Safari Ltd - new for 2015

[Doug Watson]

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.

Concavenator, please keep what is said in private PMs private. Having said that I wasn't offended I was just repeating what you had said in a post. You explained yourself well in your subsequent PM so no hard feelings but again do not repeat what I say in a PM here or elsewhere without my permission. Thank you.

[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.

Concavenator, please keep what is said in private PMs private. Having said that I wasn't offended I was just repeating what you had said in a post. You explained yourself well in your subsequent PM so no hard feelings but again do not repeat what I say in a PM here or elsewhere without my permission. Thank you.

Okay,I will.Sorry again.

[ItsTwentyBelow]

None of the CollectA ceratopsians so far are more accurate than anything Doug or Dan have sculpted ceratopsian-wise. They simply are not better or more accurate from an objective viewpoint. CollectA models still have that just slightly "off" feeling, and every one of their ceratopsians still gets the hind feet flat wrong if nothing else. I like the Xenoceratops, but that was the first thing I noticed when it arrived, the ugly hind feet. And I had just purchased the Battat Pachyrhino too. There is simply no comparison between those two models.

With the new Nasuto and Medusa from CollectA simply being two different modifications of the Xenoceratops sculpt, it is inevitable that they too will have the wrong hind feet. CollectA is trying but they still make too many silly mistakes and off proportions to be rated higher than Wild Safari or Battat.

[suspsy]

Meh. I much prefer CollectA ceratopsids over anything Battat or Safari have to offer. Things like hind feet are minor quibbles in my book. I especially love the wide variety of colour schemes and the speculative quills.

Personal preference aside, it's perfectly clear that the artists at all three of these companies are 100% devoted to their craft and it shows. I tip my hat to all of them.

[ItsTwentyBelow]

This is true. It is a small quibble  Truth be told I do agree and enjoy the variety in CollectA. I guess I just figure that small mistakes like that (and the recent Daeodon's hooves) should be easy to correct during the review process for each figure, assuming there is one?

[suspsy]

Generally, if it's a noticeable anatomical error like too many toes, it's worth a mention, but I definitely don't think the Daeodon is completely ruined as a result. It's all up to the reviewer. Personally, naked maniraptors and tyrannosaurs with pronated wrists are what really get my feathers ruffled.

[tanystropheus]

My main problem with CollectA (aside from the overused warpaint ) is the elongated skulls. This is particularly notable in the ceratopsians (i.e. Torosaurus, Medusaceratops) and T-rex with prey (worst offender). I will excuse CollectA's Deluxe 1:15 Triceratops, because it looks 'stylized'.

Regarding Nasutoceratops, while the CollectA versions seems 'cute', it also sports a fused neck, and the overall frame of the model does not appear to approximate the scientific skeletal reconstruction closely. The beak is way too large, and the paint job on the body is carried over from the Xenoceratops model. The colors on the face lack a naturalistic appearance and seems to be randomly applied.

The WS Nasutoceratops is 100% faithful to the scientific reconstruction. The colors, texture and overall proportions are believable.

https://archosaurmusings.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/nasutoceratops-skeletal-drawing-by-lukas-panzarin.jpg

[Sim]

Thanks for the replies regarding scales on figures!  I've seen different people mention that the scales on certain figures are too big on the Dinosaur Toy Blog/Forum so I was wondering how to tell if that's the case.  From what's been said in this thread I'm led to believe that the scales only look different between for example the newer Wild Safari figures and the newer Carnegie Collection figures because of how deeply they're sculpted.  I made the picture of the Diabloceratops and the photo of the WS Diabloceratops from Manatee's post the same size and it made the scales on the 2 Diabloceratops look the same size.  They're only more noticeable on the WS Diabloceratops.  I'm not sure if it's possible to know how deep the gaps between a prehistoric animal's scales are, which would affect how visible they are.  So to me it seems neither the more visible scales or less visible scales can be considered inaccurate.

Thanks for explaining the research and skill that you put into the figures you make, Doug!  I enjoy learning about what basis the artists behind the figures we collect are going off of.  Thanks for sharing the picture of the Chasmosaurus skin too, I hadn't seen it before!  The internet searches I've done keep showing that no Pachyrhinosaurus skin has been found.  Did you mean you used Pachyrhinosaurus skin for when you sculpted the WS Pachyrhinosaurus, or did I misunderstand?  I've been wondering, what determines which scale you sculpt a Wild Safari figure in?  Do you try to keep consistent scales between the figures you sculpt, e.g. one scale for smaller animals, another scale for bigger animals?

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.

My thoughts about Schleich's prehistoric reptile figures go beyond that.  They are very inaccurate, making them the most inaccurate prehistoric animal toy line.  I don't think Schleich has ever made a great prehistoric reptile figure but they consistently make figures ugly both due to inaccuracies and speculative details such as skin.  Their figures aren't based in fact or (in my opinion) aesthetically pleasing.  Despite this, they are still claiming their dinosaurs are accurate!  In addition to this is Schleich's extremely agressive way of going about things which has made them ubiquitous (I never saw a Schleich figure in my childhood).  Schleich is the only prehistoric animal toy line I hate.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I don't exactly hate Schleich..but I'm seldom motivated to buy their products. Now the big blue Apato-Bronto-Retrosaur was a must buy..I just loved the old school look and feel of it.

[Patrx]

Indeed, I used to see Safari, LTD products all over the place, but now it seems they've been displaced by Schleich in nearly every store in town. Do they have some kind of especially aggressive marketing strategy? I must say I find their dinosaurs uniformly unappealing, and useless as illustrations of prehistoric life.

