Re-issue of Battat former Museum of Science Boston Series

[Simon]

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.

... the offense was made much worse by the fact that some parts of the animals (heads in particular) were excellent, leading to much gnashing of teeth amongst collectors about Carnegie's "lost opportunities".  (I mean, no one cares about Chinasaurs having ridiculous feet...)

... those who were miffed by my persistent critique of Ms Rogers' theropods over the years would do well to recall that I liked her head sculpts so much that I used them to create a number of custom figures (Giganotosaurus and Cryalophosaurus come to mind - just go my web gallery) ...

[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.

... the offense was made much worse by the fact that some parts of the animals (heads in particular) were excellent, leading to much gnashing of teeth amongst collectors about Carnegie's "lost opportunities".  (I mean, no one cares about Chinasaurs having ridiculous feet...)

Oh, for sure. The heads on the recent CC theropods are excellent, every single one of them. The 2014 T. rex in particular has a great head sculpt, one which I like far better than the Battat reissue's, but the feet and the tail are way, way too thin. And then there's the Concavenator that's missing the signature quills on its forearms. Did Forest Rogers ever address that glaring omission?

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 ...

The unattractive paint job is also what turned me off purchasing the Battat Pachy back when Target had stores in Canada. The reissue Triceratops and Styracosaurus look really nice though.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Err Suspy much like you suggested I do, if you wish to address some glaring omission with something Forest Rogers did, perhaps as you suggested I do with collecta, you could just go and ask her your own self ...it is quite obvious she is a presence on Facebook and tends to respond to people who approach her and treat her with some air of civilty . Just my thoughts on that...but I keep seeing alot of people sit and roar and talk here, but noone seems capable of going to the source herself, and asking in a polite and fair fashion their questions. Right?I would offer the same for Simon, rather than sitting over here constantly leveling attacks against her as a person, artist and representative of the Carnegie collection, perhaps it might be fairer if you approached her yourself with your issues. I know in the past you made a snickering reference to how you sent her a picture of your idea of how her Tyrannosaurus should look...but perhaps with a touch of genuine and simple courtesy you might be given some response to your questions or thoughts.
 

Regarding the topic of variation with species, this is all according to....what or whom? It has nothing to do with physics and everything to do with variation within individual animals of the same species...some may well be robust and some more slender and gracile. This is not physics, it is a simple matter of anatomy. In addition animals that lead a less well fed lifestyle or are emacciated often depict an even more slender build or proportions. Any of these factors can and do lead to smaller of different proportions in animal populations. This to say nothing of such mechanisms as Dwarfism, pathology, disease and a dozen other things which can and sometimes do alter the size and range of a given animal.
  Aside from this, and much to the lesser but have you really bothered taking a look at the Collecta sculpts for their theropods and those feet? For instance the Tyrannosaurus with prey? I am shocked that anyone would even dare begin to attempt to criticize anything Forest sculpted given the look of the Collecta figures the last several years in the feet and legs department. Yet we somehow want to make this something about Carnegie and their sculpts.(Gwangi I know in your comments you made the point of stating this is not an issue with JUST Forest and I wanted to achknowledge you did mention it is fairly common in most companies theropods, because that is precisely the case and ludicrous for anyone to suggest otherwise.)
  As to you Simon I am not miffed at your constant criticisms of Forest Roger's work...I am shocked at your rude and blatant attacks on her as a person, artist and representative of the Carnegie line itself.I have said myself many times, her sculpts have hits and misses like any other artist, but she deserves credit for the positive sculpts she makes along with blame for the bad ones. She has done some truly impressive models over the past thirty years . The hobby owes her a bit of appreciation, even if her theropods do not have the ideal proportions you as a collector feel they should have.

