Carnegie Collection by Safari Ltd

[tyrantqueen]

I was wondering, what are everyone's favorite Carnegie models? Mine is by far the Ichthyosaurus.

Hmmm... lessee ...

Camarasaurus
Tylosaurus
Woolly Mammoth
Kaprosuchus
Postosuchus
Miragaia
Beipiaosaurus
Brachiosaurus (New version)

The Kaprosuchus and Postosuchus are not part of the Carnegie collection. They're Wild Safari.

And speaking of questions, why shouldn't I ask about the Concavenator's quills here? Sure, I could very easily have sent Forest a message, but given that the toy has been out for a couple of years now, I reasoned it's possible someone here might already have asked her the same question and received an answer. Like you perhaps.

Wasn't it argued that the "quills" were really just muscle attachment points? I haven't looked into it but that's what I read a while back.

[Dinoguy2]

I finally saw Carnegies on the wild after an 8 year wild goose chase.

I am absolutely ecstatic. I haven't stopped jumping up and down the hotel bed.


However, I have to say that they are underwhelming. New T.rex, Brachiosaurus and Miragaia.

I still love them but... I feel like they are small and out of scale. This REALLY bothers me. IDGAF about the molds or their biomechanical inconsistencies (yes I know, I am part of the problem blah blah blah), but then again dinosaurs are... aaah who the hell knows. I wanted Miragaia to be the length of T.rex' tail. It's huge and it looks awkward. I would have wanted Brachiosaurus to be bigger.

Still very beautiful molds. Why is the T.rex glossier than the others? I like the sculpt better than the 10th anniv. one. I've hated that one for good reason since it came out.

Yeah, bit of a shame Carnegie abandoned 1:40 scale in 1998 (though they have released a couple since, it's hard to tell which is which based just on online pictures and reviews etc.). That was one of their big selling points, along with the nice quality multi-layered hand painted quality, which they got rid of in 1996. Though some of the newer ones are really great. Aside from the "classic" Carnegies like Brachiosaurus and Corythosaurus, the newer non-scale things like Ichthyosaurus, Carnotaurus, etc. are some of their best figures.

[stargatedalek]

They weren't "quills" in the sense of say Psittacosaurus or a porcupine. "Quill knobs" actually support feathers, Velociraptor (no other extinct examples come to mind) and some modern birds have them. They seem to be present when the feathers will be put under considerable strain, such as a particularly fast diving bird.

[EmperorDinobot]

The best Carnegie figure of all time IMHO is the Tylosaurus. It's not my FAVORITE, as that goes to the Dilophosaur pair.  But it is definitely the best one. I always loved their marine creatures.

[Sim]

Personally, I'm more bothered by the under-sized caudofemoralis on the Carnegie dinosaurs.  I can't unsee it!  To me it does seem the Carnegie dinosaurs tend to be a bit too skinny in some places based on ones I have and photos I've seen of others. 

Here's something that may be of interest concerning just how thick the tails should be on dinosaurs in general:this very well preserved skeleton of Psittacosaurus that just so happens to show how thick the tail really was in that species at least.Of course it's the quills that get the attention first though

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Psittacosaurus_mongoliensis_-_Naturmuseum_Senckenberg_-_DSC02251.JPG

And on the main subject,I can't wait to see more new additions to Battat's line show up like Gastonia.

Your point is spot on however the psittacosaurus, you are viewing when compared to the carnegie to my eyes seems pretty close in width.The Carnegie sports a rather pronounced  caudofemoralis   Another thing that is a tad confusing about this fossil, because of the angle it was facing when preserved, is the dark area you see above the tail is the integument from around the tail, rather than substance of the tail itself.
  I am assuming you were just using this specimen to demonstrate tail width and not suggesting the Carnegie for this model lacks in the  caudofemoralis department I love that fossil and hope it stays viewable for awhile yet at least.

Isn't that (amazing) Psittacosaurus fossil showing the tail's width between the top to bottom sides rather than between the left and right sides?  It's not tail width from top to bottom sides I think Carnegie dinosaurs are lacking in.

