Safari Ltd.: New for 2018

[Shonisaurus]

..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).

I was referring to the male reproductive organs of these figures. Out of respect for the forum, I mentioned it correctly.

[tanystropheus]

..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).

I was referring to the male reproductive organs of these figures. Out of respect for the forum, I mentioned it correctly.

Oh, okay. I guess the days of megathingy and deinothingy are behind us. "Noble parts" does sound more poetic.

[Doug Watson]

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?

Thanks Simon, no at this point we are venturing into personal opinion rather than fact. The only reason I chimed in originally was the poster claimed a fact that they were "way too big." That I had to take issue with. If others say they don't like my style or think I make the grooves too deep well that is personal opinion and really can't be argued and I really have no interest in changing their minds anyway. Without a "way back machine" to settle the argument we will just agree to disagree. Happy New Year!

[Doug Watson]

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.

You know I had this in the past where someone says in the same post they like my stuff but then claims a "fact" that they refuse to back up with science. I am not sure how you talk to other people but saying you like something then saying it is basically all wrong is counterproductive if you want things to remain friendly but maybe that is just me. I presented the facts and I am done with it.

P.S. I was being serious with my eye and eyeglass comments. Plus in all your responses you haven't questioned my data or my math you just keep repeating your view which I find childish. Don't criticized the facts of someone's work and not expect a response. I don't know what you do for a living but if you have pride in your work I think you might get ticked off if someone attacked the facts publicly. People tell me I should have a thick skin since I have done this a long time well it works the other way too if you attack the factual basis of someone's work don't be surprised when that person takes offence.

[japfeif]

Received the Trike a couple days ago...great piece! I really like the "upward & forward-facing" horns rather than the usual "straight ahead or aiming up" style in most sculpts.

[japfeif]

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.

(sigh)....again??? Can we just let this go already?

Can I say something? I love this board but some folks are REALLY touchy. I am a huge fan of Papo myself and if I got personally offended every time someone makes a remark about "shrinkwrapped", "JP-influenced", "not accurate", "they are monsters, not realistic dinosaurs", etc. etc. I'd be upset & arguing all the time! It's not like I have any stock in the company! (and even is I did....no one expects everyone to like EVERY company's offerings...I'd respect other folk's opinion of my company, even if sometimes their opinion may be "your stuff basically is unrealistic and, in my opinion, sucks"...it might sting but it's just an opinion!)

This board is great...let's just let everyone have their opinions and if someone gets a bit overzealous & says something about a company that veers off from the "Safari (just to pick one) is wonderful but I personally don't like this or that figure but Safari still great!" to the "I think this company kinda sucks all around"....is that really THAT big a deal? Worth all the fire that has been tossed around because of Indominus's unfortunate and opinionated remarks? I don't know anyone here & I'm kinda new but seems this guy has a right to his opinion, even if it IS that he hates a certain company that is a favorite of alot of other folks? (not that he ever actually said the word "hate", but you guys are smart, you know what I mean!).
Aren't message boards kinda all about other folks' opinions?

Say anything you want about Safari, Papo, or CollectA (my three favorite dino companies)...I won't get mad, I promise! And will still sleep good tonite!

Not trying to be disrespectful here, just that this is the thread that won't seem to die!

[Shonisaurus]

My opinion is that my three favorite triceratops are the triceratops Safari by Doug Watson, the triceratops of Battat and the triceratops of PNSO without underestimating other very good companies such as Papo, Collecta, Bullyland or Favorite. But being honest my three favorite triceratops are the three outlined in the first paragraph, with Safari triceratops being the most scientific with a beautifully sculpted cloacal opening.

On the other hand the triceratops of Battat is my second favorite (although I do not have it) but I understand that he is an outstanding figure considering that that figure was sculpted more than twenty years ago.

The triceratops of PNSO seems to me a great figure and it deserves for me to be among the first the only thing that kills him is his articulated jaw (you know the members of the forum that I am not a fan of the articulated jaws) but you have to admit that said jaw I do not know what triceratops mean for me, actually made in one piece since it did not cause problems with said jaw and the dinosaur is also great.

But honestly the one I like the most is Safari followed closely by the triceratops of the Battat brand.

[Bokisaurus]

[
(sigh)....again??? Can we just let this go already?

Can I say something? I love this board but some folks are REALLY touchy. I am a huge fan of Papo myself and if I got personally offended every time someone makes a remark about "shrinkwrapped", "JP-influenced", "not accurate", "they are monsters, not realistic dinosaurs", etc. etc. I'd be upset & arguing all the time! It's not like I have any stock in the company! (and even is I did....no one expects everyone to like EVERY company's offerings...I'd respect other folk's opinion of my company, even if sometimes their opinion may be "your stuff basically is unrealistic and, in my opinion, sucks"...it might sting but it's just an opinion!)

