REBOR 1:35 Tyrannosaurus rex museum class replica official photos updated!

[Sim]

I didn't mean to imply I had a distaste for those figures or that style. I think it suits the Safari Postosuchus and Dunkleosteus very well (can't speak for the others as I don't own them).

I didn't think you had a distaste for those figures or that style!  I didn't express myself well, what I meant was I don't think the "predatory" look of those figures makes them look less "life like".

[Halichoeres]

So what is the difference between Rebor and Battat that Rebor's fans have internalized the company's defense and Battat's (and other companies') fans haven't? Is it Rebor's social media presence? Is it the naming conventions of Rebor's individual figures?

In my opinion and based of my observation, I believe there are Battat "defenders" as there are Rebor "defenders" as there are "defenders" of other companies. And it's doesn't show up only in defensive actions, but clear biases. Not pointing fingers... but for a hypothetical example: someone may be more forgiving of the Battat's Rex standing issue and brush it off by saying "it's just a toy" or "you can fix it easily with a rod". However, they will have the complete opposite reaction for the Rebor Ceratosaurus' standing issue. Or how some won't think to criticize the CollectA Feathered Rex's base, but then easily call the Rebor Rex's base boring and bland. Granted, the two comparisons take on items that are on different levels (quality, price, etc.), but the core concept of bias is there.

Preferences are preferences and different people will have different tastes. And that's okay. The problem becomes when people don't see eye to eye on things and how that's handled. People likely develop loyalties since some saying they don't like what you like becomes, on some level, personal (as if your tastes and preferences are being criticized), but it shouldn't taken personally consciously or subconsciously. So loyalties or pseudo-loyalties are formed. People then become defensive toward the elements of their liking, or worse, become offensive and rude when criticizing things they don't like and develop closed-minded biases. At the end of the day, like what you like, be who you are, but also acknowledge that no one is the same as you. Differences are good. Talk about differences with an open mind and above all, have respect for those differences. Deliver criticism in a constructive way.

I remember a newer member on this forum posted their collection, which consisted primarily of Schleich models. Some other member replied and said something along the lines of "too many Schlieichs". Then the new member asked is there something bad about collecting Schleich. I responded saying there was nothing wrong with that, especially if s/he liked them.

You have to have an open mind, have tolerance, and be objective. If you look at my shelf of dinos, I have models from WS to Schleich to Rebor to CollectA to Sideshow and on and on. I have my own preferences and when I express like or dislike, especially the latter, I try to be as objective as I can. When I reviewed the Rebor Ceratosuaurs on the blog or compared the paint job versus price difference of the Battat and Carnegie Cryolophosaurus, I tried to be as objective and as open to comments as I could since that's my policy all-around and often, sets the tone and encourages objective responses.

Now I think about it, you've probably had the most reasonable responses to criticism of Rebor. If anybody qualifies as fan-but-not-defender (or apologist), I'd guess it's you.

[utd7]

What would be considered more of a scientifically accurate head sculpt for a Tyrannosaurus Rex? Since I have grown up watching Jurassic Park (and still do today at age 21) the 'Stan Winston' Rex has always been my idea of what a Rex should look like.

The Sideshow Tyrant King Rex looks great and so did the Walking with Dinosaurs Rex, so are these more accurate? Please enlighten me guys.

[Monkeysaurus]

What would be considered more of a scientifically accurate head sculpt for a Tyrannosaurus Rex? Since I have grown up watching Jurassic Park (and still do today at age 21) the 'Stan Winston' Rex has always been my idea of what a Rex should look like.

The Sideshow Tyrant King Rex looks great and so did the Walking with Dinosaurs Rex, so are these more accurate? Please enlighten me guys.

According to the paleontologist John Hutchinson the "Jurassic Park's T. rex is the best committed to film. I think the movie pretty much nailed it, as much as 'it' can be nailed, given the uncertainties." He also added the possible notion of feathers, but that isn't certain yet. The Sideshow Tyrant King is the best restoration I've ever seen in a statue or figurine. When you look at the snout you can see where it's slightly different from the JP Rex.

[Dinoguy2]

Here's a weird coincidence recently pointed out on FB:

What would be considered more of a scientifically accurate head sculpt for a Tyrannosaurus Rex? Since I have grown up watching Jurassic Park (and still do today at age 21) the 'Stan Winston' Rex has always been my idea of what a Rex should look like.

The Sideshow Tyrant King Rex looks great and so did the Walking with Dinosaurs Rex, so are these more accurate? Please enlighten me guys.

