Safari Ltd.: New for 2018

[Bokisaurus]

Photo taken from my review soon to be seen on the blog (if not anyone was faster than me on that ). That white spot is no reflection, but actually painted. The eye on the other side missed that spot though. Can't show anymore, as I already repainted the whole thing.

Still waiting on mine, but is it just me, or the paint application looks really bad, especially on the white parts?

[ceratopsian]

I received my Malawisaurus yesterday and love the model.  I'd say that it's carefully painted.  Yes, the white is quite thin on the head and you can see brown through it in places.  But I actually think this works well as it makes the scheme seem less mechanical and not too clear cut.

[Neosodon]

I'm glad the Malawi is in stock but what's the deal with the Dimetrodon? I didn't even see on safari's website last I checked.

[japfeif]

I received my Malawisaurus yesterday and love the model.  I'd say that it's carefully painted.  Yes, the white is quite thin on the head and you can see brown through it in places.  But I actually think this works well as it makes the scheme seem less mechanical and not too clear cut.

Agree to all. Received my Mala the day before Xmas....love the paint job. I am seriously not a fan of bright gaudy colors that are totally clean cut from one hue to the next and very thickly applied. I work in a zoo reptile department and honestly most (but definitely not all) snakes & lizards have a variety of coloration but are generally not super bright in any, but more subdued, and where one color end it often "fades" into the next (there are certainly exception of course). I guess that is where Papo definitely excels, in their striking but subtly paint jobs. Safari is definitely getting better about it but so many of CollectA's dinos are really brightly colored & (as has been said before) looks almost like war paint in some cases.
I guess sometimes I just feel that "less is more"

[Bokisaurus]

Well, here they are, the latest ones from Safari.

Malawisaurus is so small I like it, just not a fan with this white face outlining that Safari seems to like giving their new Sauropods. This is definitely for me a case of "War paint" more than the "tribal looks" of CollectA. Oh and his tummy is so round, looks like he ate an egg! LOL!

I really love the Macrauchenia! Very graceful looking. My only complaint is that the white on it's chest is so sloppily painted and natural looking.
Hyaenodon is okay, it just reminds me so much of their Andrewsarchus, and the color is not very original, its the same with almost all of the figures out there.
Oh, and not a big fan of this "black stocking" on both of these figures. It makes it looks like the animal just stepped on tar or has severely burnt legs! The black should have been lighter in tone and not this extreme .
If you can't to see more photos, check out the comparison thread.
Cheers

[tanystropheus]

Well, here they are, the latest ones from Safari.

Hyaenodon is okay, it just reminds me so much of their Andrewsarchus, and the color is not very original, its the same with almost all of the figures out there.

The colors are reminiscent of the Thylacine. While the colors may not seem very original, the coat is believable for a  large terrestrial, carnivorous mammal.

Nice pictures and haul, btw.

[alexeratops]

Would the round belly be accurate, similar to Ankylosaurs?

[Shonisaurus]

For me the hyaenodon is the best that has been done so far, without underestimating the other figures made by other companies.
The malawisaurus is great, I did not expect it to be so beautiful. 
The macrauchenia honestly is a very elegant and very well finished but honestly I like more Schleich but the nostrils of Safari's macrauchenia are much more detailed, but I like Schleich more to be honest but you have to aim for me that for me the Schleich macrauchenia has been the best prehistoric mammal made by this company.

[Doug Watson]

I know, but even though they are still way too big, and I am not referring only to the trike, but this applies to the rest of his figures. In most of the dinosaurs, when downsized,  you shouldn´t be able to see any scales at all, but a leathery skin. Anyways this is a common mistake that happens in almost every toy dinosaur figure, but luckily it is something that doesn´t happen that much in bigger model kits.

