Carnegie Collection by Safari Ltd

[CityRaptor]

Indeed. Carnegie has come a long way in its 25 years.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I'm almost certain the one on the lower right hand side was first. It looks just like mine and I bought it as soon as they came out.

The one with the lighter strip in the center could be an intermediary design between the first and last one above. As it looks like the marking was just phased out..going from hand painted to airbrushed, then gone.

Unless there was variety existing like this at the time of release..but I doubt it.

So the first version came out in 1999 in the collection's anniversary. The other two weren't officially announced as sculpt updates/repaints right? Then no release date is available? I'm working on a list/database for the models, organized by year of release and would like to know when they first released the airbrushed one and the newest version with no marks at all.

Also, I'd like to know if there's any differences btween the Carnegie Plateosaurus from 1995 to the one from 1996, like paint app or sculpt modifications. I know that they changed the item number.

I can't even recall Safari announcing any of the updates to the Carnegie line. Unless it's a brand piece. Like with the Para, I believe I have them all now, I've never heard them talking about re-sculpting or repainting it.

I can't really assist with the Plateosaurus as I only have one..but I do think I bought it when it first came out like I almost always do. Usually that helps insure you get the best detailed piece.

[CityRaptor]

Okay, just got added a Pteranodon to my collection. It's the old Version, the one refered to as No. 414. It was still sealed in its back.  Is it normal that it smell like some kind of pharmaceutical cream?

[indy1936]

Wikipedia has a pretty nice list of all of the various releases by year along with re-sculpts and re-paints.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_collection

[docronnie]

Thanks indy!

Finally got the partner and I was able to get three.  Two for me and one for my friend.

[therizinosaurus]

I'm almost certain the one on the lower right hand side was first. It looks just like mine and I bought it as soon as they came out.

The one with the lighter strip in the center could be an intermediary design between the first and last one above. As it looks like the marking was just phased out..going from hand painted to airbrushed, then gone.

Unless there was variety existing like this at the time of release..but I doubt it.

So the first version came out in 1999 in the collection's anniversary. The other two weren't officially announced as sculpt updates/repaints right? Then no release date is available? I'm working on a list/database for the models, organized by year of release and would like to know when they first released the airbrushed one and the newest version with no marks at all.

Also, I'd like to know if there's any differences btween the Carnegie Plateosaurus from 1995 to the one from 1996, like paint app or sculpt modifications. I know that they changed the item number.

Sorry this is so many months late, but I think I can help--the 1995 Plateo is made of gray vinyl material that has been painted over in a tan base color, then details were painted on. The 1996-onwards Plateo was sculpted in tan PVC and the details were painted directly onto it.

[Bokisaurus]

I'm almost certain the one on the lower right hand side was first. It looks just like mine and I bought it as soon as they came out.

The one with the lighter strip in the center could be an intermediary design between the first and last one above. As it looks like the marking was just phased out..going from hand painted to airbrushed, then gone.

Unless there was variety existing like this at the time of release..but I doubt it.

So the first version came out in 1999 in the collection's anniversary. The other two weren't officially announced as sculpt updates/repaints right? Then no release date is available? I'm working on a list/database for the models, organized by year of release and would like to know when they first released the airbrushed one and the newest version with no marks at all.

Also, I'd like to know if there's any differences btween the Carnegie Plateosaurus from 1995 to the one from 1996, like paint app or sculpt modifications. I know that they changed the item number.

Sorry this is so many months late, but I think I can help--the 1995 Plateo is made of gray vinyl material that has been painted over in a tan base color, then details were painted on. The 1996-onwards Plateo was sculpted in tan PVC and the details were painted directly onto it.

Hey there stranger! Glad to see you back, its' been a long time!

