Wild Safari vs Carnegie Collection

[suspsy]

I've been disappointed with the Carnegie line due to their last two releases consisting of only a single figure. And like many fans, I'm tired of tripod pose after tripod pose.

I've been considering adding WS to the list of lines in my collection. I've never owned any WS before, but this year's Yutyrannus and Sauropelta look quite nice. How does WS compare to Carnegie? Do the two lines blend well together?

[DinoLord]

WS is one of my favorite lines. Their recent figures are all accurate and well-detailed (probably more detailed than Carnegie in fact). I'd say they blend in quite well with the Carnegie figures. There's the issue of scale, but even the Carnegie line has been very inconsistent with that for years.

[Takama]

To me, Wild Safari Beats out Carnegie, which i find to be a real shame, because Carnegie is what got me collecting Dinosaur models in the first place.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

When I purchased the new Nasutoceratops and sauropelta from Wild safari this year I personnaly sent Doug Watson a message thanking him for these figures. I feel they are quite capable of sitting right alongside any Battat, or Carnegie you might wish to show them with. In my own opinion, the Nasutoceratops is very nice and shows the correct feet and hands, which were done incorrectly from at least one major company this year. The pose is dynamic, and the dinosaur just has a "feel" to it that is realistic. It thoroughly shows the amount of research that went into the sculpt...which was apparently quite in depth. The sauropelta is every bit as nice, and shows some serious research as well. You can sit this dinosaur down and look at it from above...if you are familiar with the dinosaur you are aware that a large potion of the doral armor of the dinosaur was recovered. I know this mostly because Doug himself confirmed it, and it is quite obvious how much work and effort he put into getting that entire area in particular of the dinosaur precise. And I do mean precise...these are two stunning figures that are quite worth every single cent and then some . I would be hard pressed to name two more well sculpted dinosaurs in my collection, wether Battat, Carnegie or Kaiyodo. Once I had these in hand, i immediately ordered another copy of each, because they are going to Martin for a repaint and basing.....and no, not because I dislike the colors used, but because I feel these bad boys would look like high end resin models once repainted and based. I cannot speak for the entire safari line and wont try, but yeah these two dinosaurs deserve a closer look

[suspsy]

That's encouraging feedback on the Sauropelta. I've seen its fossilized armour many times at the AMNH and it's long been a favourite of mine. Never been interested in the WS Nasutoceratops. I much prefer the colour scheme of the CollectA version, and now that it's been confirmed that it isn't a resculpt of the Xenoceratops, it might even have more accurate feet than the latter. I am, however, interested in the Vagaceratops. The type specimen is at my local museum. Plus it's refreshing in a way to see a large ceratopsid that doesn't boast an incredible set of horns.

In any case, I have no ankylosaurs or ceratopsids in my Carnegie collection, so I need to boost the ranks somehow.

It's odd how Safari maintains two separate lines. Why not simply combine the two?

[Dinosaurana]

As a long time collector of Carnegies and Wild Safaris, there is little in difference between the two, especially nowadays. Both fit well with one another, and are good pieces to have. The Vagaceratops is one of the better ones IMO, with the difference bringing an air of freshness to a standard collection of the usual horned ones.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

That's encouraging feedback on the Sauropelta. I've seen its fossilized armour many times at the AMNH and it's long been a favourite of mine. Never been interested in the WS Nasutoceratops. I much prefer the colour scheme of the CollectA version, and now that it's been confirmed that it isn't a resculpt of the Xenoceratops, it might even have more accurate feet than the latter. I am, however, interested in the Vagaceratops. The type specimen is at my local museum. Plus it's refreshing in a way to see a large ceratopsid that doesn't boast an incredible set of horns.

In any case, I have no ankylosaurs or ceratopsids in my Carnegie collection, so I need to boost the ranks somehow.

It's odd how Safari maintains two separate lines. Why not simply combine the two?

They have to ditch the "Carnegie" from name if they just made their own. That's what the WS line allows them to do.

[SBell]

That's encouraging feedback on the Sauropelta. I've seen its fossilized armour many times at the AMNH and it's long been a favourite of mine. Never been interested in the WS Nasutoceratops. I much prefer the colour scheme of the CollectA version, and now that it's been confirmed that it isn't a resculpt of the Xenoceratops, it might even have more accurate feet than the latter. I am, however, interested in the Vagaceratops. The type specimen is at my local museum. Plus it's refreshing in a way to see a large ceratopsid that doesn't boast an incredible set of horns.

In any case, I have no ankylosaurs or ceratopsids in my Carnegie collection, so I need to boost the ranks somehow.

It's odd how Safari maintains two separate lines. Why not simply combine the two?

There are two lines because of a long-standing partnership between Safari Ltd and the Carnegie Museum. The museum pretty much does its own thing, from species decisions to sculpt (it's always been the same sculptor) to paint scheme, and then Safari does the manufacture and distribution. So if there is only 1 Carnegie model, that would be why (unless Safari has requested only one figure per year, to allow them to develop their own line, but I don't remember ever hearing such a thing).

