Wild Safari vs Carnegie Collection

[suspsy]

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.

Except there is no formal science concluding that quills on ceratopsians are an impossibility. There still hasn't been an actual paleontological paper released on the Triceratops hide in question. In the mean time, the quill issue remains up in the air. Some experts, like James Kirkland, are not keen on it. Others such as Brian Switek, Darren Naish, and Mark Witton have gone on record as saying that it's possible and not unreasonable to surmise that all ceratopsians possessed some kind of quills or filaments. And if prominent paleoartists like Luis V. Rey and Julius Csotonyi can get away with depicting them as such, there's no reason a toy company can't as well.

Bashing is when you make inaccurate or unfounded statements...I provided all of the evidence nessary in the this case, so not bashing.

Bashing also refers to taking unnecessary jabs at a person or persons, and saying something like, "the awesome bro school of dinosaur design apparently keeps churning it along, science or no science, gotta love collecta lol" simply isn't constructive.

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.

Has anyone asked Safari about the tripod issue and if they're working on how to avoid it? Maybe they could try making some of their bipedal dinosaurs on stands. They did that for some of their figures back in the old days.

I would offer that it seems unfair to judge the figures by pictures when that practice has been so frowned upon lately however. 

Nah. Insisting that a figure has been recycled from a pre-existing one is not the wisest move if you're only going on photos. Saying you don't care for a figure's overall appearance, however, is generally acceptable. And besides, the Velociraptor is out now and has been reviewed by fans:

http://youtu.be/36zYncmg2uI

[stargatedalek]

The exact details of the triceratops hide are irrelevant,  we know enough just from psittacosaurus to know with absolute certainty that later ceratopsians did not have the same quill structures as psittacosaurus. Perhaps in some capacity soft integument of some form could be plausible,  but quills like psittacosaurus are an anatomical impossibility,  since they conflict with known integument, the larte scales ceratopsians had covering their backs abd flanks.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

The science has proven quite clearly that more derived ceratopsians did not have quills and could not have , at least not mid spine, in a brush like psittacosaurus. Stargate is quite correct in this....a paper is not needed, but if you do require one to close that issue, simply find the paper given about the psittacosaurus with its integument. It is simple common sense and science.........however if you need it, I would be glad to share the paper regarding the specimen . I believe you are likely referencing either more basal ceratopsians in these artists works or pieces that are dated somewhat...I dont know of anyone that seriously considers this a possibility or even likely anymore.Now and then I see the occassional piece showing a feathered ceratopsian, however it is stated and made clear it is a highly speculative piece. I seldom see anything modern or current demonstrating quills in a more derived ceratopsian and for obvious reasons of course.
     Regarding the final matter, I am unsure why it would be keen to appraise a figure you admit you do not have, based on pictures, and yet criticize others for ....appraising figures from pictures right? cmon........


Here is the citation for the paper regarding the psittacosaurus specimen, it will show quite clearly why these bristles being modeled are incorrect and not possible.

Gerald Mayr · D. Stefan Peters · Gerhard Plodowski
Olaf Vogel
Bristle-like integumentary structures at the tail
of the horned dinosaur Psittacosaurus
Received: 20 December 2001 / Accepted: 26 May 2002 / Published online: 17 July 2002

[Meso-Cenozoic]

Going back to the topic of this thread, I think you'd be very happy with most any WS figure from the past several years, except for maybe their Megalodon. Hehe! And I agree that the Nasutoceratops and the Sauropelta are especially exceptional. I would go as far as to compare their detailing to Papo's! I said this before in the Acquisitions thread, but it's worth repeating here. Pics of the Sauropelta seriously do not do it justice. I couldn't believe how blown away I was with this little ankylosaur when I finally got him myself! And if it's just the color scheme of the WS's Nasutoceratops you don't like as well as CollectA's, simply have it repainted. This way you'll also have the exact warpaint of your choice.   It truly is a much better figure, and not just in its accuracy. The skin details and textures are also amazing in person. He's very realistic looking!

[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?

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.

Cool, thanks for the info. So is that the reason why the Carnegie line has been so minuscule the past couple of years?

[suspsy]

I believe you are likely referencing either more basal ceratopsians in these artists works or pieces that are dated somewhat...I dont know of anyone that seriously considers this a possibility or even likely anymore.