[Simon]

*SNIP*

I would offer the same for Simon, rather than sitting over here constantly leveling attacks against her as a person, artist and representative of the Carnegie collection, perhaps it might be fairer if you approached her yourself with your issues. I know in the past you made a snickering reference to how you sent her a picture of your idea of how her Tyrannosaurus should look...but perhaps with a touch of genuine and simple courtesy you might be given some response to your questions or thoughts.
 

*SNIP*

  As to you Simon I am not miffed at your constant criticisms of Forest Roger's work...I am shocked at your rude and blatant attacks on her as a person, artist and representative of the Carnegie line itself.I have said myself many times, her sculpts have hits and misses like any other artist, but she deserves credit for the positive sculpts she makes along with blame for the bad ones. She has done some truly impressive models over the past thirty years . The hobby owes her a bit of appreciation, even if her theropods do not have the ideal proportions you as a collector feel they should have.

Amargasaurus - the highlighted parts above I consider to be untruths, or at best, half-truths.  You may call that a difference of opinion, but I have never said anything about Ms Rogers as a person.  I HAVE criticised her theropods and I HAVE said that she doesn't know how to render them properly (in so many words).  OTOH, I have ALWAYS (though your eyes seemingly gloss over that part of my posts) pointed out that her non-theropod sculpts were very good, AND I have always complimented the head sculpts of the theropods as well (see my earlier post on this page).

I know that (like me) you like to argue (though I have lately put that character attribute on the shelf as I no longer want to waste my time on such unpleasantness in general - meaning not just on this board, but in life). 

I know that you (like me) are a bit of a curmudgeon.

I like your substantive input, though I confess I have never read through the voluminous arguments you have often had on various topics with many other posters over the years because they did not interest me.

Amargasaurus, I find your post above to be personally and gratuitously insulting to me.  I won't reply in kind, however.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Well then we shall agree to disagree. I see it differently and consider comments like stating someone is a "lost cause" or that their work is "an abomination" direct attacks and not constructive criticisms, and those are some of your milder more recent comments. If I were to archive further back into the past, you have made some rather even harsher direct statements about her...even to the point of miss-spelling her name similar to Forrest Gump's , despite your protestations of innocence.You in fact were banned in the Rebor thread for making less acrimonious statements about their products and work . So to my eyes it would appear your understanding of what is and is not an attack is somewhat....less than the forum dictates at times. So you are welcome to judge my comments as you must, thanks
Incidentally the true wonder of a half truth is that is still at least half true right?

[suspsy]

The CollectA T. rex w/prey has thick, robust, accurate-looking feet in comparison to the CC theropods, amargasaurus. Its inability to stand on its own is largely a result of how its limbs are positioned, not their dimensions. Indeed, the same can be said about nearly all of the recent CollectA theropods. There may be accuracy issues with the hips, but not the feet.

You argue that animals can have scrawny proportions as a result of malnourishment, disease, dwarfism, etc, and that is indeed possible. What is not possible is an animal that has scrawny, skeletal-looking feet but a robust, healthy-looking body. The CC Giganotosaurus' body is massive and muscular. Same goes for the T. rex. And the Spinosaurus. And the others. They don't look starved or sick at all. It's just their feet that are malproportioned. As Gwangi said, it is a question of physics.

And speaking of questions, why shouldn't I ask about the Concavenator's quills here? Sure, I could very easily have sent Forest a message, but given that the toy has been out for a couple of years now, I reasoned it's possible someone here might already have asked her the same question and received an answer. Like you perhaps.