This board is great...let's just let everyone have their opinions and if someone gets a bit overzealous & says something about a company that veers off from the "Safari (just to pick one) is wonderful but I personally don't like this or that figure but Safari still great!" to the "I think this company kinda sucks all around"....is that really THAT big a deal? Worth all the fire that has been tossed around because of Indominus's unfortunate and opinionated remarks? I don't know anyone here & I'm kinda new but seems this guy has a right to his opinion, even if it IS that he hates a certain company that is a favorite of alot of other folks? (not that he ever actually said the word "hate", but you guys are smart, you know what I mean!).
Aren't message boards kinda all about other folks' opinions?

Say anything you want about Safari, Papo, or CollectA (my three favorite dino companies)...I won't get mad, I promise! And will still sleep good tonite!

Not trying to be disrespectful here, just that this is the thread that won't seem to die!
[/quote]

It gets really old and tiring, yes?
I agree with you. It's exhausting and I tend to avoid reading some threads now that has become just a constant " this company is better than this blah blah blah" over and over again
Happy New Year everyone! 

[Bokisaurus]

..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).

I was referring to the male reproductive organs of these figures. Out of respect for the forum, I mentioned it correctly.

Oh, okay. I guess the days of megathingy and deinothingy are behind us. "Noble parts" does sound more poetic.

LOL!  I was just thinking of those words when I read the comment! I much prefer the megathingy and dinothingy, make you giggle!

[Shonisaurus]

Certainly we must stop comparing the dinosaurs of the company that we deal with other / others (I the first) I must focus on the figure of the aforementioned company and not on other companies whose subforums are defined millimeter in DTF.

I admit that I am a heavy one. All comparisons are odious in my case I will try to amend it completely.

Happy New Year 2018 to all present! 

[SidB]

It's in human nature and the very structure of the mind (see Kant) to compare this and that. So far, so good. The challenge goes beyond the comparing function, of course. We need sound judgement, especially in the face of our ongoing conversations with other people, which give life and an added element of fun to our hobby. We get passionate about this hobby/vocation, even projecting ourselves into it. This can give rise to the clash of egos. Nothing new here, right?

It a good thing to doubt, to question, but there are certain safeguards built into the procedure and the journey, as regards our conversations. One is respect, especially that respect which is merited by commitment, long study, discipline and the search for the truth of the matter at hand. When someone with hundreds or even thousands of posts comments on a topic, I (with< 30 posts) tend to try to listen carefully and hopefully with due respect. When a Doug Watson or Dan Lorusso speaks on a topic, it ceases, typically, to be mere OPINION and becomes that mode of INFORMED OPINION that approaches or is KNOWLEDGE itself. Folk who are quick to "shoot from the lip" without adequate thought, because of inexperience or other less excusable motives need to exercise proper caution (New Year's resolution, maybe).
I love the dialogue on the forum and appreciate the patience and wisdom of the moderators. I also treasure the expertise and wisdom of the more experienced among us. Happy New Year!

[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?

Thanks Simon, no at this point we are venturing into personal opinion rather than fact. The only reason I chimed in originally was the poster claimed a fact that they were "way too big." That I had to take issue with. If others say they don't like my style or think I make the grooves too deep well that is personal opinion and really can't be argued and I really have no interest in changing their minds anyway. Without a "way back machine" to settle the argument we will just agree to disagree. Happy New Year!

Doug - Agree with your statement above 100%.  Surface texture is (mostly) speculative as all we have are bits and pieces of skin impressions.  All artists have their own distinctive style, and may I say you have brought Safari from the middle of the pack right up to the front in terms of accuracy and model quality.  And that - regardless of dino fans various peculiar personal preferences in model dinosaur styling - is a BIG "Feather in your cap" that you should be proud of!!!

PS Happy New Year to you and yours as well!!

[Syndicate Bias]

I think we should stop here, some users on this board are very sensitive and forget the user on the other side is also a person. Treat their opinion with respect even if it's one you don't like you shouldn't need to argue about it as that's just childish and inconsiderate of others here who are older folks just trying to talk about dinosaurs.

If you don't like what someone else says leave it be. I don't like people bashing papo or the vitae giganotosaurus as a few have but I never jump in to argue with them on how insulting that is because it's not. Just let it go

[Shonisaurus]

I recognize that when I started in the forum I was somewhat disrespectful and critical of Schleich when it is necessary to bear in mind that he has many followers all over the world and I know that that should not be my position with respect to Schleich (by the way this year has made dinosaurs and prehistoric animals like the unbeatable dinogorgon) or any other company, although this does not belong to this forum.

In general, the work of any sculptor should be respected independently that my favorite companies are Safari, Collecta, Battat or Papo among others but without belittling any. All sculptors are of the company that is worth all the respect for what I am and is more provide us with illusions and joys both collectors and children.

As I said a toy that for us we do not like and that is called contemptuously chinasaurs for a child supposes illusion and a joy with its greater obtaining with all security that the one that has any collector either of toys of dinosaurs, stamps, trains for its respective collections.

My opinion is that we do not play with the illusions of any person and less with the illusion of any member of the forum. We all have our little heart.

[Lanthanotus]

Just yesterday I received my Safari Mastodon and yup, all that praise is rightfully earned. I love the figure, it's big, it's heavy, texture ist nice and feels good tot he touch,... I do not get why this monster of an elephant just costs half that of the Malawisaurus, but anyway

Still,.. since this is a discussion forum I was wondering about two things, one on this Mastodon, the other on the Triceratops, or better to say ceratopsians in general.....

