personal preference and less about actual science.

Not sure if any of that makes sense but if your argument is "Tyrannosaurus should not be reconstructed with feathers because we only have scale impressions" than by that same logic "therizinosaurs should not be reconstructed scaly because we only have feather impressions". To deny feathers for T. rex but support scales for a therizinosaur is hypocritical in my opinion. Now granted, we don't have feather impressions for Therizinosaurus or Nanshiungasaurus but we don't have scale impressions either. What we do have are feather impressions from a related animal in the same group. Without that scaly evidence, reconstructing any therizinosaur with scales is speculative and not being conservative in the way that animal is depicted.

And that is what really gets me about this whole thing. Why are scales the null hypothesis for every group of dinosaurs with you guys? Even the ones with direct evidence of feathers in related forms? With a close relationship to birds and for which there is no evidence of a scaly hide? Sorry but the null hypothesis for ANY coelurosaur is that unless shown otherwise, it had feathers.

[Patrx]

Sorry but the null hypothesis for ANY coelurosaur is that unless shown otherwise, it had feathers.

Hear, hear. That about sums it up, really. Feathers are the "conservative" condition - perhaps not in a sociological sense, but in a scientific sense. The fact that dinosaurs have "traditionally" been restored with scales instead of feathers is, I daresay, irrelevant.

[amanda]

Gwangi, I have said I am not discussing by beliefs via feathering one way or another. I am only talking about the atist's decisions via his own personal art. Not whether the figure is right or wrong. Just the decision he made. I honestly know nothing about the group, so I have no opinion of feathering on them one way or another. I have...some..opinion on Tyrannosaurus Rex, but reserve the right to not bother with getting into it. My only "issue" with feathered dinosaurs is when I google search and come across paleo art of fluffy apatosaurs, dig? The rest is...meh. They had them, they didn't. I do not have a feathered Rex, nor have I seen one I found convincing as a toy. I think proper "feathering on an animal in 1/40 scale is problematic, as the way I am understanding it right now is that these structures may not have looked like, say, chicken feathers per se on a Rex. And even then, in 1/40 scale, a good feather sculpt is problematic. Other than that I am not against them. But I also am not eager to just leap onto whatever current theory is in vogue either. Which is why I don't usually talk about it. Don't take this the wrong way, but you guys are..aggressively energetic in backing your position, and I always feel unwilling to have my snout rapped with a newspaper publicly, you know? I am normally terribly shy, and just do not deal with aggressive debate well.

[stoneage]

Could you please take the feather debate somewhere else!  It seems every time a new figure comes out it just goes on and on.  Maybe you can make or hire someone to make figures exactly the way you want them.

When I got the original Battat dinosaurs they were on a table in a store.  There were only one of each.  One look and I just bought them all at once.  They were the best dinosaurs around in the mid-nineties.  Carnegie at the time certainly couldn't compete. 

[stargatedalek]

thats not what we are saying, we are not saying its wrong, just that its not the conservative option
speculation is fine