Due to the different tail anatomy of different dinosaurs, the tail width and caudofemoralis of different dinosaurs can also be different.  My understanding is the shape of a dinosaur's caudofemoralis is strongly affected by the shape of its tail bones, often especially the caudal ribs.  This post should give an idea of how a dinosaur caudofemoralis would probably usually be shaped around bones: http://skeletaldrawing.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/t-rex-baby-got-back.html  (Although there is strong evidence some abelisaurids, namely Aucasaurus and Carnotaurus, were exceptions to this model with their caudofemoralis attaching to the caudal ribs.) In that post, Scott Hartman points out in his Allosaurus picture the caudofemoralis is too small with a red arrow where the caudofemoralis ends.  Compare that with the alligator tail cross-section and Tyrannosaurus image on the same page.

One way to make a dinosaur caudofemoralis too small is by not making it wide enough from left to right.  Another way is as seen in that Scott Hartman Allosaurus picture - by not making the caudofemoralis extend vertically down the tail enough.  Maybe Carnegie has got dinosaur caudofemoralis muscles right sometimes.  However, I've seen the caudofemoralis stop too high up the tail many times on Carnegie dinosaurs.  The tail muscles start out being nice and beefy, but then going vertically down the tail, at about three-quarters of the way down they suddenly sink in, apparently inexplicably.  It's the same on both left and right sides of the tail and seems too extreme to be muscular contraction.  This can be seen on many Carnegie theropods for example.  From photos I've seen of it, I think this is also the case for the Carnegie Psittacosaurus.  Another Carnegie dinosaur I've noticed has an under-sized caudofemoralis is the 2012 Brachiosaurus.  I've just re-read the Dino Toy Blog review of this figure and in the comments others have also noticed its caudofemoralis is under-sized: http://dinotoyblog.com/2012/05/30/brachiosaurus-2012-carnegie-collection-by-safari-ltd/

I think Forest Rogers is a very good artist and I mostly like her sculpts for the Carnegie Collection.  Looking at the Carnegie Collection figures in the order they were made really shows how she's improved.  I imagine most of what I don't like is due to Carnegie enforcing it, like the constant rearing tripod poses, making figures in many different scales, and eventually only one figure a year.

Another thing I've disliked is inaccuracies in Carnegie figures that would have been avoided with knowledge of information that was available when the figures were made.  One example of this is the under-sized caudofemoralis, it's been disappointing to see this persist.  I don't know if Carnegie decided which paleaontologists were consulted for the different Carnegie figures or if Forest seeked them out.  I also don't know if Forest received all the information needed to avoid inaccuracies from the consulted palaeontologists.

[tyrantqueen]

Perhaps the blame lies with the museum, for not pointing out the problems with her theropod sculpts. Surely they would have known this.

[John]

I think that the fat tailed dinosaur theory is often overdone to the point of it looking like a fat sausage stuck onto the dinosaur's back like this Sideshow Tyrannosaurus model:
https://www.sideshowtoy.com/collectibles/dinosauria-t-rex-the-tyrant-king-sideshow-collectibles-200209/
I follow a more conservative view of just how fat the caudofemoralis muscle should be.
The Battat MOS and 2013 and forward Wild Safari dinosaur lines seem to have heavily muscled tails that look more natural.

[Dobber]

I think that the fat tailed dinosaur theory is often overdone to the point of it looking like a fat sausage stuck onto the dinosaur's back like this Sideshow Tyrannosaurus model:
https://www.sideshowtoy.com/collectibles/dinosauria-t-rex-the-tyrant-king-sideshow-collectibles-200209/
I follow a more conservative view of just how fat the caudofemoralis muscle should be.
The Battat MOS and 2013 and forward Wild Safari dinosaur lines seem to have heavily muscled tails that look more natural.

Really? That is one of the things I like most about that Rex sculpt. The tail looks powerful and also makes the animal look balanced. It still tapers off to at the end as it should.  To each their own I guess.

Chris

[John]

I think that the fat tailed dinosaur theory is often overdone to the point of it looking like a fat sausage stuck onto the dinosaur's back like this Sideshow Tyrannosaurus model:
https://www.sideshowtoy.com/collectibles/dinosauria-t-rex-the-tyrant-king-sideshow-collectibles-200209/
I follow a more conservative view of just how fat the caudofemoralis muscle should be.
The Battat MOS and 2013 and forward Wild Safari dinosaur lines seem to have heavily muscled tails that look more natural.

Really? That is one of the things I like most about that Rex sculpt. The tail looks powerful and also makes the animal look balanced. It still tapers off to at the end as it should.  To each their own I guess.