According to the paleontologist John Hutchinson the "Jurassic Park's T. rex is the best committed to film. I think the movie pretty much nailed it, as much as 'it' can be nailed, given the uncertainties." He also added the possible notion of feathers, but that isn't certain yet. The Sideshow Tyrant King is the best restoration I've ever seen in a statue or figurine. When you look at the snout you can see where it's slightly different from the JP Rex.

Hutchinson wrote that, I'm assuming, when the next best T. rex on screen was King Kong. Better examples on realistic T. rex would lack the trademark JP devil horns and arched double nasal ridge and that weird thing going on with the corner of the mouth at the jugals. See my previous thread here for suggestions on better models http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=3540.0

[Simon]

What would be considered more of a scientifically accurate head sculpt for a Tyrannosaurus Rex? Since I have grown up watching Jurassic Park (and still do today at age 21) the 'Stan Winston' Rex has always been my idea of what a Rex should look like.

The Sideshow Tyrant King Rex looks great and so did the Walking with Dinosaurs Rex, so are these more accurate? Please enlighten me guys.

.

Well, for my money, it would more likely look like THIS:

[Dinoguy2]

What would be considered more of a scientifically accurate head sculpt for a Tyrannosaurus Rex? Since I have grown up watching Jurassic Park (and still do today at age 21) the 'Stan Winston' Rex has always been my idea of what a Rex should look like.

The Sideshow Tyrant King Rex looks great and so did the Walking with Dinosaurs Rex, so are these more accurate? Please enlighten me guys.

.

Well, for my money, it would more likely look like THIS:

That one looks good, and by good I mean obviously not JP. The JP one isn't necessarily inaccurate, they just did things with the arrangement of keratin on the snout and brows that was their own personal interpretation, and it's obvious when it's being copied. See also the two versions of the Battat T. rex for two different definite non JP inspired takes.

[stargatedalek]

Here's a weird coincidence recently pointed out on FB:

Drats! The cat's out of the bag on my secret custom project
Jokes aside, I have quite a few of those little Tyrannosaurus sitting around so perhaps some day.



Feathers aside (they may be unproven, but doesn't it strike anyone else as weird that Tyrannosaurus would have skin and scales if not feathers on the skin? just food for thought), that Tyrannosaurus is somewhat shrink wrapped. Its face is "indented" rather far and its chest is very tight.

The Jurassic Park Tyrannosaurus is more than artistic liberty, it's simply to wide. There's no beating around the bush on it, Tyrannosaurus simply could not have had a head like the JP version. "Angry eyebrows" may be vaguely possible if you want to really stretch it, but not in the positions the JP rex has them.

If you want something that appears very "aggressive" or "predatory" in the classic sense than I would recommend something like the Saurian Tyrannosaurus. Ignore the feathers here, I'm talking about the face. The skull may have holes in it, but that doesn't mean they should be indented. The surface of a theropods head (before integument) should be relatively smooth with no distinctive ridges. You can see here on the Saurian version a more realistic take on the "angry eyebrows" trope, done in a way that makes them impressive but doesn't have them stick out at skull distorting angles.

[Simon]

That one looks good, and by good I mean obviously not JP. The JP one isn't necessarily inaccurate, they just did things with the arrangement of keratin on the snout and brows that was their own personal interpretation, and it's obvious when it's being copied. See also the two versions of the Battat T. rex for two different definite non JP inspired takes.

Dinoguy 2- a question for you about the Trex skull profile:  "Sue" has a pretty rectangular front of the head in profile (kind of like that reconstruction I posted above).

Is that the more operative view now - that the front of the skull was pretty rectangular rather than having a curve upwards behind the snout?

Or are there skulls to support both reconstructions?  I note that "Sue's" skull was badly crushed and mangled during fossilization, and when I first saw the reconstruction I wondered if they did it correctly, but I guess since no one questions the rectangular reconstruction its considered the correct view?

Sue: 

A more "curvy" Trex skull":

[Simon]

Then of course there is the freakish "Scotty T. Rex" up in Canada (SBell feel free to chime in here) that as I recall has the most powerfully built (though not the largest) skull of TRex ever found:

"Scotty" :

[Dinoguy2]

That one looks good, and by good I mean obviously not JP. The JP one isn't necessarily inaccurate, they just did things with the arrangement of keratin on the snout and brows that was their own personal interpretation, and it's obvious when it's being copied. See also the two versions of the Battat T. rex for two different definite non JP inspired takes.