The Wild Safari dinos line started out as their cheap alternative line--no particular scale, bright colours, fairly common animals. It was around the early 2000s that they started using dedicated dino sculptors and really stepped up their game. Still less concerned with scale, but the paint jobs and sculpts are probably still the overall consistently highest quality of any current line (with their odd stumble--the game-changer Dunklesoteus came out the same year as their derpy first attempt at a Suchomimus).

To compare (yes, I finally have the new one):



The new one even appears suitably embarrassed. Like, 2005 was sooo long ago.

But the Safari Dinos line gives Safari the ability to do whatever it wants, without any single  institution having a particular say. That said, they will still consult--but again, their advantage there is that they are not restricted by any place. So Adam was able to consult on their Liopleurodon; I had some input with their more recent T.rex, the plants, the Kaprosuchus and others (when I worked at a museum), and I am sure that others have also been involved--whoever is most appropriate or able to help, can. Carnegie line figures are generally restricted to Carnegie input.

Yet, interestingly, the Safari line is not referred to by them as a 'museum quality' line, although they certainly stand up to what that should mean.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

That's encouraging feedback on the Sauropelta. I've seen its fossilized armour many times at the AMNH and it's long been a favourite of mine. Never been interested in the WS Nasutoceratops. I much prefer the colour scheme of the CollectA version, and now that it's been confirmed that it isn't a resculpt of the Xenoceratops, it might even have more accurate feet than the latter. I am, however, interested in the Vagaceratops. The type specimen is at my local museum. Plus it's refreshing in a way to see a large ceratopsid that doesn't boast an incredible set of horns.

In any case, I have no ankylosaurs or ceratopsids in my Carnegie collection, so I need to boost the ranks somehow.

It's odd how Safari maintains two separate lines. Why not simply combine the two?

Regarding your comments a few things...I will let the obvious error pass and move forward, to a few other things.
The rostrals, feet and hands on the Collecta ceratopsians are all incorrect....all of them. None of them are sculpted correctly. (medusaceratops, xenoceratops, and Nasutoceratops) There are other rather minor anatomical issues with them as well, for instance it is generally known the Ischium for Centrosaurines differs markedly from the same in Chasmosaurines. This gives the overall asethetic a different appearance as well, another problematic issue with the models. And aside from this, The rather silly addition of quills to these models....which I believe only Bob Bakker himself accepts now.
  Moving past this, if you have viewed the holotype of the Vagaceratops mount, thank Doug Watson. He helped with the restoration of the holotype skull himself . So yes I would think his model will be accurate and well done for this ceratopsian as well. I will leave it to him if he chimes in and shows the article etc, but yes, its a nice model and there is a good reason why.
  As for the two lines, they used to have even more...if you think back a ways.

[suspsy]

That's encouraging feedback on the Sauropelta. I've seen its fossilized armour many times at the AMNH and it's long been a favourite of mine. Never been interested in the WS Nasutoceratops. I much prefer the colour scheme of the CollectA version, and now that it's been confirmed that it isn't a resculpt of the Xenoceratops, it might even have more accurate feet than the latter. I am, however, interested in the Vagaceratops. The type specimen is at my local museum. Plus it's refreshing in a way to see a large ceratopsid that doesn't boast an incredible set of horns.

In any case, I have no ankylosaurs or ceratopsids in my Carnegie collection, so I need to boost the ranks somehow.

It's odd how Safari maintains two separate lines. Why not simply combine the two?

Regarding your comments a few things...I will let the obvious error pass and move forward

Obvious error?

I'm well aware of all those CollectA ceratopsid issues; I simply don't consider them glaring enough to hurt my enjoyment of such vibrant, imaginative, and beautiful figures. It's the same reason why I continue to collect Papo merchandise despite the fact that they have even greater inaccuracies.

And aside from this, The rather silly addition of quills to these models....which I believe only Bob Bakker himself accepts now.

Actually, I rather like the quills. So do a number of prominent paleontologists and paleoartists like Darren Naish, Mark Witton, Julius Csotonyi and John Conway. And it's not like there's any solid evidence to disprove quills. But let's get back to WS and Carnegie.

Moving past this, if you have viewed the holotype of the Vagaceratops mount, thank Doug Watson. He helped with the restoration of the holotype skull himself . So yes I would think his model will be accurate and well done for this ceratopsian as well. I will leave it to him if he chimes in and shows the article etc, but yes, its a nice model and there is a good reason why.
  As for the two lines, they used to have even more...if you think back a ways.

I appreciate the feedback on the Vagaceratops, thanks. And I grew up with Carnegie, so I miss the good old days when it seemed like there were tons of awesome figures instead of just one or two per year.