I have been under the weather for a month so I am a little late addressing this.
I have to take exception to your "still way too big" comment. I don't care if you prefer wrinkly dinosaurs but when there is known integument I do try to scale the texture appropriately. In some cases I exaggerate like the Gryposaurus because the scales would be way too small but I still felt some representation was required. In the case of horned dinosaurs however the known specimens of skin imprints show large textured shapes.
In the case of Lane the largest polygonal tubercles were 10 cm in diameter scaled to 1:35 that becomes 2.9 mm. Because of shrinkage I added 1 mm in diameter hardly what I would consider "way to big" since the texture will shrink in production. I don't have a production sample yet but even if it didn't shrink as much as expected if scaled up instead of being 10 cm in diameter it would be 13.5 cm in diameter, whoopty freakin doo. In the case of horned dinos that I don't have integument evidence for I use Chasmosaur skin as a default since I have casts of Chasmosaur skin. In that case the largest of the ostederms are 6 cm in diameter still big enough to be seen on an animal that large. If not when I sculpted my Indian rhino for Safari Ltd I should have left the warts off of its flanks since they are of similar size.
I also think palm sized scales would have been visible on an elephant sized animal like a Triceratops if not I would suggest a new eyeglass perscription. And I will illustrate.
As a long time wildlife nut I have spent lots of time observing wildlife in the wild and in zoos and I am well aware of what can be seen at a distance or not. Take alligators and crocodiles, I have been way too close to both in the wild and I can assure you that their scutes which are similar in size to the Triceratops are easily visible from distance.

First here is a section of Lane's dorsal skin with a hand for scale.


Here is a ventral section


Now here is Rob Bredl sitting on one of his Salt Water Crocodiles with his hand for scale. Notice a lot of the the scutes are much smaller than Lane's yet are still easily made out.


Here are some captive 16 foot Nile Crocodiles taken from about 50 feet away on a recent trip to Florida. I hardly used any magnification so I could get them all in the shot and you will notice the majority of the skin detail is still easily made out. If I used your argument when I sculpted the Wildlife Wonders American Alligator for Safari I should have just put some wrinkles and squiggles in there. That would have gone over well. Also since the eyes are smaller than the scales I should have left those out as well.


And to illustrate that my smaller horned dinosaurs would also have visible skin texture based on my Chasmosaur specimens here is one of my casts with my hand for scale. The largest shape is 6 cm and I could definitely see that on a 16 foot rhino sized animal if it was standing in front of me.


So as I said before I really don't care if you want to ignore the evidence and prefer wrinkles but for my pieces I take great care in scaling known integument.

[alexeratops]

A bit off topic, but are the Uintatherium and Megacerops to scale with each other? I got the two for Christmas. They are perfect to start off some mammals in my previous reptile-only collection!

[Minmiminime]

I hope you're feeling better Doug, and thank you for providing these examples  I know a lot of it is down to personal preference among collectors. I'm happy either way! But personally, I like a model to be rather tactile, and it shows to me that the artist cares enough about their subject to take extra time with it! I think your Nasutoceratops in particular is exquisite. Your Sauropelta garnered much admiration from my old colleagues, who are not even dinosaur fans! When models look great from a distance and close up, they're winning!

[John]

I have the new Triceratops in hand,and I can say with absolute certainty that the size and shape of the scales are spot on to what is seen in the fossil impressions and are proportioned perfectly in scale with the rest of the model,not at all "too big".
This model is a much needed update to an old favorite.

[suspsy]

Doug done went and dropped the mic.

[Albertosaurus]

Hey Doug, no need for the childish tone in your response. It is just a bit of criticism...thanks for the explanation though. Still I think that they feel too busy with scales that big all over the body. Just from an artistic point of view. That is the reason why, even in a close up portrait, almost no painter paints every single hair.

By the way, I am waiting for both trike and regalia to arrive. Don't take that bit of criticism as an offense, I am a big fan of your work, specially your ceratopsians. I just believe that in small scales it feels better to leave some details out (not key features like the eyes, of course). But hey, you are a master of your craft, you know how to do your job.

