Re-issue of Battat former Museum of Science Boston Series

[Jetoar]

Wondefull battats but in Ebay are really expensive  .

There are other sources. I know some of our forum members might have them available for non-US members. Halichoeres has them available in his sale thread.

Also, Dean from DeJankins has them available for non-US customers (per his blog). His prices are really reasonable, so it might be worth checking it out.

Thanks partner, I will visit them  .

[Halichoeres]

arent the edmontonia and euplocephalus too big for 1:40? they are about the same size in length as the triceratops!

Right you are. My Euoplocephalus is around 1:32. I don't have the Edmontonia, but the CollectA is around 1:35 and I know from other people's comparison shots that the Battat is larger. Like most "1:40" lines, Battat regularly deviates. The only line that didn't, in my experience, was Carnegie. When a Carnegie was out of scale, its tag faithfully said so.

[Takama]

arent the edmontonia and euplocephalus too big for 1:40? they are about the same size in length as the triceratops!

Right you are. My Euoplocephalus is around 1:32. I don't have the Edmontonia, but the CollectA is around 1:35 and I know from other people's comparison shots that the Battat is larger. Like most "1:40" lines, Battat regularly deviates. The only line that didn't, in my experience, was Carnegie. When a Carnegie was out of scale, its tag faithfully said so.

You have the original right? or didi you score the repaint?

[Sim]

Right you are. My Euoplocephalus is around 1:32. I don't have the Edmontonia, but the CollectA is around 1:35 and I know from other people's comparison shots that the Battat is larger. Like most "1:40" lines, Battat regularly deviates. The only line that didn't, in my experience, was Carnegie. When a Carnegie was out of scale, its tag faithfully said so.

Carnegie has deviated too.  Although their tags list them as being in 1:40 scale, the Ankylosaurus is too big, and the Mosasaurus is too small, for example.  The Mosasaurus doesn't seem to be based on the largest specimens as on its belly it's said to be 12 metres long (as seen below), but in 1:40 scale it seems to be more like 6 metres long!


Also, although they were all said to be 1:40 on their tags, the different versions of the Carnegie Tyrannosaurus, Allosaurus and Spinosaurus are all different sizes.  In the case of the different Carnegie Allosaurus and Spinosaurus versions there's a big size difference!

Maybe sometimes when Carnegie/Battat figures are too big or small for the scale they're said to be in, it's because after they were made it was found the animal had a different size than previously thought?  I'm not sure that's the reason the Mosasaurus is tiny though!

Something else that's relevant is that sometimes a prehistoric animal's size is only known from specimens that aren't fully grown.  The only Cryolophosaurus specimen whose size has been estimated seems to be a sub-adult, for example.  Since unless it's specified, these figures are almost always intended to represent an adult animal, what should one do if they want to make an animal whose size is only known from specimens that aren't fully grown?

[terrorchicken]

its very confusing! I didnt know the Carnegie ankylo was too big. It seemed about right to me, since I remember the old Carnegie euplocephalus being appropriately smaller. I like to display my dinos by scale, but its no wonder so many give up on staying true to scale.

[Halichoeres]

arent the edmontonia and euplocephalus too big for 1:40? they are about the same size in length as the triceratops!

Right you are. My Euoplocephalus is around 1:32. I don't have the Edmontonia, but the CollectA is around 1:35 and I know from other people's comparison shots that the Battat is larger. Like most "1:40" lines, Battat regularly deviates. The only line that didn't, in my experience, was Carnegie. When a Carnegie was out of scale, its tag faithfully said so.

You have the original right? or didi you score the repaint?

Yeah, it's the original. Haven't seen any repaints yet.

Carnegie has deviated too.  Although their tags list them as being in 1:40 scale, the Ankylosaurus is too big, and the Mosasaurus is too small, for example.  The Mosasaurus doesn't seem to be based on the largest specimens as on its belly it's said to be 12 metres long (as seen below), but in 1:40 scale it seems to be more like 6 metres long!
Also, although they were all said to be 1:40 on their tags, the different versions of the Carnegie Tyrannosaurus, Allosaurus and Spinosaurus are all different sizes.  In the case of the different Carnegie Allosaurus and Spinosaurus versions there's a big size difference!

Maybe sometimes when Carnegie/Battat figures are too big or small for the scale they're said to be in, it's because after they were made it was found the animal had a different size than previously thought?  I'm not sure that's the reason the Mosasaurus is tiny though!

Something else that's relevant is that sometimes a prehistoric animal's size is only known from specimens that aren't fully grown.  The only Cryolophosaurus specimen whose size has been estimated seems to be a sub-adult, for example.  Since unless it's specified, these figures are almost always intended to represent an adult animal, what should one do if they want to make an animal whose size is only known from specimens that aren't fully grown?

Ah, I don't happen to have those Carnegies (leastways, not in my personal collection). All the Carnegies that I own that I've bothered to verify were honestly billed. Whereas nearly all my Battats and Replicasaurus figures are not the scale they say they are.