[Concavenator]

I love Carnegie as much as you want,but they must avoid some errors.
Their Concavenator isn't as good,as it could have been.Avoid the tripod,head looking down,AND feathers or quills on the arms.The last is quite important.If Carnegie releases dinosaur with the 'latest' scientific info,their Concavenator is NOT completely accurate.It would be 100% accurate if they put feathers or quills .The feathers/quills on Concavenator's  is characteristic on the animal.It's in part a reason of why is this dinosaur famous.The fact that the model doesn't include them is pretty strange if we consider that the Carnegie sculptor began working on it since its discovery (2010)and it was released this year.Three years have past and it doesn't include one of animal's more important characteristics.Very odd.Still a "nice" model even if it's not completely accurate,and the pose,which could have been better,and the sloppy paintjob.I read a while back from someone that their Concavenator's pose and all is similar to their Giganotosaurus because it's educational.Sorry don't agree 
The skull is quite similar to this of Giganotosaurus,but this doesn't mean it has to be almost identic.The cards that contain scientific info are for something.You can put your Concavenator in a creative pose,feathered,and with a card.Then the children will know that Giganotosaurus and Concavenator arr relatives.By the way,where are the Carnegie cards?I still don't understand why they don't appear with the Carnegie dinosaurs from 2011 until now.The card's only with dinosaur's name,but without info.They say you to go in their page and look out.I don't think when a children buys a Carnegie dino,he'll go to the Internet and look out.
Another issue.If Carnegie's the most scientifically accurate toyline,why is their Tyrannosaurus unfeathered?Don't we have evidence of feathered tyrannosaurus?  And why their Triceratops appear without quills?Why their Microraptor has the coloration it has,when we already  know its colors?Why they have one of the most scientifically inaccurate Apatosaurus precisely in your line?Aren't they supposed to be " the most scientifically accurate line out there?Then ALL their models must be accurate and that's not the case.Schleich's Apatosaurus is much more accurate,at least  their tail is off the ground.Carnegie's not.And that's not a recent idea.They can make wonders like their Spinosaurus or Diplodocus if they want.

Just my personal opinions.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I tend to agree that Carnegie makes their share of mistakes and you raise many valid concerns, but a few of the things you have stated are not accurate either. There is no direct evidence for any ceratopsian dinosaur to be given quills for instance. One specimen of psittacosaurus was found with quills out of the thousands known. This has to be one of the most common if not the single most well known dinosaur from the fossil record and yet there is evidence that only one animal had quills. Even if you accept that single piece as your evidence, there is not much likelihood that psittacosaurus was a forerunner to more derived ceratopsians. Psittacosaurus had already lost the fifth digit on its hands and feet, as well as losing the fenestrae or opening between the nasal opening and the eye orbit as well. These are known traits in more derived ceratopsians which strongly suggests that psittacosaurus itself was not the ancestral link to these dinosaurs.The only other supposed proof there might be is an "alleged" finding of a triceratops with scale impressions suggestive a raised center that were anchor points for quills. As this specimen has never been documented, and there is no paper or scientific proof of the finding it remains speculation .
In a similar fashion, there is no evidence for feathers in tyrannosaurus rex itself. The only known evidence to date is scale impressions and not feathers. While it seems likely and yes even probable at this point they were feathered, there remains no direct evidence. While other Tyrannosaurs have been found that were feathered, Carnegie has modeled the species Tyrannosaurs Rex, for which we only have scales sadly. The feather/ scales debate is likely to be won by the feathered hoardes eventually.....and daily there is more suggestive evidence with the many feathered dinosaurs from China....but the hard evidence does not exist at this point and so it remains speculative, although quite likely.
  The last point I wanted to touch on was a piece I read about the flaws found in the methods used for determining the coloration of the Microraptor. I know i read at least one piece that seemed to suggest that the pigments of coloration for the feathers had deterioted to the point of reading no coloration, or black in other words. I am not familiar enough with this debate to state for certain, but I do know some have come forward to give evidence and question the methods being used ......The last article I read stated the entire conclusion was unlikely and lacked solid evidence.
Carnegie tends to play it very safe and conservative and seldom gamble on the science....and i think these choices are quite in line with over-all approach they employ
 

[tyrantqueen]

I love Carnegie as much as you want,but they must avoid some errors.
Their Concavenator isn't as good,as it could have been.Avoid the tripod,head looking down,AND feathers or quills on the arms.The last is quite important.If Carnegie releases dinosaur with the 'latest' scientific info,their Concavenator is NOT completely accurate.It would be 100% accurate if they put feathers or quills .The feathers/quills on Concavenator's  is characteristic on the animal.

No. The supposed "quills" on Concavenator mostly likely were muscle attachment points. Maybe they were quills, but the jury is still out on that.