[Neosodon]

I think the scales look great both scientifically and artistically. I can see leaving scales off if that particular dinosaur is not supposed to have visible scales. I think the Giganotosaurus would be an example of that. But all dinosaurs can look good with scales artistically.

[Syndicate Bias]

I don't know how, or why, Safari Ltd are still a company. Compare any of their models to, say Papo, and you will always see that Papo figurines and much more detailed and realistic than their Safari counterparts.

Spoiler

Safari Acrocanthosaurus

Papo Acrocanthosaurus



Safari Styracosaurus

Papo Styracosaurus


Safari Ceratosaurus

Papo Ceratosaurus

[close]

I think the Papo Acro is hideous. No the Safari isn't perfect, but it's definitely better on most fronts. The Papo one is shrink-wrapped, the general proportions are off, and frankly the design itself is trying way to hard to look like it's from a Jurassic Park movie and it falls short on even that. The Safari is also what, an eighth the size of the Papo? Of course it's going to look less detailed in a zoomed out photo.

Carnegie Styracosaurus is, again, much smaller, and much older, than the Papo. The Carnegie line also had a very deliberate "under-designed" style, it was purposefully not as detailed.

The Papo Ceratosaurus is definitely no more detailed than the Safari, look at any small patch on them and compare the actual detail.

You can't just compare photos and proclaim the (significantly larger) Papo versions are superior. I would argue most of them aren't even any more detailed, they just appear so because they are so much larger, compare any 1 centimeter square on them and they'd seem very similar in detail quality.

It's rather painfully clear that you went out of your way to find the worst possible comparisons you could to try and push some sort of agenda, so the next (which would be the third) time I see you trying to pull this it's just going to be a report and not a reply.

That post is unnecessary and unfair. Acro and cerato are half the price or even cheaper and smaller figures, also they're older  figures with problems like the oversized feet solved by now and a big evolution in the sculpt quality, which wasn't bad to begin with but clearly has improved. We were talking a few days ago on the 2018 Papo thread about how unnecessary is to bring other companies down to express your love of another and that post makes exactly that in a bad way.

First of all, both the Safari Ltd. Acrocanthosaurus and Ceratosaurus were made in 2012, so they don't classify as " older figures". And just because they are "smaller figures" does not make them and different when comparing them to Papo. The post is not "unnecessary and unfair", it's simply stating my opinion when I compare one company to another. You seem to have a serious problem with people having their own opinion without lashing out at them for doing so.

Yes, being smaller (and cheaper) is a completely relevant point. Detail on a smaller figure will be less visible when zoomed out and scaled to the same resolution as a larger one. Your post was off-topic, inflammatory, targeted, and at this point I'm inclined to believe you're only here to pick fights.

The post is not "unnecessary and unfair", it's simply stating my opinion when I compare one company to another.

It's a problem when you do comparisons with Safari, because there are a lot of fans here, so it's kind of an holy cow and any disliking opinion is perceived as disrespectful. If you were doing the same kind of comparison between Papo and Schleich nobody would react with disdain, because Schleich has no fans here. I don't think it's unfair to make comparisons when voicing own opinions and preferences, I said this already many times before, but maybe the post was simply out of topic in the "New for 2018" Safari thread, since it showed only older figures from Papo and Safari. You should have posted elsewhere, maybe you should have started a dedicated topic, but in such case be prepared for people picking on you.

No, it's a problem when someone goes off-topic and starts trying to spew toxin into otherwise content places, bringing up figures completely irrelevant to the topic to make clearly planned out comparisons, and then starts trying to justify everything they do with "waah people are attacking me for my opinion". I've expressed a lot of distaste for some current Safari figures, but I did it (comparatively at least) constructively. When most members here have a genuine complaint about a figure, or about a brand, they make it constructive, they talk about what exactly they didn't like in detail.

The only "criticism" this guy has ever done was go around and say "hey at least it's not Safari!!1!!11!" everywhere he goes. And in the spirit of fairness, it was equally annoying and condescending of him to do the same to the Papo Baryonyx.