Didn't know that about the Cryolophosaurus being a subadult--that would change things.

[Georassic]

Based on info I can find, I also rate the Battat MOS Edmontonia, Dilophosaurus and Pachycephalosaurus at larger than 1:40, more like 1:35ish. I'm open to being corrected, however...

[terrorchicken]

I do think Battat dilophosaurus is too big b/c its more more/less the same size as the carnotaurus and carnotaurus was a much bigger theropod.

[Sim]

its very confusing! I didnt know the Carnegie ankylo was too big. It seemed about right to me, since I remember the old Carnegie euplocephalus being appropriately smaller. I like to display my dinos by scale, but its no wonder so many give up on staying true to scale.

As far as I've seen, the current maximum length estimate for Ankylosaurus is 6.25m while for Euoplocephalus it's 6m (although the size comparisons on their Wikipedia pages show them as being the same size...).  In 1:40 scale, the Carnegie Ankylosaurus would be around 8m long.  In the past it has been thought Ankylosaurus grew to larger sizes, my guess is that explains the Carnegie Ankylo's size.  I think Edmontonia's length estimate has also been lowered.  Maybe that relates to the Battat Edmontonia's size?  The Carnegie Ankylosaurus's scale has actually been discussed a bit in-depth recently: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=3571.msg104489#msg104489

I like having my figures be to scale with each other, but you put it very well, "its no wonder so many give up on staying true to scale"!  Size estimates changing is one reason a figure's scale can 'change'.  I think a figure's scale can also depend on what point in growth the animal is at.  For example, what if the only size estimates for an animal are from specimens that aren't fully grown?  Cryolophosaurus seems to be one example of this, others are Alioramus, Eotyrannus, Appalachiosaurus...  And then there's situations like with Albertosaurus, where typical adults reached 9m long, while rare individuals of great age could grow to be over 10m long.  When I measured my Carnegie Albertosaurus a while ago, it seemed to represent a 9m long individual if in 1:40 scale.  So would it be 1:40 scale as it says on its tag, or a smaller scale since there are Albertos over 10m long?   Now, I'm happy if my figures are roughly to scale with each other as I can put differences down to individual variation.

Didn't know that about the Cryolophosaurus being a subadult--that would change things.

I don't think choices are easy when it comes to animals whose size has only been estimated from specimens that aren't fully grown.  If a sculptor decides to make it into a figure, personally I'm happy with them deciding if it would be best to make the figure a bit bigger to represent an adult animal.  Whenever I get a new figure I try to find the current size estimate for the animal to get an idea of how big it would roughly be. I also check if they are based on specimens that aren't fully grown (this tends to be mentioned on the Wikipedia pages), so if something is bigger than the estimates I can factor that in.

[Appalachiosaurus]

I have a small diorama containing dinosaurs of similar scales, and all I can say is 1:35-1:45 is a lot easier than only aiming for 1:40s. Small differences in scale really shouldn't be something we hold against a toy line.

Appalachiosaurus...

Man how I yearn for one of those...

[Takama]

Forum Member Brontodocus is an expert at scaling Toy animal models, and he calculated the scale of All but a few of the Battat Dinosaurs at 1:35 Scale. These are the following that are off by his calculations

Dacentrurus 1:46

Dilophosaurus 1:30

Ceratosaurus 1:30

Pachyrhinosaurus 1:31

All of the other Dinosaurs Scale up to 1:35 by his calculations.

[Stuckasaurus (Dino Dad Reviews)]

There's certainly an interesting discussion to be had about the basis of 1:40 scale measurements. It makes a huge difference which specimen you base it off of, and whether you are trying to represent the maximum possible size or a more normal, average size. Many figures that are "undersize" may actually be closer to the average size that species would regularly attain.

Taking an example from the modern world, McClain et al. stated in their 2015 paper "Sizing Ocean Giants" (available for free on PeerJ) that while the largest known sperm whale appears to have been about 24 m long (based on a beached skull), 95% of sperm whales never exceed 15 m, and 75% never exceed 14 m. Also, the largest known giant squid was 12 m long, but as best as we can tell, 75% don't exceed 9 m, and the average is 7 m.

[terrorchicken]

Now, I'm happy if my figures are roughly to scale with each other as I can put differences down to individual variation.

yeah Ive starting to think that way too. I guess as long as you dont have something crazy like a velociraptor towering over an saichania, youre good. 

[Halichoeres]

Now, I'm happy if my figures are roughly to scale with each other as I can put differences down to individual variation.

yeah Ive starting to think that way too. I guess as long as you dont have something crazy like a velociraptor towering over an saichania, youre good. 

Same here. I dutifully calculate the scale on all my figures but I just group them into scale "buckets" for display.

[Stuckasaurus (Dino Dad Reviews)]

Now, I'm happy if my figures are roughly to scale with each other as I can put differences down to individual variation.

yeah Ive starting to think that way too. I guess as long as you dont have something crazy like a velociraptor towering over an saichania, youre good. 