Nope, neither basal nor outdated. The examples of paleontologists and paleoartists I cited are all recent ones from the last few years. Luis Rey did this piece in 2013.

https://luisvrey.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/rextri-b1.jpg

And then there's the Triceratops John Conway did for All Yesterdays:

http://johnconway.co/ay_triceratops

Both works are purely speculative and the artists make no claim to the contrary. It's just them being creative and having fun. And also pointing out that paleontology remains a very speculative field. Which is why I'm cool with a toy company doing the same. Quills on ceratopsids is unproven, yes, but it's not actually harming anybody.

Regarding the final matter, I am unsure why it would be keen to appraise a figure you admit you do not have, based on pictures, and yet criticize others for ....appraising figures from pictures right? cmon........

I already explained the obvious difference between the two situations. Go back and reread it if you're unsure. Or watch the YouTube link I shared.

Anyway, I am curious now to read this psittacosaur information. Thank you for sharing it.

[Arul]

I love wild safari figures my vote for them, but i love carnegie tylosaurus most

[suspsy]

The Tylosaurus is absolutely fantastic and one of my favourites, even without a tail fluke. Can't fault Carnegie for that given that it was discovered years after the toy's release.

Which brings to mind another wish of mine: an Elasmosaurus figure that doesn't have a bendy broken neck.

[Concavenator]

One of the things that makes quilled ceratopsians possible is that not all ceratopsians used their horns for defense.For that matter,you would have a completely vulnerable Diabloceratops or Kosmoceratops.I think quills helped them to be safer,and I wouldn't be surprised if there were ceratopsians that were as much spiky as a porcupine.That's one of the things that make me like CollectA's ceratopsians.

[tyrantqueen]

One of the things that makes quilled ceratopsians possible is that not all ceratopsians used their horns for defense.For that matter,you would have a completely vulnerable Diabloceratops or Kosmoceratops.I think quills helped them to be safer,and I wouldn't be surprised if there were ceratopsians that were as much spiky as a porcupine.That's one of the things that make me like CollectA's ceratopsians.

Meh, they have beaks and their enormous bulk. Not everyone agrees that horned ceratopsians such as Triceratops even used their horns for defense against predators. They might have been for display and fighting off rival males only.

Hippos don't have much natural armour but they can be some of the most dangerous African mammals. I'm thinking ceratopsians were very aggressive and territorial also.

[Concavenator]

One of the things that makes quilled ceratopsians possible is that not all ceratopsians used their horns for defense.For that matter,you would have a completely vulnerable Diabloceratops or Kosmoceratops.I think quills helped them to be safer,and I wouldn't be surprised if there were ceratopsians that were as much spiky as a porcupine.That's one of the things that make me like CollectA's ceratopsians.

Meh, they have beaks and their enormous bulk. Not everyone agrees that horned ceratopsians such as Triceratops even used their horns for defense against predators. They might have been for display and fighting off rival males only.

Hippos don't have much natural armour but they can be some of the most dangerous African mammals. I'm thinking ceratopsians were very aggressive and territorial also.

Hippos have huge teeths.And I'm not sure if they were that agressive.I think they resemble today's cows.

[tanystropheus]

One of the things that makes quilled ceratopsians possible is that not all ceratopsians used their horns for defense.For that matter,you would have a completely vulnerable Diabloceratops or Kosmoceratops.I think quills helped them to be safer,and I wouldn't be surprised if there were ceratopsians that were as much spiky as a porcupine.That's one of the things that make me like CollectA's ceratopsians.

I'm thinking ceratopsians were very aggressive and territorial also.

Kind of like rabbits that are not neutered or spayed?

[tyrantqueen]

One of the things that makes quilled ceratopsians possible is that not all ceratopsians used their horns for defense.For that matter,you would have a completely vulnerable Diabloceratops or Kosmoceratops.I think quills helped them to be safer,and I wouldn't be surprised if there were ceratopsians that were as much spiky as a porcupine.That's one of the things that make me like CollectA's ceratopsians.

Meh, they have beaks and their enormous bulk. Not everyone agrees that horned ceratopsians such as Triceratops even used their horns for defense against predators. They might have been for display and fighting off rival males only.

Hippos don't have much natural armour but they can be some of the most dangerous African mammals. I'm thinking ceratopsians were very aggressive and territorial also.

