Re-issue of Battat former Museum of Science Boston Series

[Gwangi]

I tend to agree that Tyrannosaurus probably had feathers but I'm good either way if it does or doesn't. An animal like Utahraptor however is so closely related to birds and other feathered dinosaurs that it really should be feathered. To not feather an animal like Utahraptor would be like leaving feathers off of phorusrhacids (terror birds) because we don't have them preserved. It's pretty much a non-debate until some evidence suggests otherwise.

In the case of Utahraptor,I agree with you.I have that opinion of Gallimimus too,based on the feathers of Ornithomimus edmontonicus coming to light recently via carbonized traces.

That's true, Gallimimus should certainly have them as well. But no dinosaur more so than Utahraptor, you can't get much closer to being a bird than being a member of the dromaeosaurid group. Honestly I think it likely that at least all of coelurosauria were feathered but I digress, I know this is not the place for that debate.

[stargatedalek]

direct evidence for feathers is not always necessary, some species have more than strong enough evidence in cladistics alone, such as utahraptor and gallimimus

Not necessarily so, I have seen several examples of actual impressions and have a casting of Gorgosaurus skin. It shows NO signs of feathering or points where feathers would anchor.

why I specified utahraptor and gallimimus

[Everything_Dinosaur]

Utahraptor would pretty much need to be completely re-sculpted, not just retooled, new evidence suggests that Utahraptor looked more like this:

Like the silhouette a good way of getting the point across.

[Megalosaurus]

[...]They are not being released as a nostalgia/retro line.[...]
[...]I will do my best to update any and all[...]

Pretty good. Thank you.

I will not feather or add quills to any animal that does not have solid proof backing it up on THAT particular species.
If the evidence is questionable at the time, it doesn't get added or subtracted as the case may be.

Thats exactly what I was talking about.

I never sculpted for the "cool" factor and added spikes and such.

I'm ok with that. But would you consider to add scale pattern for some models? For example, there are skin impressions of Triceratops, so we have solid proof on it to get a scale pattern.

Another question: Are the mini versions going to be reissued?

[stargatedalek]

again, direct evidence is not needed for utahraptor nor gallimimus, the cladistics alone are more than enough to go on

[DinoLord]

@Megalosaurus: I asked Dan about this on Facebook; so far there are no plans to reissue the minis.

[stoneage]

Approximately when will the next two new figures be issued?

[loru1588]

To Megalosaurus: putting a scale pattern on a 1:40th scale creature is very difficult. A 2" scale in real life scale down to less than 1/32nd of an inch or so.
To stargatedalek: If Battat has me retool some of the masters Utahraptor and Gallimimus WILL be feathered.
To DinoLord: Correct! As of yet no plans have been discussed about the Minis.
To stoneage: Battat is travelling to Taiwan this week and will hopefully inform me of the release date of the other 2. The pieces are already in production

[Sim]

Hi!

I've been following the Dinosaur Toy Blog and Forum for a few years.  This thread finally got me to become a member!

It would be really great if the reissues were retooled to reflect current scientific knowledge!  Accurate dinosaur toys are a minority, I'd like to see more!

Updates I'd like to see that no-one else has said yet are:
Fourth fingers added to the Dilophosaurus.  Its manus can be seen here: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/dilophosaur/closeup.html
The arms on the Ceratosaurus should be shorter, and the fingers should look different.  The tail should be longer.  Scott Hartman's skeletal restoration is a good place to see how they should look: http://scotthartman.deviantart.com/art/Ceratosaurus-growth-series-175666594
The claws on the first and second fingers of the Acrocanthosaurus should be longer.  From the Acrocanthosaurus Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrocanthosaurus#mediaviewer/File:Acrocanthosaurus_atokensis.jpg
The Carnotaurus looks like it should have fourth fingers added.  The real animal had really weird hands!

Dan, I'm glad any updates you make will be what you feel is best.  I really appreciate the research and care you put into the models!  I hope there will be no feather crests/mohawks, they look really bad!  I wouldn't like a feather mane for the same reason.  Also if Tyrannosaurus was feathered I really doubt it would just be a mane.

I like seeing an animal's features in a model that represents them.  That's why I don't really care about models where features are omitted. I think it's wonderful people can learn from models!  I think children and adults learn more from an accurate model than an inaccurate one!