According to Naish:

Thirdly, animals sometimes have weird, irregularly spaced tubercles arranged in lines on various of their bones, typically located on intermuscular lines (they presumably represent partially ossified attachment sites for tendinous sheets or similar structures): I've seen them on mammal bones and on a theropod tibia (specimen MIWG.5137, illustrated in Text-Fig. 9.29 of Naish et al. (2001)). In view of the differences apparent between the structures of Concavenator and true quill knobs, and the fact that a plausible alternative explanation exists, I hope you understand my scepticism. You may well argue that interpretation of these structures as prototype versions of quill knobs is more parsimonious. Maybe it is.

As for feathers, where is the evidence for that? Concavenator wasn't found with any feather impressions. So Carnegie can get away with saying that their Concavenator isn't feathered because of that.

Also, the tripod thing is a done for a reason- so that the figure stands by itself. The same way that Safari uses oversized feet for the figures, Carnegie are doing the same here. I prefer the Carnegie approach, to be honest.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the Carnegie Concavenator either.

Another issue.If Carnegie's the most scientifically accurate toyline,why is their Tyrannosaurus unfeathered?Don't we have evidence of feathered tyrannosaurus?

No direct evidence, no. We only have the evidence in the form of Yutyrannus (which is enough for some people). No Tyrannosaurus has been found with feather impressions, as of yet. It has been found with scale impressions, though.

Why they have one of the most scientifically inaccurate Apatosaurus precisely in your line?Aren't they supposed to be " the most scientifically accurate line out there?Then ALL their models must be accurate and that's not the case.Schleich's Apatosaurus is much more accurate,at least  their tail is off the ground.Carnegie's not.And that's not a recent idea.They can make wonders like their Spinosaurus or Diplodocus if they want.

Just my personal opinions.

That's not really fair. The Apatosaurus you're referring to was made in the '80s! Of course it's going to be outdated compared to anything made today. I would point out that for its time, it is pretty good. Also, its tail is not dragging on the ground, if you look at the model carefully.

Schleich made their Apatosaurus in the noughties and they made no effort to make it scientifically accurate. The feet and the head are wrong. I agree that Carnegie need to update many of their sculpts if they want to claim that their toys are scientifically accurate. An updated Apato would be awesome.

Also, the Microraptor you mentioned was created before we knew what Micro's real colours were, so again, that is not really fair.

[Concavenator]

I love exotic dinosaurs,and produced by a good company like Carnegie,but sometimes resculpts are needed.The Microraptor's issue is easily fixable.They can use the same sculpt and just change the coloration of the model.Carnegie repainted lots of models,and I personally don't think it's diffcult to repaint it.They have the sculpt and animal's real colors.
And I don't care for if we don't see more exotic dinosaurs from Carnegie so regularly.It would just be better if they start updating the very inaccurate ones from their actual range:Apatosaurus,Acrocanthosaurus,Velociraptor,Stegosaurus,Baryonyx...etc.Even if somes are accurate (Allosaurus,Albertosaurus,Maiasaura...)they could do a much better job with those models.When done,I think it'd be good to produce more exotic dinosaurs,but still resculpting some of their models that actually aren't in their range (Deltadromeus,Deinonychus,Pachycephalosaurus...etc).They have some very accurate models like the Spinosaurus,but that doesn't mean  they are 'the most' accurate toyline-They have to show that they really are the most scientifically accurate toyline right now.That's achieved when all the models in their range are very accurate.I wouldn't mind to see some years of resculpting myself.
Just my thoughts.

[Ikessauro]

I was taking a few pictures of my Carnegie dinos and notice a variation of texture on two Triceratops models from 1989. I know Carnegie has lots of variants in matter of paint application, but have never heard that the molds were improved before 1996. And in 1996, when the models were retooled the Triceratops got a new paint application. So, does this mean Carnegie/Safari were retooling models before 1996 without officially stating that to the consumers? If so, what other models were modified too?

[amargasaurus cazaui]

According to wiki.........


Prior to 1996, each model was cast from a grey material and covered in a coat of paint corresponding to the base color of the finished model. The details of the model were then painted onto this layer of paint, resulting in a loss of the finer sculpting detail due to the thickness of the paint on each finished model. Beginning in 1996, each model was cast from a pigmented material corresponding to the base color of the finished model. The details of the model were then painted directly onto this material, resulting in greater detail and a less shiny appearance.