Just because "Schleich haters did it first" doesn't somehow make it OK.

Making comparisons is not unfair when doing in context, and my problem is not the comparison is stating that a companie should not exists.

He didn't say Safari should not exist, he wondered how they can be in the business when producing bad models compared to another brand he likes. It's his opinion, and he expressed it with sarcasm, but still without being offensive. The problem is only in people feeling touched by their favourite company being sort of attacked, as I said the same comparison with Schleich wouldn't have aroused any disdain. Meaner things have been said against Schleich or Rebor, to be honest. I think that people should start take things less seriously, and maybe debate more opinions rather than try to say others what kind of things is right to say. On that regard I think tyrantqueen and Ravonium responses were much more constructive.

Nothing in his original post gave any reason to presume he was being facetious or comedically brash. His post was clearly only intended to start fights, as his further response indicates very clearly.

When people said those "worse" things about Schleich or REBOR it was for good reason, borderline essays have been written about exactly why those companies deserve a lot of what they get. I don't recall anyone going into a Favorite Kinto topic, picking out the worst figure, and going "At least it's not made by REBOR!!". And if someone did I would be annoyed because that would be off-topic and borderline spam (at best) as it was when he did that to Safari in the Papo topic.

What? Papo dinosaurs are superior in detail lol you're drunk

But before anyone says something I do like safari as well even Carnegie. Especially both their Giganotosaurus since I have them and I pretty much grew up with safari so there's a soft spot for them there. Papo may not be accurate 99% of the time but it's better now that it was when it first started. I think most dinosaur companies are great honestly. Maybe all of us have different opinions but I don't mind most except maybe schleich and mojo and even then.

[Joey]

I don't know how, or why, Safari Ltd are still a company. Compare any of their models to, say Papo, and you will always see that Papo figurines and much more detailed and realistic than their Safari counterparts.

Spoiler

Safari Acrocanthosaurus

Papo Acrocanthosaurus



Safari Styracosaurus

Papo Styracosaurus


Safari Ceratosaurus

Papo Ceratosaurus

[close]

I think the Papo Acro is hideous. No the Safari isn't perfect, but it's definitely better on most fronts. The Papo one is shrink-wrapped, the general proportions are off, and frankly the design itself is trying way to hard to look like it's from a Jurassic Park movie and it falls short on even that. The Safari is also what, an eighth the size of the Papo? Of course it's going to look less detailed in a zoomed out photo.

Carnegie Styracosaurus is, again, much smaller, and much older, than the Papo. The Carnegie line also had a very deliberate "under-designed" style, it was purposefully not as detailed.

The Papo Ceratosaurus is definitely no more detailed than the Safari, look at any small patch on them and compare the actual detail.

You can't just compare photos and proclaim the (significantly larger) Papo versions are superior. I would argue most of them aren't even any more detailed, they just appear so because they are so much larger, compare any 1 centimeter square on them and they'd seem very similar in detail quality.

It's rather painfully clear that you went out of your way to find the worst possible comparisons you could to try and push some sort of agenda, so the next (which would be the third) time I see you trying to pull this it's just going to be a report and not a reply.

That post is unnecessary and unfair. Acro and cerato are half the price or even cheaper and smaller figures, also they're older  figures with problems like the oversized feet solved by now and a big evolution in the sculpt quality, which wasn't bad to begin with but clearly has improved. We were talking a few days ago on the 2018 Papo thread about how unnecessary is to bring other companies down to express your love of another and that post makes exactly that in a bad way.

First of all, both the Safari Ltd. Acrocanthosaurus and Ceratosaurus were made in 2012, so they don't classify as " older figures". And just because they are "smaller figures" does not make them and different when comparing them to Papo. The post is not "unnecessary and unfair", it's simply stating my opinion when I compare one company to another. You seem to have a serious problem with people having their own opinion without lashing out at them for doing so.