Best wishes to everyone!

Sim

[Sim]

The only Battat dino I own so far is the Amargasaurus. I don´t know if it´s just my figure or an issue with the molds, but the spikes along the neck are much shorter on the right side than on the left side. Maybe you could check the master for this.

I own a resin master of the figure and mine has the same difference in height, I believe that is just how it is intended to look

As far as I'm aware, the spines on Amargasaurus' neck should be the same height.  Dan, can you shed some light on why the figure's spines are different heights?

On the topic of Amargasaurus, its Wikipedia page says it and other dicraeosaurids had their nostrils diagonally above the eye sockets.  It's in the third paragraph, under the Description section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amargasaurus  I also thought all sauropods had their nostrils at the end of their snout, but now I'm not sure...

Utahraptor would pretty much need to be completely re-sculpted, not just retooled, new evidence suggests that Utahraptor looked more like this:

Like the silhouette a good way of getting the point across.

The proportions on the Battat Utahraptor are already very accurate though, so retooling would be enough!

[loru1588]

Hi!

I've been following the Dinosaur Toy Blog and Forum for a few years.  This thread finally got me to become a member!

It would be really great if the reissues were retooled to reflect current scientific knowledge!  Accurate dinosaur toys are a minority, I'd like to see more!

Thanks for the support!

Updates I'd like to see that no-one else has said yet are:
Fourth fingers added to the Dilophosaurus.  Its manus can be seen here: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/dilophosaur/closeup.html

That is a vestigial digit, so it would most like;ly be part of the hand and not an extended finger

The arms on the Ceratosaurus should be shorter, and the fingers should look different.  The tail should be longer.  Scott Hartman's skeletal restoration is a good place to see how they should look: http://scotthartman.deviantart.com/art/Ceratosaurus-growth-series-175666594

Both shouldn't be too much of an issue to change. I use Scotts drawings as reference all the time

The claws on the first and second fingers of the Acrocanthosaurus should be longer.  From the Acrocanthosaurus Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrocanthosaurus#mediaviewer/File:Acrocanthosaurus_atokensis.jpg
The Carnotaurus looks like it should have fourth fingers added.  The real animal had really weird hands!

On the master resins, both of these issues are already met. I will shorten the Carnotaurus arms and place them more facing rearward.

Dan, I'm glad any updates you make will be what you feel is best.  I really appreciate the research and care you put into the models!  I hope there will be no feather crests/mohawks, they look really bad!  I wouldn't like a feather mane for the same reason.  Also if Tyrannosaurus was feathered I really doubt it would just be a mane.

Not into that myself.

I like seeing an animal's features in a model that represents them.  That's why I don't really care about models where features are omitted. I think it's wonderful people can learn from models!  I think children and adults learn more from an accurate model than an inaccurate one!

My feelings exactly! Thanks again!

Best wishes to everyone!

Sim

[tyrantqueen]

Fourth fingers added to the Dilophosaurus.

Not necessarily. The artist could choose to add a stump, or nothing at all. It was a vestigial digit and possibly buried in the flesh of the hand, much like a T.rex's third finger.

[loru1588]

The only Battat dino I own so far is the Amargasaurus. I don´t know if it´s just my figure or an issue with the molds, but the spikes along the neck are much shorter on the right side than on the left side. Maybe you could check the master for this.

I own a resin master of the figure and mine has the same difference in height, I believe that is just how it is intended to look

As far as I'm aware, the spines on Amargasaurus' neck should be the same height.  Dan, can you shed some light on why the figure's spines are different heights?

The head as well as the neck are turned to the left. I was attempting to show that and may have exaggerated that.

On the topic of Amargasaurus, its Wikipedia page says it and other dicraeosaurids had their nostrils diagonally above the eye sockets.  It's in the third paragraph, under the Description section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amargasaurus  I also thought all sauropods had their nostrils at the end of their snout, but now I'm not sure...

When I sculpted it 20 years ago the nostrils were considered to be at the top of the head. That's changed to closer to the snout.

Utahraptor would pretty much need to be completely re-sculpted, not just retooled, new evidence suggests that Utahraptor looked more like this:

Like the silhouette a good way of getting the point across.

The proportions on the Battat Utahraptor are already very accurate though, so retooling would be enough!