There's nothing remotely wrong or inappropriate with my asking that question here.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Except that when others ask questions about collecta sculpts you have in the past suggested they ask themselves....so there is that .You indeed told me to stop asking here and go ask them myself.... You established the precedent here so I am asking why not follow it yourself?
  As for the feet on these animals, you are stating they are out of proportion...but you are not offering proof. You are attempting to state because you believe it, it is fact, which is not necessarily the case. They do not have to be proportioned the way you think they had to be...I see birds outside my window everyday that are well fed, healthy and have tiny skeleton like feet. That is the living condition of extant dinosaurs...and yet you somehow find it impossible they may have resembled the very birds they gave rise to. That is not physics, it is you forcing your understanding of feet on others, without benefit of a shred of proof or science.
  As for the collectas...multiple models, dozens of them I will have to apparently submit pictures so others can see how ridiculously small and skeletal the feet are. This includes the model with prey..yes it does fall over, and yes the feet are seriously undersized and skeletal looking...far beyond anything Carnegie ever issued. This is hardly an issue that any one company suffers from..if it is a mistake it is nearly universal
  And again there is nothing wrong with asking any question here, I quite agree. So in the future when I pose questions about Collecta models please refrain from sending me to inquire of them , as you have in the past, fair enough?

[suspsy]

No, amargasaurus.

In the first place, you weren't asking questions about the feet on CollectA's ceratopsians (not theropods, ceratopsians!); you were merely complaining about them. Harshly and ad nauseum. I suggested that you share your sentiments with CollectA, which you apparently did. Politely, I hope. Me, all I did tonight was ask if Forest Rogers had ever addressed the absence of the CC Concavenator's quills. The two situations are not identical and anyone following this exchange can plainly see that. Apples and oranges, amargasaurus.

In the second place, I've already explained how the CC theropods' scrawny feet are in contrast to the rest of their bodies. So have other people for that matter. And you cite extant birds as a rebuttal, yet the fact remains that the small flying birds you see flying outside your window are hardly comparable to 6-10 ton land-based theropods. They simply could not have supported their weight on CC-style feet.

And in the third place, if you'd care to post a side by side foot comparison of the 2012 CollectA T. rex and the 2014 CC T. rex, by all means, please do. I'd do it right now myself if I weren't away from my home and my collection for the next week or so.

Also, I suggest that this passionate exchange of views be continued over in the Carnegie Collection thread. Let the Battat love resume itself here. Cheers.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Am all for moving the conversation where it belongs fine by me.
Apparently when I see an issue and discuss it I am complaining, but when you do it, it is a question..despite the use of terms like...did she ever address the glaring issue.....as if she had been reticent in doing so and the fact she obviously should have.You are implying she should have addressed the issue and that it was obvious by your choice of words. The use of terms to imply fault within your comment is of course not a complaint then?
  So again you are restating because you believe it , it must be. Some people have said they agree with your view, agreed. Others not so much.....agreed also. You then go forward and attempt to say that if you scale an animal up or down they should then lose proportion as they change? The smaller birds have smaller legs...as they get bigger the legs get bigger in proportion yes...not overly so, and not because you feel they should. You keep stating they could not have..they could not have. Repeating an opinion does not make it a fact. It is possible her sculpt of the Tyrannosaurus for instance represents the gracile form, rather than the robust...if you doubt that makes much difference you might compile a list of the known rex skeletons and compare them because there is a huge difference in proportions sizes, and even femur lengths, diameters, and tail width.

[Simon]

Well then we shall agree to disagree. I see it differently and consider comments like stating someone is a "lost cause" or that their work is "an abomination" direct attacks and not constructive criticisms, and those are some of your milder more recent comments. If I were to archive further back into the past, you have made some rather even harsher direct statements about her...even to the point of miss-spelling her name similar to Forrest Gump's , despite your protestations of innocence.You in fact were banned in the Rebor thread for making less acrimonious statements about their products and work . So to my eyes it would appear your understanding of what is and is not an attack is somewhat....less than the forum dictates at times. So you are welcome to judge my comments as you must, thanks
Incidentally the true wonder of a half truth is that is still at least half true right?

I am deeply offended and surprised by the tone of your initial post.

I won't reply in kind.  In fact I won't be be replying to you at all from this point on.

[Sim]

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.