Chris

What is this?!?A differing viewpoint than my own on the internet?!?With a well thought out and articulated response?!?That's not right!How are we supposed to make this rival the YouTube comments section if there's civility????LOL
Seriously though,don't get me wrong I still think that T. rex is a fantastic model well worth having.
While I'm disappointed that the Carnegie line has come to an end,I really wouldn't have wanted to see it continue at the expense of the Wild Safari line which is getting better and better every year now to the point of having models that rival the best of any line out there.

[Dobber]

I think that the fat tailed dinosaur theory is often overdone to the point of it looking like a fat sausage stuck onto the dinosaur's back like this Sideshow Tyrannosaurus model:
https://www.sideshowtoy.com/collectibles/dinosauria-t-rex-the-tyrant-king-sideshow-collectibles-200209/
I follow a more conservative view of just how fat the caudofemoralis muscle should be.
The Battat MOS and 2013 and forward Wild Safari dinosaur lines seem to have heavily muscled tails that look more natural.

Really? That is one of the things I like most about that Rex sculpt. The tail looks powerful and also makes the animal look balanced. It still tapers off to at the end as it should.  To each their own I guess.

Chris

What is this?!?A differing viewpoint than my own on the internet?!?With a well thought out and articulated response?!?That's not right!How are we supposed to make this rival the YouTube comments section if there's civility????LOL
Seriously though,don't get me wrong I still think that T. rex is a fantastic model well worth having.
While I'm disappointed that the Carnegie line has come to an end,I really wouldn't have wanted to see it continue at the expense of the Wild Safari line which is getting better and better every year now to the point of having models that rival the best of any line out there.

Lol Lol! I know right??  I suppose if we want to go so low as Youtube remarks, we can resort to some form of sexist/racist/antisemetic remarks 

I agree that the Safari line seems to be getting better too. I saw a repaint of their latest Rex and it looked a lot  better with the better paint job. It is amazing how much a paint job can really make a piece shine or even bring a great sculpt down.

Chris

[JurassicGeek09]

I have a handful of Carnegie figures, both old and new. My favourite is tied between the 2008 Diplodocus and the 1988 Brachiosaurus (Giraffatitan). I'm a sucker for the large sauropod figures.

[Kovu]

In all honesty, I absolutely love Ms. Rogers' sculpts, especially her herbivores. The newer Diplodocus and Brachiosaurus are two of my favorite sauropod figures and I'm bummed that there wasn't a remake of Apatosaurus before the line discontinued. Would've been nice to have the trio.

[John]

In all honesty, I absolutely love Ms. Rogers' sculpts, especially her herbivores. The newer Diplodocus and Brachiosaurus are two of my favorite sauropod figures and I'm bummed that there wasn't a remake of Apatosaurus before the line discontinued. Would've been nice to have the trio.

Yes,a new Apatosaurus from Ms. Rogers would have been great! There are still more things I would have loved to have seen from her.Image what a Plesiosaurus or a new Pteranodon from her would have been like...

[Kovu]

Could you imagine new ornithopods from her? Like an updated parasaurolophus or maiasaura? They would've been beautiful.

[Gwangi]

Could you imagine new ornithopods from her? Like an updated parasaurolophus or maiasaura? They would've been beautiful.

There were never enough ornithopods in that line. Or ceratopsians. Or anything other than theropods really.

[suspsy]

Indeed. As I've said before, I'd gladly trade the Concavenator and the Crylophosaurus for Einiosaurus and Anchiceratops.

[Kovu]

Indeed. As I've said before, I'd gladly trade the Concavenator and the Crylophosaurus for Einiosaurus and Anchiceratops.

Dude, I would've been down for that! Except I'd also add the velociraptor (which I do like) tapping out for a hadrosaur.

[Takama]

Well I got board today so i counted the number of Animals that were made for the line.

Its a Perfect 50.

Now i counted each animal once, meaning i did not count any repaints or re-sculpts of the animals.   And i included everything from 1989-2013. Since the last two years were Re-sculpts of popular species.
I say that 50 different species makes a perfect collection. Way to go Carnegie.

[laticauda]

That is a nice number to end the line with.

[Gwangi]

While that is a great number of animals to have the Carnegie line very poorly represents some groups while over representing others. I can only think of three or four ceratopsians and four ornithopods for the line. Compare that to roughly 20 or so theropods. I didn't actually count them so don't quote that number.