Re-issue of Battat former Museum of Science Boston Series

[Dinoguy2]

Speaking of changes to the other figures, I don't know if this is mostly perspective but the tail of the diplo looks pretty short. I know short tailed diplo is kind of a toy stereotype at this point for practical reasons, but it seems like with this pose it wouldn't be hard to add some extra tail length to more closely approach the real thing, especially since most of the extra length would just be extending the thin whiplash portion. Is that way off base?

[suspsy]

A smattering of plumage on the T. Rex would be sweet. Doesn't have to go all out like on the 2015 CollectA figure, but perhaps a small crest and feathers on the forelimbs. Just my suggestion.

[loru1588]

Speaking of changes to the other figures, I don't know if this is mostly perspective but the tail of the diplo looks pretty short. I know short tailed diplo is kind of a toy stereotype at this point for practical reasons, but it seems like with this pose it wouldn't be hard to add some extra tail length to more closely approach the real thing, especially since most of the extra length would just be extending the thin whiplash portion. Is that way off base?

The overall length of the toy ( if stretched out straight) would be 28". Tail is 16", body 5" neck 7" So, my Dilpodocus is a bit the longer side in 1:40th scale to begin with (just over 90 scale feet). The tail measure 16" ( just over 50 scale feet). Proportionately it's pretty darn close! Check out this skeletal drawing to the proportions of my toy. < http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/032/699/original/Diplodocus-color-121026a-02.jpg?1351287314 >

[triceratops83]

I'm getting all the Ornithopods, Ceratopsians, Pachycephalosaurus, Gallimimus and maybe the Edmontonia. And I may get the Stegosaurus if it retains the eight spiked thagomizer, because it's so distinct.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I'm getting all the Ornithopods, Ceratopsians, Pachycephalosaurus, Gallimimus and maybe the Edmontonia. And I may get the Stegosaurus if it retains the eight spiked thagomizer, because it's so distinct.

Considering the past prices and the new ones..you can pick up the entire set for a lot less than the Diplo went for on a bad day.. lol

[triceratops83]

Considering the past prices and the new ones..you can pick up the entire set for a lot less than the Diplo went for on a bad day.. lol

Yeah, tell me about it! I paid near $100 just for the Triceratops. This reissue of the BMOS series is the coolest thing us collectors could have hoped for.  If Invicta is somehow resurrected as well I might never get the grin off my face.

[Tallin]

I'm definitely getting the diplo and amarga at least!

[Meso-Cenozoic]

Speaking of changes to the other figures, I don't know if this is mostly perspective but the tail of the diplo looks pretty short. I know short tailed diplo is kind of a toy stereotype at this point for practical reasons, but it seems like with this pose it wouldn't be hard to add some extra tail length to more closely approach the real thing, especially since most of the extra length would just be extending the thin whiplash portion. Is that way off base?

The overall length of the toy ( if stretched out straight) would be 28". Tail is 16", body 5" neck 7" So, my Dilpodocus is a bit the longer side in 1:40th scale to begin with (just over 90 scale feet). The tail measure 16" ( just over 50 scale feet). Proportionately it's pretty darn close! Check out this skeletal drawing to the proportions of my toy. < http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/032/699/original/Diplodocus-color-121026a-02.jpg?1351287314 >

Dan, for me, even after all these years, your Diplo is still one of the most beautiful dino toys around! I wouldn't change one thing on it. I'd be most proud to display 'him' as the male figure to your more plain colored 'female' original.

[Dinoguy2]

Speaking of changes to the other figures, I don't know if this is mostly perspective but the tail of the diplo looks pretty short. I know short tailed diplo is kind of a toy stereotype at this point for practical reasons, but it seems like with this pose it wouldn't be hard to add some extra tail length to more closely approach the real thing, especially since most of the extra length would just be extending the thin whiplash portion. Is that way off base?

The overall length of the toy ( if stretched out straight) would be 28". Tail is 16", body 5" neck 7" So, my Dilpodocus is a bit the longer side in 1:40th scale to begin with (just over 90 scale feet). The tail measure 16" ( just over 50 scale feet). Proportionately it's pretty darn close! Check out this skeletal drawing to the proportions of my toy. < http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/032/699/original/Diplodocus-color-121026a-02.jpg?1351287314 >

Ok, must be perspective then, all the photos I've seen make it look like the tail is shorter than the body + neck. (And over 90 scale feet is still within 1:40 range given that there are diplo specimens that push 100ft!)

[Sim]

I'd really like to get all these reissues!  Most of them I definitely want to get, the few others like the Stegosaurus and Ceratosaurus have inaccuracies that make them too different from what they're known to be like for me to feel excited about them...  If they were to get the retooling they need though then I'll definitely want to get all the reissues!