What is the Carnegie Mosasaurus right about though?  It was said to be in 1:40 scale.  On its belly it says Mosasaurus is 12m long which in this context I take to mean is the size of the animal the toy is meant to represent.  The Carnegie toy definitely represents an animal much smaller than 12m in 1:40 scale though.  I don't know what the size of the longest Mosasaurus skull is.  If it's what you said, then in 1:40 scale the skull length might be correct for the longest known Mosasaurus skull.  It seems to me that even the toy's skull would need to be longer for a 12m individual in 1:40 scale though.  This is all not considering the maximum length for Mosasaurus - 18m, too.  By the way, the newer Carnegie mosasaur is a Tylosaurus.  I've never heard of estimates suggesting a 60m long mosasaur (or anything much above 18m I think)!  That sounds really extreme!

The CollectA T. rex w/prey has thick, robust, accurate-looking feet in comparison to the CC theropods, amargasaurus. Its inability to stand on its own is largely a result of how its limbs are positioned, not their dimensions. Indeed, the same can be said about nearly all of the recent CollectA theropods. There may be accuracy issues with the hips, but not the feet.

You argue that animals can have scrawny proportions as a result of malnourishment, disease, dwarfism, etc, and that is indeed possible. What is not possible is an animal that has scrawny, skeletal-looking feet but a robust, healthy-looking body. The CC Giganotosaurus' body is massive and muscular. Same goes for the T. rex. And the Spinosaurus. And the others. They don't look starved or sick at all. It's just their feet that are malproportioned. As Gwangi said, it is a question of physics.

And speaking of questions, why shouldn't I ask about the Concavenator's quills here? Sure, I could very easily have sent Forest a message, but given that the toy has been out for a couple of years now, I reasoned it's possible someone here might already have asked her the same question and received an answer. Like you perhaps.

There's nothing remotely wrong or inappropriate with my asking that question here.

Personally, I'm more bothered by the under-sized caudofemoralis on the Carnegie dinosaurs.  I can't unsee it!  To me it does seem the Carnegie dinosaurs tend to be a bit too skinny in some places based on ones I have and photos I've seen of others.  But, they aren't the only line to have kept making mistakes in dinosaur anatomy.  I've seen too skinny looking dinosaurs (their heads and tails in particular) by the sculptor for the Favorite soft model series 2.  And being frank here, CollectA's recent theropods have often had one or more of various inaccuracies - shrink wrapped heads on very meaty bodies, too wide hips, too big toe claws - personally I find this more off-putting than Carnegie's mistakes.  As for Papo and Schleich...  Well, they certainly haven't been intending their figures to be realistic representations of prehistoric life!

Concavenator having quills/feathers is conjecture.  The bumps on its ulna have been interpreted as quill knobs by the palaeontologists that described Concavenator but not everyone agrees with this interpretation.  Darren Naish pointed out that the bumps would have been unusually far up and irregularly spaced for quill knobs. He also pointed out that many animals have similar structures along intermuscular lines that act as tendon attachment points among other things.  This dissent has been supported by Christian Foth and others.

[John]

Personally, I'm more bothered by the under-sized caudofemoralis on the Carnegie dinosaurs.  I can't unsee it!  To me it does seem the Carnegie dinosaurs tend to be a bit too skinny in some places based on ones I have and photos I've seen of others. 

Here's something that may be of interest concerning just how thick the tails should be on dinosaurs in general:this very well preserved skeleton of Psittacosaurus that just so happens to show how thick the tail really was in that species at least.Of course it's the quills that get the attention first though

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Psittacosaurus_mongoliensis_-_Naturmuseum_Senckenberg_-_DSC02251.JPG

And on the main subject,I can't wait to see more new additions to Battat's line show up like Gastonia.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Guys we don't need heated arguments, please tone it down or take it to PMs. The mods are watching.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Personally, I'm more bothered by the under-sized caudofemoralis on the Carnegie dinosaurs.  I can't unsee it!  To me it does seem the Carnegie dinosaurs tend to be a bit too skinny in some places based on ones I have and photos I've seen of others. 