Hippos have huge teeths.And I'm not sure if they were that agressive.I think they resemble today's cows.

Macaws have been known to bite hard enough to sever fingers. Imagine a beak like that on a multi tonne ceratopsian.

And cows are domesticated, whereas ceratopsians were wild animals and behave as such. And are you forgetting bulls?

[SBell]

The Tylosaurus is absolutely fantastic and one of my favourites, even without a tail fluke. Can't fault Carnegie for that given that it was discovered years after the toy's release.

Which brings to mind another wish of mine: an Elasmosaurus figure that doesn't have a bendy broken neck.

Again, you'll have to get the Safari one then!

As for your other question, the reduction in Carnegie figure releases is probably more to do with Carnegie and with production costs than anything Safari has done. Carnegie went through a phase of some very large, more expensive models (Diplodocus, Spinosaurus, Brachiosaurus) and may be trying to scale back a bit.

And Safari just keeps on pushing out (mostly) great figures. Having finally gotten the 2014 figures in, I can confirm that they are right on track. Except the Megalodon. I didn't bother. It just looks like a great white shark. Even the best companies have a miss here or there (did you see that early Suchomimus?).

[Dobber]

Never mind

[stargatedalek]

Look I'm sorry, but there is no debate here ceratopsians did not have quills along their backs, and we have more than enough solid evidence to prove that conclusively. Large (perhaps flexible) spines extending from the scales as is shown on several specimens is plausible, and may have resembled quills, but quills as in those of psittacosaurus are simply impossible, no debate to even be had.

The megalodon isn't a bad figure per-se, its just rather plain and simple in comparison to many other shark figures out there.

An elasmosaurus with a proper neck would be great! even simply straightening the neck on their current one would be an immense improvement.

[suspsy]

Look I'm sorry, but there is no debate here ceratopsians did not have quills along their backs, and we have more than enough solid evidence to prove that conclusively. Large (perhaps flexible) spines extending from the scales as is shown on several specimens is plausible, and may have resembled quills, but quills as in those of psittacosaurus are simply impossible, no debate to even be had.

It's probably best not to use the term 'quills' then to describe the speculative filaments on larger ceratopsids. Good call.

The megalodon isn't a bad figure per-se, its just rather plain and simple in comparison to many other shark figures out there.

It would have been better had it been given a different colour scheme from a modern great white shark. Brown or beige with spots or stripes.

An elasmosaurus with a proper neck would be great! even simply straightening the neck on their current one would be an immense improvement.

How old is the current one anyway?

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

The Tylosaurus is absolutely fantastic and one of my favourites, even without a tail fluke. Can't fault Carnegie for that given that it was discovered years after the toy's release.

Which brings to mind another wish of mine: an Elasmosaurus figure that doesn't have a bendy broken neck.

A neck that was too bent/broken wasn't mentioned in Adam's review of the WS Elasmosaurus: http://dinotoyblog.com/2013/06/13/elasmosaurus-wild-safari-by-safari-ltd/

Lending me to think it's a plausible pose.

[suspsy]

Oh, sweet. I didn't even know about that one. Yes, that neck is perfectly fine. I was envisioning the classic snake-like neck, all twisting and turning.

[Concavenator]

One of the things that makes quilled ceratopsians possible is that not all ceratopsians used their horns for defense.For that matter,you would have a completely vulnerable Diabloceratops or Kosmoceratops.I think quills helped them to be safer,and I wouldn't be surprised if there were ceratopsians that were as much spiky as a porcupine.That's one of the things that make me like CollectA's ceratopsians.

Meh, they have beaks and their enormous bulk. Not everyone agrees that horned ceratopsians such as Triceratops even used their horns for defense against predators. They might have been for display and fighting off rival males only.

Hippos don't have much natural armour but they can be some of the most dangerous African mammals. I'm thinking ceratopsians were very aggressive and territorial also.

Hippos have huge teeths.And I'm not sure if they were that agressive.I think they resemble today's cows.

Macaws have been known to bite hard enough to sever fingers. Imagine a beak like that on a multi tonne ceratopsian.

And cows are domesticated, whereas ceratopsians were wild animals and behave as such. And are you forgetting bulls?

Oh,good point.And well,I didn't mention bulls because those are moodier than the females-and I think ceratopsians are like cows because they were more like in the peaceful side.Guess it's all opinions in this case though.