[stargatedalek]

Its not that I don't want this to die, but we do have solid evidence that ceratopsians did not have quills along their backs like that. It is possible that that they had long spines extending from the scales (which is what you are seeing with some of those reconstructions you site as quill support) but not quills in the way psittacosaurus had them and not in a row along the spine.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Right stargate but even more so...we have no reasonable evidence to suggest quills for ceratopsians anymore than we do wings or webbed feet.  The main two lines of reasoning for adding quills were based on the psittacosaurus found with them, and the triceratops Lane, which had large scales with a raised center that Bob Bakker suggested might have had quills.
    Taking them one by one,,the problem with psittacosaurus is quite simple. Psittacosaurus had already evolved itself to four digits per hand and foot, as well as having evolved out the extra fenestrae in the skull between the eye and nasal. Both are primitive conditions found in more derived ceratopsians which leads to one of two conclusions..either psittacosaurus evolved them gone, then did a U-turn and re-evolved them to become more derived, or, far more likely psittacosaurus was an evoutionary dead end. And with it, it likely took its quills !!!

  As for the triceratops lane lunacy....the main reason it does not work is quite basic. Anyone with a simple understanding or idea of what the psittacosaurus specimen looked like, are aware that the quills for it , were inbedded in the skin to the depth of the vert processes. They were not quills poking out the center of a raised area of a scale, as it is being suggested here. So either school of thought fails and makes the quills both unlikely and easily disproven. (and if you do not understand the differences between the Lane scales and the psittacosaurus specimen feel free to reference my psittacosaurus thread where I show the pictures of the specimen so you can see the attachments for the quills below the skin, alongside the verts.)
  None of this science is new or particularly cutting edge, but the awesome bro school of dinosaur design apparently keeps it churning along...science or no science. Gotta love collecta....lol

[stargatedalek]

Thin spines could end up resembling spaced out quills, but that's the closest as is reasonably plausible.

On topic, I think for a few years now Wild Safari has been on par with Carnegie, and the past two years they have even surpassed them.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I would put Doug Waton's sauropelta and Nasutoceratops up beside any sculpture in the Carnegie or Battat set and dare you to say it does not fit right in for accuracy, quality and all around just wow factor...I feel Safari, under Dougs efforts has arrived and is a serious contender. I am just really sold on these two pieces. K I'm done, sorry

[suspsy]

Thank you for all that quill information, amargasaurus, but it's quite unnecessary. I enjoy the aesthetic regardless of its likelihood. Dinosaur figures are as much about art and creativity as they are about science and small inaccuracies or speculative touches generally don't ruin a figure for me. And I really don't care to hear you start up with the CollectA bashing again. Moving on.

It'd be great to see WS commission Doug to tackle a new T. Rex or Triceratops, although those two have admittedly been done to death already. A close relative like Zhuchengtyrannus or Titanoceratops would be just as awesome and more original.

Have to say too, everytime I look at the Carnegie Velociraptor, the less I want it for some reason.  Mostly because of the tripod stance, but also because the forelimbs don't look great. Anyone else feel this way?

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

If you put it next to the old Velociraptor by Carnegie it sort of mirror images it. Makes a neat comparison piece.

[tanystropheus]

Wild Safari surpassed Carnegie a few years ago. The Carnegie Tylosaurus was largely responsible for inspiring me to collect Papos, WS, Carnegies and Schleichs. I later began collecting CollectAs as well.  This was after a two decade hiatus from dinosaur collecting. I previously had Tycos.

However, for the most part, I actually prefer WS over Carnegies.

[tanystropheus]

Certain WS models seem to exhibit that "Carnegie" feel. The Gryposaurus is one of them.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I will determine what I feel is necessary for my posts, Suspy thanks. I Chose to give the quill information to underline the efforts that Safari makes in researching their figures and why quills on anything other than basal members of the family are a bad idea. It is your own choice to defend a company that insists on using them for every ceratopsian figure despite the science. Bashing is when you make inaccurate or unfounded statements...I provided all of the evidence nessary in the this case, so not bashing. Merely stating that Safari ceratopsians are superior and the reasoning behind why . Thats all it is.If you dont wish to hear me saying things, ignore my posts. Thanks.
  And yes moving on, I am always happy to see what Doug sculpts each year. I am earnestly hoping he is given the chance to cut loose on something like protoceratops, aquilops, or perhaps even a really updated psittacosaurus. I even volunteered to provide the reference pictures !!!!
  Regarding the Carnegie Velociraptor, I felt it was a decent sculpt for the price, I felt it was mediocre. I liked the paint app for this one, but was a bit surprised it was still presented resting on its tail. My conversations with Forest led me to believe the issue would be resolved this year. I cannot speak to the fine details of this sculpt, I am clueless when it comes to theropods and I admit it. To me it looks fine, but someone like Gwangi or Patrx would be better able to say I think  I would offer that it seems unfair to judge the figures by pictures when that practice has been so frowned upon lately however.
 

[stargatedalek]

This years Carnegie velociraptor is missing a large portion of the wing, but aside from that its a nice sculpt with an interesting colour scheme.