Here's something that may be of interest concerning just how thick the tails should be on dinosaurs in general:this very well preserved skeleton of Psittacosaurus that just so happens to show how thick the tail really was in that species at least.Of course it's the quills that get the attention first though

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Psittacosaurus_mongoliensis_-_Naturmuseum_Senckenberg_-_DSC02251.JPG

And on the main subject,I can't wait to see more new additions to Battat's line show up like Gastonia.

Your point is spot on however the psittacosaurus, you are viewing when compared to the carnegie to my eyes seems pretty close in width.The Carnegie sports a rather pronounced  caudofemoralis   Another thing that is a tad confusing about this fossil, because of the angle it was facing when preserved, is the dark area you see above the tail is the integument from around the tail, rather than substance of the tail itself.
  I am assuming you were just using this specimen to demonstrate tail width and not suggesting the Carnegie for this model lacks in the  caudofemoralis department I love that fossil and hope it stays viewable for awhile yet at least.

[John]

Personally, I'm more bothered by the under-sized caudofemoralis on the Carnegie dinosaurs.  I can't unsee it!  To me it does seem the Carnegie dinosaurs tend to be a bit too skinny in some places based on ones I have and photos I've seen of others. 

Here's something that may be of interest concerning just how thick the tails should be on dinosaurs in general:this very well preserved skeleton of Psittacosaurus that just so happens to show how thick the tail really was in that species at least.Of course it's the quills that get the attention first though

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Psittacosaurus_mongoliensis_-_Naturmuseum_Senckenberg_-_DSC02251.JPG

And on the main subject,I can't wait to see more new additions to Battat's line show up like Gastonia.

Your point is spot on however the psittacosaurus, you are viewing when compared to the carnegie to my eyes seems pretty close in width.The Carnegie sports a rather pronounced  caudofemoralis   Another thing that is a tad confusing about this fossil, because of the angle it was facing when preserved, is the dark area you see above the tail is the integument from around the tail, rather than substance of the tail itself.
I am assuming you were just using this specimen to demonstrate tail width and not suggesting the Carnegie for this model lacks in the  caudofemoralis department I love that fossil and hope it stays viewable for awhile yet at least.

You are correct! And ironically,the Carnegie Psittacosaurus completely slipped my mind!
Speaking of Psittacosaurus,I wouldn't mind seeing a larger scale one turn up in Battat's Terra line eventually.

[EmperorDinobot]

Anyone remember the Protoceratops base and nest from Carnegie from yesteryear? Yeah, I want something like that but with Psittacosaurus in scale with the rest of the Battat dinos.


Here I am looking at my new Carnegie dinosaurs, and I noticed something was...different about them.


Why is Miragaia so large?!

They are also very skinny. I remember defending Rogers' sculpts, but, these are literally shrinkwrapped. Oh well who cares, I love them more than I love... Well I love them.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

You are correct! And ironically,the Carnegie Psittacosaurus completely slipped my mind!
Speaking of Psittacosaurus,I wouldn't mind seeing a larger scale one turn up in Battat's Terra line eventually.

I would love to see that as well...even if it meant doing a pair or trio of them to get the model large enough to be workable and yet within scale requirements. Psittacosaurus might well be the most well known, possibly most populous and even perhaps most wide ranged dinosaur in both area and timewise of the potential canidates.I keep hoping that eventually with the sheer number of specimens they will find a nesting area with some eggs still remaining.

[DinoToyForum]

Please take the Carnegie discussion to the appropriate thread. Thank you.

[Victoria's Cantina]

So... anyone else having trouble getting the Carnotaurus to stand? The tail kind of helps but mine seems to fall after about a minute.

[Daspletodave]

So... anyone else having trouble getting the Carnotaurus to stand? The tail kind of helps but mine seems to fall after about a minute.

My Terra Carnotaurus stands, because the tail touches the surface. He's been standing up fine for over a week now.