[Sim]

I'm happy with the Tyrannosaurus being reissued as it currently is.  I'm glad that if Dan makes any changes to it or any of the other figures, the changes will be to make the figures more accurate and won't be done with little thought.  Some companies are happy to make inaccurate or implausible figures, I have no interest in those figures.

Thanks Takama and Blade-of-the-Moon for getting the pictures of the reissues back!  It's good to have them on page 1 as it makes them easy to see again.  I noticed they'd disappeared (like the Gastonia and Gigantoraptor pictures in the Battat 2015 thread).  I really like looking at the pictures of the reissues.  I find the Battat dinosaurs inspiring!

[Daspletodave]

I too like the Battats as they are, except for the Stegosaurus. (And if you like the original Battat Stego they go cheaply on EBay, since there is no demand for them)
T-Rex should not have feathers - he was a mean meat eating machine, not an over-sized chicken.
I'm also fine with the Utahraptor and Gallimimus staying the same. They are small figures, and if they did have fine feathery filaments they would not be noticeable at that small scale.

[loru1588]

I too like the Battats as they are, except for the Stegosaurus. (And if you like the original Battat Stego they go cheaply on EBay, since there is no demand for them)
T-Rex should not have feathers - he was a mean meat eating machine, not an over-sized chicken.
I'm also fine with the Utahraptor and Gallimimus staying the same. They are small figures, and if they did have fine feathery filaments they would not be noticeable at that small scale.

I may have mentioned this way back in this post or on another post but it warrants repeating. When I originally sculpted the Stegosaurus in the early 90's, it was based on a recently discovered site by Ken Carpenter. The initial thought was it was one individual with 8 spikes and smaller plates. Years later ( 6-8 years after the toys were distributed ) it was found that there were 2 individuals (4 spikes each and the smaller plates were the... you guessed it,   the smaller plates of 2 individuals ). Also several recent Stegosaurus discoveries show Stegosaurus may have had 19 or 20 plates on it's back, NOT the 17 I show on my sculpt! I've pointed this out to Battat and told them I'd be more than happy to make the adjustments. I just haven't heard back as of yet.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I always thought 17 was the magic number for Stego plates. I'm working on a large life size one now Dan..can you share the info on the extra ones?   I'm really starting to wonder if the number varied from individual to individual.

[stargatedalek]

T-Rex should not have feathers - he was a mean meat eating machine, not an over-sized chicken.
I'm also fine with the Utahraptor and Gallimimus staying the same. They are small figures, and if they did have fine feathery filaments they would not be noticeable at that small scale.

First of all, Dan and staff I'm sorry for doing this here, and I really don't want this to develop into any debate or prolonged discussion. I just end up troubling myself sometimes if I don't "speak my piece" so to speak.

Tyrannosaurus is still somewhat of an enigma in regards to integument. We know that genetically speaking it had the capacity for feathers, and yet we do have scale impressions from it. The scale impressions show us that the underside of the throat, the "belly", and the foot were most likely unfeathered (and if they were it was a secondary feathering like the feet of owls, as well as some breeds of pigeons and chickens). However these impressions are far from enough to convince me of evidence against feathering, given that ostrich have no (or very fine coatings) of feathers in these same areas. As I see it the conservative assumption would be to give tyrannosaurus a fine coating of feathers along its dorsal surface, since this presumption is one that incorporates all the evidence we have regarding tyrannosaurus, without taking a speculative leap in either direction. That's not to say I mind a lack of feathering on tyrannosaurus, I often take speculative leaps in my own reconstructions and regardless of whether I agree or not I can respect when someone else does the same.

The idea that all large predators should only ever be depicted as vicious killing machines is one that saddens me deeply, both from a personal and technical perspective. Look at any of the planets top predators today, big cats, dolphins, whales, even crocodilians, sharks and monitor lizards, and you will see they aren't just "man eaters", or "super bad-ass killing machines", they are animals. Animals do not exist just to entertain humans or star in monster movies, an orca doesn't spend the entirety of its time chasing down seals, or snapping great white sharks in half, they also play, sleep, socialize, and go about their lives. Just because you don't find something intimidating doesn't mean that its incorrect. I feel like too many people don't see dinosaurs as animals any more and only see them as monsters. Maybe I should have just laughed it off but honestly that chicken comment really got under my skin. If you don't find emus, cassowary, eagles, falcons, vultures, ostrich, or heaven forbid something like pelagornis or kelenken intimidating than good for you, you are probably either the bravest person alive or you have something against birds that prevents you from taking them seriously.

