Safari: New for 2017

[Dobber]

I agree, take a close look at the Nasutoceratops, Sauropelta, and Carcharadontosaurus, too. The paint applications don't show it well, but the details on those figures are really, really nice. Another thing that obscures this a bit is the blunting that's done to the claws and teeth. CollectA doesn't seem to do that as much.

That's a very good point. Paint application does make quite the difference. Maybe the rex is just well painted and not larger afterall.

Regardless of size, I'm still getting it! 

Ditto

Chris

[Sim]

I'm not so sure there are going to be any more new dinosaurs or prehistoric animals than what we've already seen.I remember Doug Watson indicated that he sculpted fewer models for 2017 than he did for this year somewhere on this forum a while back.

I honestly don't remember saying anything like that since I am also not supposed to talk about how many pieces I am doing for each year. I can say of the three prehistoric pieces in this image I only did two of them.
I do find all the rampant speculation entertaining.

It makes sense you only did two of them, since one of them is a repainted Carnegie Tylosaurus, so that would be by Forest Rogers.  Just joking

My guess is the ones you did are the Tyrannosaurus (that's the genus I think it is) and the mosasaur.  The main reasons for this are:  The tyrannosauroid reminds me of your style with the scales on its face/neck, and of your Gastornis with the neck feathers.  The mosasaur's colour scheme reminds me of that of your Plesiosuchus.  I'm guessing the mosasaur is either Mosasaurus or Tylosaurus.


From the photo that was originally posted in this thread, it looked to me like the mosasaur might not have a forked tongue.  But, on the Safari Facebook page, if one views the image at its largest size, the mosasaur appears to have a forked tongue!  It looks like it's definitely not a repaint of the Carnegie Tylosaurus!  This makes me more optimistic the figure will have a tail fluke.

Here's the larger image:

[Nanuqsaurus]

We know that mosasaurs were likely counter-shaded, much like modern sharks and some other marine creatures. It kinda bothers me that for some reason, Safari decided to make it yellow with tiger stripes. Other than that, it looks like a good figure!

[Patrx]

I can say of the three prehistoric pieces in this image I only did two of them.

Hmm! Which two, I wonder? I might guess the Tyrannosaurus and the mosasaur.

[suspsy]

We know that mosasaurs were likely counter-shaded, much like modern sharks and some other marine creatures. It kinda bothers me that for some reason, Safari decided to make it yellow with tiger stripes. Other than that, it looks like a good figure!

Yes, a colour scheme like that certainly is striking, and adds a touch of variety, but it's not in keeping with what we know about these large marine predators. Blue, grey, or dark green would have worked better than yellow.

But of course, I'll still buy it!

[Halichoeres]

We know that mosasaurs were likely counter-shaded, much like modern sharks and some other marine creatures. It kinda bothers me that for some reason, Safari decided to make it yellow with tiger stripes. Other than that, it looks like a good figure!

That's almost certainly true for the largest genera, the big oceangoing apex predators. But maybe a smaller animal in a shallower, more sunlit, and hence more heavily vegetated environment could have been quite boldly patterned. Cretaceous Earth was home to large inland seas, an environment that we've mostly lost. Combine the coloring of the first shark below with the patterning of the second and it's not out of the question in a world where just about everything was bigger than it is now.

[Nanuqsaurus]

We know that mosasaurs were likely counter-shaded, much like modern sharks and some other marine creatures. It kinda bothers me that for some reason, Safari decided to make it yellow with tiger stripes. Other than that, it looks like a good figure!

That's almost certainly true for the largest genera, the big oceangoing apex predators. But maybe a smaller animal in a shallower, more sunlit, and hence more heavily vegetated environment could have been quite boldly patterned. Cretaceous Earth was home to large inland seas, an environment that we've mostly lost. Combine the coloring of the first shark below with the patterning of the second and it's not out of the question in a world where just about everything was bigger than it is now.

(images)

Hmmm yeah, I can see how that would work. It might be a fitting camouflage for smaller mosasaurs, but I'm not sure it would be so suitable for larger ones. But we don't know what genus or species the new Safari mosasaur is yet, guess we'll have to wait!

