Safari Ltd.: New for 2018

[Doug Watson]

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!

Yes they are both 1:30

[tanystropheus]

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

To be fair, it is the holidays j/k

[tanystropheus]

I think this new 1:30 scale works pretty well for the mammals.

[Syndicate Bias]

Didn't get to finish so chill my dudes it's like the internet makes you guys feel like getting insulted easily. You forget no one here is actually screaming or mad when texting or typing here. So chill some of you need to stop taking everything out of context and react badly.

Scroll up to the added part if you have to tho.

[Syndicate Bias]

Didn't get to finish so chill my dudes it's like the internet makes you guys feel like getting insulted easily. You forget no one here is actually screaming or mad when texting or typing here. So chill some of you need to stop taking everything out of context and react badly.

Scroll up to the added part if you have to tho.

Then again you can't read tone so I do apologise 

[tanystropheus]

Didn't get to finish so chill my dudes it's like the internet makes you guys feel like getting insulted easily. You forget no one here is actually screaming or mad when texting or typing here. So chill some of you need to stop taking everything out of context and react badly.

Scroll up to the added part if you have to tho.

Then again you can't read tone so I do apologise 

Monologues are the best 

[tanystropheus]

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.

The WS Mastodon is a masterpiece in terms of texture design. It's quite striking and unlike any prehistoric pachyderm model in the market. I appreciate how you were able to replicate the look of the hair.

[Albertosaurus]

There is a big difference between recreating texture ( that is what you do) and recreating every single hair in your mammals. But hey, I don't feel like fighting and of course I don't want to.

By the way, Doug, talking about scales, do you see Safari in a near future making a line of "deluxe" figures in a much bigger scale, like Collecta does?

[suspsy]

There is a big difference between recreating texture ( that is what you do) and recreating every single hair in your mammals. But hey, I don't feel like fighting and of course I don't want to.

By the way, Doug, talking about scales, do you see Safari in a near future making a line of "deluxe" figures in a much bigger scale, like Collecta does?

Have you considered apologizing to Doug for calling him childish?

[DinoToyForum]

There is a big difference between recreating texture ( that is what you do) and recreating every single hair in your mammals. But hey, I don't feel like fighting and of course I don't want to.

By the way, Doug, talking about scales, do you see Safari in a near future making a line of "deluxe" figures in a much bigger scale, like Collecta does?

Have you considered apologizing to Doug for calling him childish?

No back seat moderating or provocative posts, please. If you have a problem with a post, report it to a moderator, but please don't respond. It usually makes it worse and makes the moderators job more difficult. Thanks.

[Shonisaurus]

Doug's figures are the best on the market, and I'm certainly very happy that Doug Watson does them on a larger scale.

But both Doug's larger-sized figures such as triceratops and tyrannosaurus as the smaller ones like the shunosaurus are equally great. 

For me it is an honor and a gift of life to have in our forum a personality as important and loved in the DTF as Doug Watson.

As regards the uintatherium and megacerops of Safari made by Doug are more realistic in many details and I focus on one (sorry) that is related to the sphincters or "noble parts" of these mammals that are more scientific and accurate to the conception that we would have of said megabesties. The uintatherium and megacerops of Collecta, while still being great, have made some sphincters or "noble parts" less realistic from my point of view.

In regard to the skin of these figures I prefer the uintatherium and megacerops of Safari because for me these extinct mammals would have the skin like the pachyderms. The megacerops and uintatherium of Collecta appear with cool artistic licenses but too avant-garde, for example I do not see the uintatherium with a skin with tiger stripes sincerely, the same I can say about Collecta's megacerops (which by the way is a great figure and awarded as the best figure of prehistoric animal of 2012) whose representation is a bit far from the image I have of the pachyderms.

The megacerops of Safari has a more realistic skull, especially highlighting the lips similar to rhinoceroses (even if they were not from the same family), Collecta's megacerops is a great figure and has a beautiful skull but is based on artistic licenses that although I like them (I'm wrong) less realistic. The uintatherium of Safari has a more realistic skull although I would have liked that his protuberances or horns as I call him were more pronounced thing that does not happen with Collecta's uintatherium although the latter gives it a certain aspect of suido thing that does not happen with the Safari uintatherium.

Definitely I like both versions of the two prehistoric mammals but I think more elegant and more scientific Safari figures without that it takes away from merits uintatherium and megacerops of Collecta are two great figures of prehistoric mammals and rivaling in genius to the company Safari. I would like Doug to make his figures as big or bigger than Collecta figures as it has been with Safari's amargasaurus whose figure is really much better than his collecta counterpart.

As a postdata and I always point and comment, my opinions are subjective and I do not intend to hurt the sensibility of any company and any sculptor and I say this with all the affection of the world but freely expressing my opinion with the aim of advising (within my scientific indigence) in the measure of my poor possibilities to the different companies of dinosaurs and prehistoric animals as do the rest of the members of DTF.