First of.... the underside of the mastodon's trunk is sculpted with hair. Now I think I remember reading somewhere, that the trunks of mammoth was bare skin on the underside to ensure for a tight grip as that's what a trunk is supposed for (next to other things). Mastodons are no mammoths, sure thing, but was hair really present on the underside of the trunk? I guess fossils of mastodons are quite abundant and probably also in good preservation when thinking of the La Brea tarpits, so what's state of the art there?

Second.... I am gonna make a new thread for that as I feel it would rather be off topic here - click!

[Doug Watson]

First of.... the underside of the mastodon's trunk is sculpted with hair. Now I think I remember reading somewhere, that the trunks of mammoth was bare skin on the underside to ensure for a tight grip as that's what a trunk is supposed for (next to other things). Mastodons are no mammoths, sure thing, but was hair really present on the underside of the trunk? I guess fossils of mastodons are quite abundant and probably also in good preservation when thinking of the La Brea tarpits, so what's state of the art there?

I don't suppose you can remember the source of that information about mammoth trunk hair could you? I would really be interested in it. When I did the mammoth group for CMN in 1987 under Dr Harrington between him and some Russian and German scientists we determined the trunk was covered. Mammoths went to great lengths to reduce exposed area to cold, small ears and tails compared to modern elephants and the fully exposed interior length of a trunk would seem to be counter productive. I know some new information has come to light with the discovery of Yuka but I haven't accessed that paper yet. For instance the "mammoth mitten" that has been seen on some other specimens is well preserved on that one so I will need to get that paper.

[Lanthanotus]

Hi Doug and thanks for your answer.

Sorry, no, I cannot recall the source. However, I cannot remember any specific paper I ever read on mammoths so I'd rather guess it was on some popular science book or maybe wikipedia. Did check the articles there though and could not make that information out, so maybe it at all was false information. After all, lots of elephant mummys are seem to be found without a trunk or just parts of and I am not sure how well specimen from the tar pits are preserved. May I ask what that "mammoth mitten" is, I never heard about that kind of expression?

Yes, a bare underside would be a trade off, on the other hand several animals in cold conditions show sort of trade offs, like the long ears of hares which are shorter than those of relatives in warmer conditions but still seem larger than necessary when you think of other animals in the same environemt with highly developed hearing or polar bears with their black and bare noses. So the question is, do the benefits outweigh the disadvantages? This is a hypothetical question though that can hardly be answered by (eductated) guesses as evolution often enough goes weird ways - at least what appears weird to us.

So, I'll accept your reply above as an appropriate answer and the Mastodon sculpted to the best available knowledge - which is what I expected and whatever may be found one day, it is a great piece in any way

[postsaurischian]

....... I know some new information has come to light with the discovery of Yuka but I haven't accessed that paper yet. For instance the "mammoth mitten" that has been seen on some other specimens is well preserved on that one so I will need to get that paper.

That's why you're the right man for the Wild Safari line. Still eager about getting the newest information in order to bring the most recent updates into the Dinosaur Toy World - as accurate as possible. Our small community highly appreciates this .

The only thing that keeps the line from being perfect is the "being-in-scale-to-each-other" thing , sorry, I'm not really criticizing - I know why it's not happening.

[Doug Watson]

Hi Doug and thanks for your answer.

Sorry, no, I cannot recall the source. However, I cannot remember any specific paper I ever read on mammoths so I'd rather guess it was on some popular science book or maybe wikipedia. Did check the articles there though and could not make that information out, so maybe it at all was false information. After all, lots of elephant mummys are seem to be found without a trunk or just parts of and I am not sure how well specimen from the tar pits are preserved. May I ask what that "mammoth mitten" is, I never heard about that kind of expression?

Yes, a bare underside would be a trade off, on the other hand several animals in cold conditions show sort of trade offs, like the long ears of hares which are shorter than those of relatives in warmer conditions but still seem larger than necessary when you think of other animals in the same environemt with highly developed hearing or polar bears with their black and bare noses. So the question is, do the benefits outweigh the disadvantages? This is a hypothetical question though that can hardly be answered by (eductated) guesses as evolution often enough goes weird ways - at least what appears weird to us.

So, I'll accept your reply above as an appropriate answer and the Mastodon sculpted to the best available knowledge - which is what I expected and whatever may be found one day, it is a great piece in any way

Here is an article on the mammoth mitten with a link to the paper if you have access. http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/28/a-mammoth-mitten/

I have been at La Brea and the museum there a couple times and have some books I picked up on the specimens found and as far as I know only bones have been retrieved, no soft parts. I stand to be corrected however.

[Shonisaurus]

By the way, when will the prestigious magazine Prehistoric Times reveal what prehistoric animal or dinosaur figure has been the winner this year? I would like to know who gets the distinction this year. It has been a year with a lot of competition in good figures, by all companies.

But honestly and I know it is very risky on my part I think the winner can be Safari, by pure intuition, for example his feathered tyrannosaurus rex has been a very good figure, without belittling other figures.