Same here. I dutifully calculate the scale on all my figures but I just group them into scale "buckets" for display.

Me three. Especially since I've started adding modern mammals to my collection to give a sense of scale to the laypeople I occasionally show my collection too. The scale hardly ever matches up exactly between toy lines of dinosaurs and mammals. I'm pretty proud that I've managed to get as close as I have, though!

[Dinoguy2]

Far too many sculptors scale based on some published total length estimate, which can often be way off and even scientists see these more as ballpark, rather than what they should do - scale based on a known element, like skull length.

Take Mosasaurus. The longest known Mosasaurus skull IIRC is about 1.7 meters in length. So the original Carnegie Mosaururs is right in terms of skull length, and the newer ones like Carnegie and Collecta have skulls that are a bit too big. The proportions of the rest of the body are tricky because it's hard to know how they scale from small complete specimens to giant fragmentary specimens. Really long torso and tail vs. shorter torso and tail, etc. Estimates of 60m total infer a reeeaaally long torso and tail, which was possible, but who knows. It's not like we have anywhere near a complete specimen that big.

Most of the Battats do seem to be more like 1:30-1:35 rather than 1:40, but I don't mind because the 1:40s might just be smaller individuals when standing next to them. Look at the average size of modern crocs, etc. compared to maximum size, it's a huge difference and there's no reason to think non-avian dinosaurs were different.

As for the Battat Pachyrhino, I believe it's based on the gigantic skull found a while back, but even that looks much smaller compared to a human in photos than the skull of the figure compared to a 1:40 human. Again, probably scaling to max length (people always over estimate ceratopsid tail length in those things) than to the actual skull.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Far too many sculptors scale based on some published total length estimate, which can often be way off and even scientists see these more as ballpark, rather than what they should do - scale based on a known element, like skull length.

Take Mosasaurus. The longest known Mosasaurus skull IIRC is about 1.7 meters in length. So the original Carnegie Mosaururs is right in terms of skull length, and the newer ones have skulls that are too big. The proportions of the rest of the body are tricky because it's hard to know how they scale from small complete specimens to giant fragmentary specimens.

This !! Remember a recent series of posts where everyone jumped on the bandwagon with how all theropods MUST have massive legs, feet and such? Yet we know there is great diversity even within animals of the same species....enough so that there are two forms of Tyrannosaurus Rex often mentioned..the gracile and robust, and yet people feel they all should be cookie cutter sizes in all aspects....aside from the simple fact that the known specimens within any particular type seem to often vary in length, and proportions drastically. Nevermind that different climates, habbitats and home ranges can often affect how multiple animals within a single species might be sized or shaped as well

[suspsy]

That's not exactly what occurred. There was no "bandwagon jumping." People were just pointing out that the Carnegie Collection theropods, in addition to always being in tripod stances, have ridiculously scrawny feet that wouldn't have supported them in real life.

[Gwangi]

Yes, that discussion did not concern individual variation or species diversity, it was about physics.

[Simon]

Far too many sculptors scale based on some published total length estimate, which can often be way off and even scientists see these more as ballpark, rather than what they should do - scale based on a known element, like skull length.

Take Mosasaurus. The longest known Mosasaurus skull IIRC is about 1.7 meters in length. So the original Carnegie Mosaururs is right in terms of skull length, and the newer ones like Carnegie and Collecta have skulls that are a bit too big. The proportions of the rest of the body are tricky because it's hard to know how they scale from small complete specimens to giant fragmentary specimens. Really long torso and tail vs. shorter torso and tail, etc. Estimates of 60m total infer a reeeaaally long torso and tail, which was possible, but who knows. It's not like we have anywhere near a complete specimen that big.

Most of the Battats do seem to be more like 1:30-1:35 rather than 1:40, but I don't mind because the 1:40s might just be smaller individuals when standing next to them. Look at the average size of modern crocs, etc. compared to maximum size, it's a huge difference and there's no reason to think non-avian dinosaurs were different.

As for the Battat Pachyrhino, I believe it's based on the gigantic skull found a while back, but even that looks much smaller compared to a human in photos than the skull of the figure compared to a 1:40 human. Again, probably scaling to max length (people always over estimate ceratopsid tail length in those things) than to the actual skull.

Agreed.  All of the Battats are within the expected range of variation in terms of size for the animals depicted.  I asked Dan Lorusso about the seemingly small Triceratops and he confirmed that it is based on an average specimen (ie 7' long skull).  I would have preferred that the model was based on the several Triceratops skulls that are well in excess of 8' in length, but c'est la vie.

What does bother me about the uber-huge Pachyrhinosaurus isn't the size (once I learned about the huge skull), but the - let's be honest here - unimaginative and poor paint job.  Among the other Battats it stands out like a sore thumb for this reason.  I'm not too crazy about the pose either, but with a better paint job I wouldn't care ...