[Sim]

I know Dilophosaurus' fourth finger is vestigial.  It looks almost identical to Ceratosaurus' fourth finger, which is shown externally in every reconstruction of Ceratosaurus I've seen.  The size of Dilo's 4th finger (it's even made of 2 bones) makes me think it would be visible externally, either like on the new Safari Ceratosaurus: http://dinotoyblog.com/2012/02/11/ceratosaurus-wild-safari-by-safari-ltd/ or like on the Carnegie Cryolophosaurus, where finger 4 is subtly attached to finger 3.  On Tyrannosaurus, the third 'finger' (I don't think it can even be called a finger) is just one tiny bone, which I don't think was visible externally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus#mediaviewer/File:Tyrannosaur_arm_104.JPG  I'm not a palaeontologist though, just someone enthusiastic about animals, especially dinosaurs!

Regarding Amargasaurus' nostril placement, it seems even Wikipedia isn't sure, as the 2 life reconstructions on the page have the nostrils in different places!

Thanks for the responses Dan!  The Battat dinosaurs were my favourite dinosaur toys when I was a little boy.  Even back then I could tell they were more accurate than all the other dino toys around!  I'm happy for you and Battat!  It sounds like you've both got through a lot to get to where you are now.

Now that I'm an adult, I can see I still like the Battat dinos for their accuracy, but also because they all look like real animals, each with their own unique personality.  It's amazing you and Greg achieved this!  If the reissues are brought up-to-date I'll get them all!  I've always wanted accurate figures of a good range of dinosaur species at the same scale!  I had exactly half of the Battat dinos, so some would be a completely new experience!

[John]

Updates I'd like to see that no-one else has said yet are:
The arms on the Ceratosaurus should be shorter, and the fingers should look different.  The tail should be longer.  Scott Hartman's skeletal restoration is a good place to see how they should look: http://scotthartman.deviantart.com/art/Ceratosaurus-growth-series-175666594

In addition to the subtle changes for Ceratosaurus as suggested by Sim above,maybe have the nasal horn a little less forward pointing and more like the one on Scott Hartman's largest skeleton in the diagram in Sim's link above,perhaps?
And for a couple of other nit-picks,maybe have only the first 3 digits on the hands clawed,and maybe have the bony scutes running down it's back spaced closer together like the ones in Hartman's skeletal diagrams. 

[tyrantqueen]

Regarding Amargasaurus' nostril placement, it seems even Wikipedia isn't sure, as the 2 life reconstructions on the page have the nostrils in different places!

Don't use Wikipedia for references. It's not reliable.

[Gwangi]

Regarding Amargasaurus' nostril placement, it seems even Wikipedia isn't sure, as the 2 life reconstructions on the page have the nostrils in different places!

Don't use Wikipedia for references. It's not reliable.

Actually, I tend to disagree. Naturally you have to be cautious of the information provided (anywhere for the matter, even books make mistakes) but when it comes to dinosaurs there really does not seem to be a solid database of information regarding specific genera, except for Wikipedia. Just make sure sources are provided and do some fact checking if something seems off. I quite like Wikipedia personally.

[stargatedalek]

for visual references I wouldn't recommend it (many pages suffer from a bad case of frequent fanboy edits )
but for things such as times, sizes, etc. I think it makes a great resource

[Tyrannosauron]

This Battat news is such a great way to have come back online after a cross-country move! I immediately ran out and bought all four new figures. Big thanks to Mr. LaRusso for such high quality work!

Quick question regarding the re-issues: which version of the T. rex will we be seeing again? I know that the "version 3" resculpt had the fewest balance issues, but I was always partial to the more robust head sculpt on the original.

[Sim]

Regarding Amargasaurus' nostril placement, it seems even Wikipedia isn't sure, as the 2 life reconstructions on the page have the nostrils in different places!

Don't use Wikipedia for references. It's not reliable.

Actually, I tend to disagree. Naturally you have to be cautious of the information provided (anywhere for the matter, even books make mistakes) but when it comes to dinosaurs there really does not seem to be a solid database of information regarding specific genera, except for Wikipedia. Just make sure sources are provided and do some fact checking if something seems off. I quite like Wikipedia personally.

My thoughts exactly Gwangi! Additionally, I check the latest edits to the page I'm referring to, to see if anything dodgy's been added.  It does take more time, but I feel I can place more trust in what I read.