[suspsy]

Ah, but both of those sharks you showed us are placid, slow-moving beasts that dwell around reefs for the most part. Sand tiger sharks feed on fish and rays that they catch by ambush and Port Jackson sharks feed mainly on shellfish. A great white shark, a killer whale, a pseudorca, or a sperm whale are more akin to Cretaceous giants like Tylosaurus and Mosasaurus. But if this new WS figure represents a smaller species like Kourisodon, then I agree, that colour scheme is more plausible.

[Dilopho]

Looks like Safari have got some cool new creatures lined up! Check out that Tyrannosaurus. And a new mosasaur?

I'm really digging the scars on the rex but what are they from? They look like Tyrannosaurus claw marks but smaller.

Anyway, the T. rex is a bit too "Woah, EXTREME SCARY DINOSAUR! RooAAr!!!" for my tastes but the sculpting is really, really impressive!

...and..._{I totally want that squid...}

[suspsy]

Those scars could be toothmarks that have raked across the skin.

[Dilopho]

Those scars could be toothmarks that have raked across the skin.

Oh, yeah! That could be right! Tyrannnosaurus would have been territorial.
Maybe it was Firestreak   

[Derek.McManus]

When you enlarge the Tyrannosaurus head the pupil in its eye is looking up in the air giving it to my mind a very happy / pleased with itself expression!

[Dilopho]

When you enlarge the Tyrannosaurus head the pupil in its eye is looking up in the air giving it to my mind a very happy / pleased with itself expression!

If this is a standard size model, not a deluxe, you could put it under the Papo and/or Collecta rexes and make it like "Hey mommy!" 

[tanystropheus]

I'm not so sure there are going to be any more new dinosaurs or prehistoric animals than what we've already seen.I remember Doug Watson indicated that he sculpted fewer models for 2017 than he did for this year somewhere on this forum a while back.

I honestly don't remember saying anything like that since I am also not supposed to talk about how many pieces I am doing for each year. I can say of the three prehistoric pieces in this image I only did two of them.
I do find all the rampant speculation entertaining.

It makes sense you only did two of them, since one of them is a repainted Carnegie Tylosaurus, so that would be by Forest Rogers.  Just joking

I don't think the "Tylosaurus" is  a repaint as it seems to sport a larger angle of the jaw than the original.

[Halichoeres]

I honestly don't remember saying anything like that since I am also not supposed to talk about how many pieces I am doing for each year. I can say of the three prehistoric pieces in this image I only did two of them.
I do find all the rampant speculation entertaining.

Well that's very interesting indeed. My guess is the rex is the odd one out (if you'll forgive continued speculation).

And more wishful thinking than speculation, but maybe the pterosaur is so tiny because it's part of a Toob...

[Derek.McManus]

   Maybe the pterosaur is small because it is far away! ( sorry for stealing the Father Ted joke but I couldn't resist)

[Halichoeres]

  Maybe the pterosaur is small because it is far away! ( sorry for stealing the Father Ted joke but I couldn't resist)

Ha ha, I'm sure you're right. Wings and neck oustretched like that, it might be an awkward fit for a toob anyway

[Dinoguy2]

Ah, but both of those sharks you showed us are placid, slow-moving beasts that dwell around reefs for the most part. Sand tiger sharks feed on fish and rays that they catch by ambush and Port Jackson sharks feed mainly on shellfish. A great white shark, a killer whale, a pseudorca, or a sperm whale are more akin to Cretaceous giants like Tylosaurus and Mosasaurus. But if this new WS figure represents a smaller species like Kourisodon, then I agree, that colour scheme is more plausible.

Also, both are most definitely counter shaded and the stripes aren't tiger-like, they're wavy and multi toned to mimic the rippling effect of shallow water lighting.

[crankydinosaur]

There is more than just what's in that image right? 'Cause unless there's something Paleozoic or Cenozoic coming... meh

[suspsy]

Good points, Dinoguy2.

I have to say, if it turns out that the remaining 2017 WS figures are new versions of Stegosaurus and Triceratops, I'll be over the hill with joy. Yes, those two are everywhere, but the old ones are really showing their age. Combined with the feathered T. rex and the still-good 2010 Apatosaurus, they would be the ideal version of the Classic Big Four we grew up with.