Yes, being smaller (and cheaper) is a completely relevant point. Detail on a smaller figure will be less visible when zoomed out and scaled to the same resolution as a larger one. Your post was off-topic, inflammatory, targeted, and at this point I'm inclined to believe you're only here to pick fights.

The post is not "unnecessary and unfair", it's simply stating my opinion when I compare one company to another.

It's a problem when you do comparisons with Safari, because there are a lot of fans here, so it's kind of an holy cow and any disliking opinion is perceived as disrespectful. If you were doing the same kind of comparison between Papo and Schleich nobody would react with disdain, because Schleich has no fans here. I don't think it's unfair to make comparisons when voicing own opinions and preferences, I said this already many times before, but maybe the post was simply out of topic in the "New for 2018" Safari thread, since it showed only older figures from Papo and Safari. You should have posted elsewhere, maybe you should have started a dedicated topic, but in such case be prepared for people picking on you.

No, it's a problem when someone goes off-topic and starts trying to spew toxin into otherwise content places, bringing up figures completely irrelevant to the topic to make clearly planned out comparisons, and then starts trying to justify everything they do with "waah people are attacking me for my opinion". I've expressed a lot of distaste for some current Safari figures, but I did it (comparatively at least) constructively. When most members here have a genuine complaint about a figure, or about a brand, they make it constructive, they talk about what exactly they didn't like in detail.

The only "criticism" this guy has ever done was go around and say "hey at least it's not Safari!!1!!11!" everywhere he goes. And in the spirit of fairness, it was equally annoying and condescending of him to do the same to the Papo Baryonyx.

Just because "Schleich haters did it first" doesn't somehow make it OK.

Making comparisons is not unfair when doing in context, and my problem is not the comparison is stating that a companie should not exists.

He didn't say Safari should not exist, he wondered how they can be in the business when producing bad models compared to another brand he likes. It's his opinion, and he expressed it with sarcasm, but still without being offensive. The problem is only in people feeling touched by their favourite company being sort of attacked, as I said the same comparison with Schleich wouldn't have aroused any disdain. Meaner things have been said against Schleich or Rebor, to be honest. I think that people should start take things less seriously, and maybe debate more opinions rather than try to say others what kind of things is right to say. On that regard I think tyrantqueen and Ravonium responses were much more constructive.

Nothing in his original post gave any reason to presume he was being facetious or comedically brash. His post was clearly only intended to start fights, as his further response indicates very clearly.

When people said those "worse" things about Schleich or REBOR it was for good reason, borderline essays have been written about exactly why those companies deserve a lot of what they get. I don't recall anyone going into a Favorite Kinto topic, picking out the worst figure, and going "At least it's not made by REBOR!!". And if someone did I would be annoyed because that would be off-topic and borderline spam (at best) as it was when he did that to Safari in the Papo topic.

What? Papo dinosaurs are superior in detail lol you're drunk

That was unnecessary

[Neosodon]

If your going to hate on safari you are free to that opinion but just be aware you're the minority. Papo may be well detailed but I'm just not into that awsomebro JP stuff.

Ok, this is going to go down hill fast.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

There is no reason to start this up again. STOP. 

[Doug Watson]

Hey Doug, no need for the childish tone in your response. It is just a bit of criticism...thanks for the explanation though. Still I think that they feel too busy with scales that big all over the body. Just from an artistic point of view. That is the reason why, even in a close up portrait, almost no painter paints every single hair.

By the way, I am waiting for both trike and regalia to arrive. Don't take that bit of criticism as an offense, I am a big fan of your work, specially your ceratopsians. I just believe that in small scales it feels better to leave some details out (not key features like the eyes, of course). But hey, you are a master of your craft, you know how to do your job.

So I assume you found "whoopty freakin doo." childish well that's how I talk so I guess I am a child. You still did not address the evidence I presented you just repeated your own view and by the way using my examples there is a big difference between replicating the scutes on a crocodile to "painting every single hair", individual hairs are much less conspicuous compared to palm sized scutes. But then you won't like my mammals either because I try to replicate hair as well. Thank you for explaining art.