Safari Ltd - new for 2015

[DinoLord]

It looks a bit like it just walked through a snowstorm.

[triceratops83]

I'm with Amargasaurus in that Protoceratops or other primitive ceratopsians are in no way boring; they are a fascinating, underrated group that I would definitely like to see in toy form more than Yet Another Derived Chasmosaurine.

I agree, a Protoceratops would be great, I just see Carnegie doing more repeats at this stage. It'll be a great surprise if something really interesting turns up.

[tyrantqueen]

The Yutyrannus looks good and fluffy, unlike some models (Rebor *cough*) but the oversized scales on the face put me off.

[Sim]

I'm with Amargasaurus in that Protoceratops or other primitive ceratopsians are in no way boring; they are a fascinating, underrated group that I would definitely like to see in toy form more than Yet Another Derived Chasmosaurine.

Centrosaurines are being made into figures a lot lately too, e.g. Xenoceratops (CollectA), Nasutoceratops (CollectA, WS, Battat), Diabloceratops (WS), Pachyrhinosaurus (WWD, WS, Battat).

The Yutyrannus looks good and fluffy, unlike some models (Rebor *cough*) but the oversized scales on the face put me off.

I've been wondering if the scales on some figures like the more recent Wild Safari and the Favorite soft model series 1 are too big.  I'm not sure how to know if scales on a figure are bigger than they could actually be on the living animal.  I'd really appreciate help with this!

[tanystropheus]

I'm with Amargasaurus in that Protoceratops or other primitive ceratopsians are in no way boring; they are a fascinating, underrated group that I would definitely like to see in toy form more than Yet Another Derived Chasmosaurine.

Centrosaurines are being made into figures a lot lately too, e.g. Xenoceratops (CollectA), Nasutoceratops (CollectA, WS, Battat), Diabloceratops (WS), Pachyrhinosaurus (WWD, WS, Battat).

You forgot Diabloceratops (CollectA), and Pachyrhinosaurus (Papo). I'm surprised that there are so few proper Chasmosaurus in toy form (e.g. Tyco, Tamiya, CollectA)....Papo or WS should seriously consider making one...the Vagaceratops was close, though.

[Concavenator]

Has anyone got the Archaeopteryx?

[Sim]

You forgot Diabloceratops (CollectA), and Pachyrhinosaurus (Papo).

I forgot about the CollectA Diabloceratops!  I was only looking at figures made in the more recent years though, which is why I didn't mention the Papo Pachyrhinosaurus.  It is on the more recent side though.  There's also Styracosaurus (Favorite sm series 1, Favorite sm series 2, Papo, Schleich).  Even with all these centrosaurine toys, I can't wait for the reissued Battat Styracosaurus!  The original is one of my all-time favourite figures and in my opinion the best toy version of Styracosaurus.

[Manatee]

I'm with Amargasaurus in that Protoceratops or other primitive ceratopsians are in no way boring; they are a fascinating, underrated group that I would definitely like to see in toy form more than Yet Another Derived Chasmosaurine.

Centrosaurines are being made into figures a lot lately too, e.g. Xenoceratops (CollectA), Nasutoceratops (CollectA, WS, Battat), Diabloceratops (WS), Pachyrhinosaurus (WWD, WS, Battat).

The Yutyrannus looks good and fluffy, unlike some models (Rebor *cough*) but the oversized scales on the face put me off.

I've been wondering if the scales on some figures like the more recent Wild Safari and the Favorite soft model series 1 are too big.  I'm not sure how to know if scales on a figure are bigger than they could actually be on the living animal.  I'd really appreciate help with this!

The WS and some CollectA scales, especially the ceratopsians', are much too big. If they were real, the scales would barely be visible. I assume it's done to give off the feel of more detail, which it certainly does. It should look more like this:

than this:

[triceratops83]

It still looks cool, though. Papo gets all the attention for "detail" but I much prefer Safari's scales, it suits Ceratopsians. Same with Collecta's quills, I don't buy into that but it does make their horned dinos distinctive. What I HATE, is Schleich's toadskin look - no reason for a dinosaur to look like that, it's neither based in fact or aesthetically pleasing.