[Concavenator]

Indeed, I used to see Safari, LTD products all over the place, but now it seems they've been displaced by Schleich in nearly every store in town. Do they have some kind of especially aggressive marketing strategy? I must say I find their dinosaurs uniformly unappealing, and useless as illustrations of prehistoric life.

Here in Spain I sometimes see bakeires stock some Schleich figures.No joke.

[Lusotitan]

Schleich dinosaurs are the only major line (there are chinasaurs, animal planet, assorted other things, but you know what I mean.) I've ever seen in town here, aside from a single tiny Papo shelf (more like a cart at it's size) in a store that's currently under repair. I'm sure if said store would even carry newer Papo ones, anyway.

[DinoLord]

Indeed, I used to see Safari, LTD products all over the place, but now it seems they've been displaced by Schleich in nearly every store in town. Do they have some kind of especially aggressive marketing strategy? I must say I find their dinosaurs uniformly unappealing, and useless as illustrations of prehistoric life.

From what I've read from threads elsewhere on the forum,  Schleich is extremely aggressive in their marketing. Personally I think this is unfortunate as I don't think a company that produces a line of largely atrocious prehistoric figures should get the chance to peddle them so widely, especially at the cost of displacing better brands who give more effort to their designs. But it is what it is. And it definitely helps that their extant animals are extremely popular with general animal figure collectors.

[Lusotitan]

Yeah, their modern animals are great. I also have a baby mammoth of theirs that's great.

[Sim]

I must say I find their dinosaurs uniformly unappealing, and useless as illustrations of prehistoric life.

I agree, well said!  Nevertheless Schleich is recommending their figures for use in education!  Quote by CityRaptor from the Schleich - new for 2015 thread (yes I looked at that thread but I thought it was best I didn't post there):

Also this quote by Schleich on Facebook

Hey, teachers! If you're transporting your students to a prehistoric time period, our realistic dinosaur figurines can be used as a tool for teaching. Incorporate the prehistoric animals into your lesson plans and watch your students' imaginations soar! Or should we say "roar"?

NOPE!

Schleich's aggressive way of going about things is covered in a number of posts throughout this thread: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=1147.0  Some things that stood out to me were their aggressive marketing strategy, buying out smaller companies to eliminate competition, and trying to "poach Papo's design team".

From what I've read from threads elsewhere on the forum,  Schleich is extremely aggressive in their marketing. Personally I think this is unfortunate as I don't think a company that produces a line of largely atrocious prehistoric figures should get the chance to peddle them so widely, especially at the cost of displacing better brands who give more effort to their designs. But it is what it is. And it definitely helps that their extant animals are extremely popular with general animal figure collectors.

I feel the same as you about this, DinoLord.  I don't normally have a strong dislike for something discussed on this forum, for Schleich though I do.

[Daspletodave]

Indeed, I used to see Safari, LTD products all over the place, but now it seems they've been displaced by Schleich in nearly every store in town. Do they have some kind of especially aggressive marketing strategy? I must say I find their dinosaurs uniformly unappealing, and useless as illustrations of prehistoric life.

From what I've read from threads elsewhere on the forum,  Schleich is extremely aggressive in their marketing. Personally I think this is unfortunate as I don't think a company that produces a line of largely atrocious prehistoric figures should get the chance to peddle them so widely, especially at the cost of displacing better brands who give more effort to their designs. But it is what it is. And it definitely helps that their extant animals are extremely popular with general animal figure collectors.

If you don't like Schleich then don't buy their products. I hate Collecta's dinosaurs, but I don't go on this forum and say that they don't have a right to be in business!
Schleich is a business, and all businesses have to sell in order to survive. Schleich seems to be fairly successful in the toy business. If the other brands want to survive then they have to learn how to compete. Simple as that.
Schleich is not the only toy brand that has done "atrocious prehistoric figures" - Collecta, Wild Safari, Toyway and Carnegie are all guilty of that.
(I am not employed by Schleich or connected to them in any way)

[tanystropheus]

I don't have too many Scleichs but I do have some, namely, Apatosaurus, Brachiosaurus, Elasmosaurus, Shonisaurus, Saichania and Macrauchenia. I'm interested in Schleich's Penta and Kentro...

[stargatedalek]

If you don't like Schleich then don't buy their products. I hate Collecta's dinosaurs, but I don't go on this forum and say that they don't have a right to be in business!
Schleich is a business, and all businesses have to sell in order to survive. Schleich seems to be fairly successful in the toy business. If the other brands want to survive then they have to learn how to compete. Simple as that.
Schleich is not the only toy brand that has done "atrocious prehistoric figures" - Collecta, Wild Safari, Toyway and Carnegie are all guilty of that.
(I am not employed by Schleich or connected to them in any way)

take note that the complaint was not describing strictly the quality, but more so the bad form and habits of the company

[Takama]

Evean though this is off topic.     I Liked Schelichs world of history line until i learned that there going to be lazy and release the Same Blasted species in different colors, and are un-willing to do anything new. They also took over my entire region. Almost every other store sells there products, and i seen there Atrocious acts of marketing remove Safari from one of my favorite stores.

[triceratops83]

I've been to most places that sell Dinosaur toys in Queensland, and aside from Collecta in the Brisbane Museum, and a selected assortment of various figures in Age of Dinos Museum in Winton, there is ONLY Schleich available.