To coincide with this change in production, eight models were retired between 1996 and 1997, and the sculpts of the remaining eighteen models were updated. Despite the modifications, the eighteen remaining models retained the same model numbers as their predecessors. This became the cause of some confusion as a single model number was used to refer to two versions of the same model, which was particularly noticeable with the new color schemes for Stegosaurus, Triceratops, and
             


So following that logic they are stating that all the models of triceratops using that color pattern were stamped the same, and even the new paint application models were as well. This means that into 1996/1997 they were still stamped the same way, even after the paint and model changed. At least that is how i read it....not sure if that helps or not.

[Ikessauro]

According to wiki.........
Prior...

So following that logic they are stating that all the models of triceratops using that color pattern were stamped the same, and even the new paint application models were as well. This means that into 1996/1997 they were still stamped the same way, even after the paint and model changed. At least that is how i read it....not sure if that helps or not.

Thanks, but I'm not sure that explains it. As far as I know, when the new color scheme (blue) came out in 1996/1997 the old gray Triceratops was one of the eight models retired. So, it could not have been produced after 1996. And if you look carefully on my photos, you'll see that the differences are not different due to thickness of the paint coat. They are actually sculpted differently. The horns are sharper and more curved upwards, the legs seem less thick too. The scales on the back and sides of the model, as well on the head are really different, not "faded" from mold deterioration. You can see also much more wrinkles on the underside of the figure. I would guess that the "more detailed" one came out later, and it is actually shinier than the older model.

What I was trying to understand is when the older models were retooled pre-1996 and kept the same paint job. The number on the stamp and year marked on the model cause confusion as you said, so does not help much. It seems like the same has happened to Collect A models, I.e. Brachiosaurus (standard size).  They redone the model texture and the pose and paint was still the same.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I am not so sure I agree. They stated the reason for redoing the models was to actually produce them from a different substance, that was already colored and then paint detail onto that surface. Before the models were stamped out, and then entirely repainted. Many of the details and features you are referring to, could easily have been there under a deep coat of paint.If you look at the less detailed model it could easily have all the features the other does, but smothered under layers of paint. I do see the frill edges as being far more pronounced with the one model in your pictures however, which does cause me to wonder if it was poorly struck, or could have worn down from play somewhat. That is essentially the only place I see in your pictures where a heavy layer of paint and a perhaps newer more detail friendly material might not account for the difference. The brow horns themselves could easily have been pushed, pulled, heated or altered a dozen ways.,
  I think you are preciesely correct, the more detailed version came out later, because it lacked the heavy painting process and original method of being made the less detailed did. Hence it shows more details, thinner legs and so forth. Not nearly as many paint layers.

Easy enough to explain if the modified versions were released towards the end of time span mentioned....1996/1997. They retired eight models and revamped eighteen over the two years. So if they came out with the new process, made the Triceratops as they had before, into 1997 before moving to a newer mold, and different colors, you would easily have a workable timeline.

[Tyto_Theropod]

I just got some new Carnegies - W00T! I'm really pleased with them, and would highly recommend all these models for their detail, accuracy, interest and sheer beauty. They're the predators of Gondwanaland <3

Spinosaurus:



Giganotosaurus:



Carnotaurus:


I also have my Albertosaurus which I got in 2010 when to go with my Albertosaurus fossil


I need to get more Carnegies Why have Papo when you can have these beauties?

[EmperorDinobot]

Here's proof of the whole grey plastic and variations by age.




Lighter colors, kinda... idk. I can tell these are made with the dull grey plastic because the crouching dillow has flesh wounds. They came out in '94 according to my old booklet.

I got these circa 1998 and I have treated them with utmost respect. However, the standing one has a flesh wound on the opposing side where you can see that it's made of a brownish plastic.

These are likely more recent, as the colors are darker, less shiny.
The middle and last one seem to have a sort of "fixed" sculpt, the ones from the first picture look rather...well...sloppy and vintage-y. For example, the lower jaw on the crouching one seems to be shorter, and sort of cut off, despite not being cut off. Either way all three of them are quite unique to the era which they belong to.


The ones in the top are on sale, as well as the ones on the bottom. The middle ones are from my personal collection.

[Arul]

My Carnegie Collection is kinda spread out ..lol :

That costumed spinosaurus look like pewter ball python morph awesome hahaha

[Arul]

Guys if the options is half accurate, accurate, very accurate for tylosaurus figure, what is it belong to ? Thank you

[Invicta Hunter]

Just got this from Japan the other day, has anyone seen this colour before?