[Faelrin]

Ditto on that Mastodon's sculpt detail. It is by far my favorite out of my Cenozoic creature figure collection mostly because of that. It just looks so much like real fur to me.

Also thanks on all that input on the sculpting process Doug. I know that was a response to someone else, but I like learning about this stuff. I'm really glad the Triceratops figure has the integument taken into account, because I have desired a Triceratops figure with that feature since I first came across that finding. While I'm still behind on getting the 2017 Parasaurolophus figure, I'm glad there's one that finally takes those pebbly scales that hadrosaurids had into account for the sculpt (aside from the CollectA deluxe I think). I suppose the same could be said for other creatures with known integument (like the Sauropelta I think). Even if they are a much smaller size then the real thing, this is really the next best thing I can get to feeling these creatures skin.

[Doug Watson]

There is a big difference between recreating texture ( that is what you do) and recreating every single hair in your mammals. But hey, I don't feel like fighting and of course I don't want to.

By the way, Doug, talking about scales, do you see Safari in a near future making a line of "deluxe" figures in a much bigger scale, like Collecta does?

The irony of you telling me my response was childish while posting on a forum dedicated to the collection of dinosaur toys was almost lost on me. But I prefer childish to condescending thank you once again for telling me what I am doing.

[Simon]

There is a big difference between recreating texture ( that is what you do) and recreating every single hair in your mammals. But hey, I don't feel like fighting and of course I don't want to.

By the way, Doug, talking about scales, do you see Safari in a near future making a line of "deluxe" figures in a much bigger scale, like Collecta does?

The irony of you telling me my response was childish while posting on a forum dedicated to the collection of dinosaur toys was almost lost on me. But I prefer childish to condescending thank you once again for telling me what I am doing.

I give Doug a "Double Mic-Drop" for that one. 

[The Atroxious]

I think the reason the scutes on the Triceratops (and on many other Safari figues) seem too big is an illusion due to how deep they are around the edges. They're not too big, but rather, far too pronounced and far too thick. If you notice in the pictures of the crocodiles that were posted, you can clearly see the scutes, but you can't see a big, dark blotch of shadow around each one the way you can in many Safari figures. In fact, on many of the crocodile scales much of the definition comes from the color differences between the scutes. If you notice, not all details on the crocodiles' skin in the second picture are visible, but the large scutes that vary in color from their surrounding area are. I believe that's why Papo models often seem like they have a more "realistic" texture. A combination of fine and varied, but not overexaggerated details, plus a subtle paint job can do wonders.

[Reptilia]

This thread have become extremely painful to read.

[Simon]

I think the reason the scutes on the Triceratops (and on many other Safari figues) seem too big is an illusion due to how deep they are around the edges. They're not too big, but rather, far too pronounced and far too thick. If you notice in the pictures of the crocodiles that were posted, you can clearly see the scutes, but you can't see a big, dark blotch of shadow around each one the way you can in many Safari figures. In fact, on many of the crocodile scales much of the definition comes from the color differences between the scutes. If you notice, not all details on the crocodiles' skin in the second picture are visible, but the large scutes that vary in color from their surrounding area are. I believe that's why Papo models often seem like they have a more "realistic" texture. A combination of fine and varied, but not overexaggerated details, plus a subtle paint job can do wonders.

Now this post is what I call a well-reasoned observation that I share in (based strictly on photos of the Safari Trike).

The scales are not too big, but rather they look to be too "lumpy" or tall instead of mostly flat to the surface of the model as they would appear in life.

To be fair to Doug, I think that this is probably due to the constraints od sculpting on such a small scale - I think they might have to be rendered "taller" on the original model in order to survive the moulding/casting process with enough definition.

Doug, would you like to chime in on this?

[Albertosaurus]

Since you insist on this I will explain that I felt the tone of your response childish in some points. I am not saying that you are childish. Childish in the way that you used mockery, saying things like not doing the eyes because they are too small, the need for new glasses if I can't see the scutes...I think it was out of place. Is not that big of a deal, I am just really surprised that you were so offended by just an opinion that was preceded by praises to your work. Did you read my whole post or just the "way too big" part? Probably they are not too big but too deep, like the previous member posted. It is just that, Doug, opinions. And we all have opinions. Some people might hate your sculpts. It is their opinion. I love them, but I feel that way about the way you sculpt the scutes some times. Just my opinion.

[tanystropheus]

..made some sphincters or "noble parts" less realistic from my point of view.

This is way beyond my comprehension level.

[Jose S.M.]

..made some sphincters or "noble parts" less realistic from my point of view.

This is way beyond my comprehension level.

I think he's talking about reproductive organs (noble parts is a common way to refer to that in Spanish) and/or the cloaca (sphincters).