As for utahraptor and gallimimus, first off, they aren't particularly small, even in 1:40 scale. Dan has done a great job on them and with or without feathering the two models show a lot of detailing. Secondly the feathering most certainly would show up at that scale, especially on utahraptor, since its the feathering that truly determines the very shape of the animal. This is (roughly, utahraptors skull shape is currently undergoing some changes to understanding) what utahraptor should look like: [ http://emilywilloughby.com/gallery-data/images/full/the-most-accurate-inaccurate-utahraptor.jpg ]. I'm pretty sure that would make a notable difference at any scale. Lastly, neither gallimimus nor utahraptor had "fine feathery filaments", those are the sort of traits that could be applied to primitive feathers such as those on tyrannosauroids. Ornithomimids and dromaeosaurs had feathers which were essentially identical to the feathers of modern birds.

Sorry again for going off topic so extensively. Dan, I have to say I absolutely love the new paint apps. They look very natural and I can't wait to see them up close and in my collection! I hope that Battat gives you the go ahead to modify the gallimimus, stegosaurus, and utahraptor, I bet they will look incredible!

[loru1588]

" Dan, for me, even after all these years, your Diplo is still one of the most beautiful dino toys around! I wouldn't change one thing on it. I'd be most proud to display 'him' as the male figure to your more plain colored 'female' original. " Thanks Meso-Cenozoic!!
stargatedalek: no need to apologize on my account! It's my personal decision not to feather Tyrannosaurus Rex. Yutrannus will be feather as I interpret the skeletal material and get input for paleontologists. Gallimimus & Utahraptor will be feathered as best I can. They are a bit on the small size to get detailed feathering. I have been  friends with Jim Kirkland for a long time and will get his input on all aspects of Utahrptor. Thank you also for the compliments!

[Daspletodave]

Stargatedalek- don't take it personally.
There is no direct evidence for feathers on T-Rex (or earlier Allosaurus). Look it up. There does seem to be consensus that feathers on such a large active predator would cause it to rapidly overheat and expire. Evidence of feathers on tiny sized ancestors is not "proof" of feathers on their distant descendants.
There is also no evidence of bird like flight feathers on late Cretaceous ornithomimids or dromeasaurs. Again, just because sparrow-sized Microraptor had them is not proof that all later raptors had them.
Just look at the woolly mammoth and modern elephants - one has fur and the other does not. And they are separated by a few thousand years of evolution, not the tens of millions of years in the cases of the dinosaurs mentioned above.
SO LET THE FEATHERS FLY!!!!
And I do like birds. I don't like people who insist that every dinosaur that ever lived was feathered. The vast majority were not.
I expect a million comments on this issue.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Stargatedalek- don't take it personally.
There is no direct evidence for feathers on T-Rex (or earlier Allosaurus). Look it up. There does seem to be consensus that feathers on such a large active predator would cause it to rapidly overheat and expire. Evidence of feathers on tiny sized ancestors is not "proof" of feathers on their distant descendants.
There is also no evidence of bird like flight feathers on late Cretaceous ornithomimids or dromeasaurs. Again, just because sparrow-sized Microraptor had them is not proof that all later raptors had them.
Just look at the woolly mammoth and modern elephants - one has fur and the other does not. And they are separated by a few thousand years of evolution, not the tens of millions of years in the cases of the dinosaurs mentioned above.
SO LET THE FEATHERS FLY!!!!
And I do like birds. I don't like people who insist that every dinosaur that ever lived was feathered. The vast majority were not.
I expect a million comments on this issue.

I expecct a dozen people will shred all of the bad science in this posting, but the one that is most glaring is the comment regarding large dinosaurs and feathers. Most feathers do not cause an animal to overheat and that is a misconception to begin with, however, the dinosaur Yutyrannus, at over thirty feet and clearly entirely feathered somewhat disproves the idea quite thoroughly. That is the science and has been known at least since the recovery of Yutyrannus remains.,

[stargatedalek]

Elephants are not a viable example since they lost their integument because they became aquatic not due to size or climate. Megathere fur (hair?) has been found preserved from very hot arid climates, and that's far less suited to heat loss than feathers are.

Close relatives of gallimimus have been found with complex feathers, more than enough concrete proof. If ornithomimids who split off from dromaeosaurs long before the appearance of microraptor had complex feathers like it that means that everything in between did also. Maybe this will help:

[suspsy]

Stargatedalek- don't take it personally.
There is no direct evidence for feathers on T-Rex

There's also no direct evidence for feathers on Gastornis or fur on Smilodon or Australopithecus. Far too many people ignore the validity of phylogenetic bracketing. Robert Bakker, Thomas Holtz, Mark Norell, and Paul Sereno have all gone on record as stating that it's highly likely T. Rex had feathers. Its size matters not. Yutyrannus and Deinocheirus both stand as proof that large theropods could retain feathers. Probably not a full body coat in the case of the latter, but certainly some. Oh, and it must also be noted that both Deinocheirus and Ornithomimus are Late Cretaceous ornithomimids, contrary to your assertion.

Also, your claim that not all dromaesaurids had feathers is completely without basis.