[Doug Watson]

The WS and some CollectA scales, especially the ceratopsians', are much too big. If they were real, the scales would barely be visible. I assume it's done to give off the feel of more detail, which it certainly does. It should look more like this:

My policy on this forum has been to refrain from addressing criticism or praise of my Safari pieces since most comments are simply opinion and I don't wish to argue opinion. How do you argue "looks funny to me"  if it looks funny to you why would I think I could change your mind. It also didn't seem right to acknowledge praise and not address the other. I do chime in when I see an inaccuracy. Since you didn't say "the scales look too big to me" but instead stated it as fact I have decided to address it here since it has also been raised in other threads as opinion. With all of my pieces I research to see if any evidence of integument has been found and documented. Often there is none so I just make an educated guess but with ceratopsians there are many specimens where skin has been fossilized. Since my first Safari ltd horned dino the Vagaceratops I have based most of my integument on horned dinosaurs to varying degrees on fossil specimens from Chasmosaurus belli CMN 2245 and the description of that specimen by C.M. Sternberg "Integument of Chasmosaurus belli" Canadian Field Naturalist vol. XXXIX 1925. I own two casts of the integument from that specimen and as Sternberg says, "The large plates, one of which is two and 1/4 inches in diameter, were low, flat, circular, and are defined by a circumscribing groove."  He goes on to say that the larger plates are surrounded by smaller scales. For my Pachyrhinosaurus I used fossil skin impressions from that genus but they were also similar to the Chasmosaurus fossils I was familiar with.
I based the size of my Nasutoceratops on the estimated length of 15.8 feet determined by measuring along the vertebrae. I did my original in the scale of 1:25. Since no integument was found I used the similarly sized C. belli as reference.  As Sternberg mentions the large plates on the casts I have are 2.25" at the longest or 57mm, the smaller scales measure on average 26mm. When you scale 57mm and 26mm to 1:25 that ends up being 2.3mm and 1.0mm exactly what I have on my original. I still don't have a production sample so I am not sure what size they ended up at but if anything with shrinkage they could be smaller on the retail model, on my Pachyrhinosaurus they shrank very little.
As a side note if I had done it in the smaller scale of 1:40 those scales would have ended up being 1.45mm and 0.65 mm still visible at that scale.
I took a picture of one of my skin casts and put it on Facebook in the hopes of posting it here but once again I am foiled I don't end up with any http.www. address when I copy the file address so I gave up, again, but images of those impressions have been available since 1925 and are on the web. You can see an image here in the paper itself https://archive.org/stream/cbarchive_105265_integumentofchasmosaurusbelli1925/integumentofchasmosaurusbelli1925#page/n3/mode/2up

Edit: 03/18/15 Now that I can post images I thought I would post that image of one of the Chasmosaurus skin casts I have.

[DinoLord]

Thanks for the insight Doug; I always love to see what kind of basis the artists behind the figures we collect are going off of. Personally I think the scale sizes on the recent WS figures are pretty appropriate. For example the Gryposaurus has very small scales, which corresponds to the hadrosaur skin impressions that have been found, while the ceratopsians have larger scales which also fits fossil evidence.

[Manatee]

The WS and some CollectA scales, especially the ceratopsians', are much too big. If they were real, the scales would barely be visible. I assume it's done to give off the feel of more detail, which it certainly does. It should look more like this:

My policy on this forum has been to refrain from addressing criticism or praise of my Safari pieces since most comments are simply opinion and I don't wish to argue opinion. How do you argue "looks funny to me"  if it looks funny to you why would I think I could change your mind. It also didn't seem right to acknowledge praise and not address the other. I do chime in when I see an inaccuracy. Since you didn't say "the scales look too big to me" but instead stated it as fact I have decided to address it here since it has also been raised in other threads as opinion. With all of my pieces I research to see if any evidence of integument has been found and documented. Often there is none so I just make an educated guess but with ceratopsians there are many specimens where skin has been fossilized. Since my first Safari ltd horned dino the Vagaceratops I have based most of my integument on horned dinosaurs to varying degrees on fossil specimens from Chasmosaurus belli CMN 2245 and the description of that specimen by C.M. Sternberg "Integument of Chasmosaurus belli" Canadian Field Naturalist vol. XXXIX 1925. I own two casts of the integument from that specimen and as Sternberg says, "The large plates, one of which is two and 1/4 inches in diameter, were low, flat, circular, and are defined by a circumscribing groove."  He goes on to say that the larger plates are surrounded by smaller scales. For my Pachyrhinosaurus I used fossil skin impressions from that genus but they were also similar to the Chasmosaurus fossils I was familiar with.
I based the size of my Nasutoceratops on the estimated length of 15.8 feet determined by measuring along the vertebrae. I did my original in the scale of 1:25. Since no integument was found I used the similarly sized C. belli as reference.  As Sternberg mentions the large plates on the casts I have are 2.25" at the longest or 57mm, the smaller scales measure on average 26mm. When you scale 57mm and 26mm to 1:25 that ends up being 2.3mm and 1.0mm exactly what I have on my original. I still don't have a production sample so I am not sure what size they ended up at but if anything with shrinkage they could be smaller on the retail model, on my Pachyrhinosaurus they shrank very little.
As a side note if I had done it in the smaller scale of 1:40 those scales would have ended up being 1.45mm and 0.65 mm still visible at that scale.
I took a picture of one of my skin casts and put it on Facebook in the hopes of posting it here but once again I am foiled I don't end up with any http.www. address when I copy the file address so I gave up, again, but images of those impressions have been available since 1925 and are on the web. You can see an image here in the paper itself https://archive.org/stream/cbarchive_105265_integumentofchasmosaurusbelli1925/integumentofchasmosaurusbelli1925#page/n3/mode/2up

I apologize if I offended you, and I definitely could have worded my comment better. That was some interesting insight; I didn't know too much about how you scaled the different sized scales (that sentence sounds really strange), so thank you for clearing things up.

[Doug Watson]

I apologize if I offended you, and I definitely could have worded my comment better. That was some interesting insight; I didn't know too much about how you scaled the different sized scales (that sentence sounds really strange), so thank you for clearing things up.

This was not a situation where I was offended I just wanted to clear the inaccuracy up and your quote opened the door. You weren't the first to make the observation but you did state it as fact so I decided to clear it up. Again no offence.

[Meso-Cenozoic]

That was very fascinating and educational. Thank you, Doug! (BTW, with the understanding I may not get a response to my praise here -- I think you're ceratopsians keep getting more and more life-like!)

[Doug Watson]

That was very fascinating and educational. Thank you, Doug! (BTW, with the understanding I may not get a response to my praise here -- I think you're ceratopsians keep getting more and more life-like!)

Thanks but yes I also felt it would come off as pretty self serving if I replied after every compliment but don't think it isn't appreciated!

[tanystropheus]

Okay, I'm a bit bad with math...

are the scales, in and of itself, 1/40 scale (assuming the model is 1/40 scale)?

I would love to see a WS Chasmosaurus (or Papo). The Tyco version sells for $250+ and is outdated!

[alexeratops]

Has anyone got the Archaeopteryx?

Oh, wow, I wish. Though soon (maybe within a week) I will be getting the Nasuto, the YutY, and the Sauropelta.I'll post an unboxing on here.

[Doug Watson]

Okay, I'm a bit bad with math...

are the scales, in and of itself, 1/40 scale (assuming the model is 1/40 scale)?

Well I did say "if I did it in 1:40 scale", I did it in 1:25 scale. If you do the animal in 1:40 scale then everything should be in 1:40 scale.

[Concavenator]

Well,at least Safariceratops makes more sense than Mojoceratops 

[Concavenator]

BTW,I'm very sorry if I ofended you,Doug,for my comments saying the CollectA Nasutoceratops was superior and everything  ...I just mean more aesthetically speaking,but both are very accurate and your version is pretty awesome.Dan LoRusso's will be amazing too.Peace.