Dinoguy 2- a question for you about the Trex skull profile:  "Sue" has a pretty rectangular front of the head in profile (kind of like that reconstruction I posted above).

Is that the more operative view now - that the front of the skull was pretty rectangular rather than having a curve upwards behind the snout?

Or are there skulls to support both reconstructions?  I note that "Sue's" skull was badly crushed and mangled during fossilization, and when I first saw the reconstruction I wondered if they did it correctly, but I guess since no one questions the rectangular reconstruction its considered the correct view?

Sue: 

A more "curvy" Trex skull":

Some specimens do seem to have a slightly more arched snout than others, whether this is due to crushing or individual variation I'm not sure. Maybe try asking Tom Holtz? I do know that area is very rugosr, indicating lots of keratin in top of it. What that keratin boss looked like, we can't know without a really, really well preserved mummy. JP did it their own personal way but there are thousands of other ways without copying JP.

Same thing with linking the keratin covering the two bosses on either side of the eye. JP linked them together into a single allosauroid like horn, which isn't impossible, but it's a definite hint that somebody is copying JP if they give it one big eye horn instead of two smaller ones.

[Viking Spawn]

Then of course there is the freakish "Scotty T. Rex" up in Canada (SBell feel free to chime in here) that as I recall has the most powerfully built (though not the largest) skull of TRex ever found:

"Scotty" :

Scotty T-Rex?  You have my curiosity peaked!  Yes, please someone chime in on this one!   

[Dobber]

That's a Rex?? It doesn't have the distinctive "key-hole" eye socket that I thought all T-Rex's were supposed to have.

Chris

[Dilopho]

That's a Rex?? It doesn't have the distinctive "key-hole" eye socket that I thought all T-Rex's were supposed to have.

Chris

Yeah, Chris is right! Are you sure that this is really a Tyrannosaurus rex? Maybe it's a new type of Tyrannosaurus altogether!

[Tyrannosauron]

That's a Rex?? It doesn't have the distinctive "key-hole" eye socket that I thought all T-Rex's were supposed to have.

There's individual variation within every species. Two members of the species may have some traits in common that aren't shared with other members of the same species. What's important (in paleontology, at least, insofar as there is an explicit species concept in paleontology) is that all members of the same species are more similar overall to each other, regardless of how they differ in various respects, than they are to members of other species.

Perhaps more important in this case, though, is that the bottom of the postorbital--the indent in the "keyhole"--looks like it broke off. You can see the bone start to curve into the orbital fenestra before it ends very sharply. Scotty's skull is less complete than Stan's, after all.

[Simon]

Scotty T-Rex?  You have my curiosity peaked!  Yes, please someone chime in on this one!   

Here's a link:  http://battlefordsdailynews.com/replicas-of-scotty-the-t-rexs-skull-and-a-30-foot-sea-serpent-coming-to-n-b-wdm/

Apparently Scotty has the most massively built or robust (though not the largest) bones of any known TRex specimen.  Might be the oldest specimen found to date, too, estimated to have lived to age 30, 2 years longer than "Sue" ...

[Viking Spawn]

Thanks Simon.  That was a fun read.   

[Dobber]

That's a Rex?? It doesn't have the distinctive "key-hole" eye socket that I thought all T-Rex's were supposed to have.

There's individual variation within every species. Two members of the species may have some traits in common that aren't shared with other members of the same species. What's important (in paleontology, at least, insofar as there is an explicit species concept in paleontology) is that all members of the same species are more similar overall to each other, regardless of how they differ in various respects, than they are to members of other species.

Perhaps more important in this case, though, is that the bottom of the postorbital--the indent in the "keyhole"--looks like it broke off. You can see the bone start to curve into the orbital fenestra before it ends very sharply. Scotty's skull is less complete than Stan's, after all.

Very true on all counts and I'm very much aware that there are variations on all skeletons . I just thought there would be certain...."traits" that all would have in common! Like the "key-hole" shape in this case. Curious though, why they didn't complete the post orbital, like they did when filling in the rest of the missing skeleton. At any rate, it's a very cool looking Rex. 

Chris

[tanystropheus]

Taking into account individual variations (outliers and such), the REBOR King T-rex seems reasonably accurate, within standard deviation.

[Tyrannosauron]

Taking into account individual variations (outliers and such), the REBOR King T-rex seems reasonably accurate, within standard deviation.

I don't see the point in rehashing the debate over the model's purported accuracy, but it's worth noting that by this logic the average number of digits on a human hand would be more or less than five and the average number of noses on a human face would be less than one.