Safari Ltd.: New for 2018

[Doug Watson]

did Doug Watson sculpt the 2010 WS Brachiosaurus?

Nope.

[Reptilia]

Maybe that Brachiosaurus is from the same sculptor that did the 2017 Diplodocus, always seen a similarity in those two.

[Neosodon]

In what sense is the Apatosaurus retro? The neck has the wider proportions that are known and the pose is what was accepted at least at the time, I don't know if still is though. I haven't seen it in person but I think it has the correct number of claws and the shape of the feet. But I don't see how is retro, it's not the tail dragging slow creature of the older movies and art.

I was trying to be polite so I didn't go into the details and I'm not saying it's a bad figure. I was rather fond of it when I bought it 4 years ago but I do have some issues with it. The way the skin sags and wrinkles so excessively on the sides and underside of neck looks bad. By retro I don't mean 19th century, tail dragging swamp monster. More recently it has been determined that diplodacids fed closer to the ground and they would have not been able to arch their heads up like safari's model depicts. Also the flexibility of the tail seems slightly exaggerated but that's rather minor. It was one of the better saurapod figures when it came out 7 years ago but some of the more recent saurapod figures like collecta's Daxititan and Ampelosaurus and safari's Shunosaurus and Diplodacus are in a whole different league.

[tanystropheus]

In what sense is the Apatosaurus retro? The neck has the wider proportions that are known and the pose is what was accepted at least at the time, I don't know if still is though. I haven't seen it in person but I think it has the correct number of claws and the shape of the feet. But I don't see how is retro, it's not the tail dragging slow creature of the older movies and art.

...It was one of the better saurapod figures when it came out 7 years ago but some of the more recent saurapod figures like collecta's Daxititan and Ampelosaurus and safari's Shunosaurus and Diplodacus are in a whole different league.

Yeah, the tail always bothered me. I'm not sure if it is physically possible to move like that but it looks weird in toy form. The WS Diplodocus also seems to be going for that ribbon-like whiplash motion but maintains the elegance (and retains the aesthetic look of contemporary sauropod illustrations). Other than that, the Safari Ltd. Apatosaurus kind of reminds me of a cobra. The Papo version also has folds on the neck but seems oddly believable in its toy manifestation. The CollectA Ampelosaurus is one of the few sauropods that the company got right. It's cute and classy.

[Jose S.M.]

I was trying to be polite so I didn't go into the details and I'm not saying it's a bad figure.

You can be  polite while pointing out inaccuracies and disliking aspects of a figure. I think you just did, your posts expressed your opinion respectfully. And I agree with you that some figures age differently, like the Apatosaurus,  especially considering all the discoveries that can be made in a decade.

[Concavenator]

Are the neck and leg feathers of the Anzu really that smooth as they seem as in the product pics? I mean they even look flat in some of these images, especially in that comparison with the Feathered Velociraptor. There really seems to be a disparity between the two of them detail wise. I'll likely still get it because one, it's an Anzu, and two, I like the color scheme for the most part, but I have this feeling it'll look out of place alongside most of my collection so far which pretty much consists of Doug's wonderfully detailed sculpts at the moment.

I don't get it. So you're saying you will make an effort for it,as if it was worse than the other Safari figures?
I don't see how the Velociraptor is better than this Anzu.They are both 10/10 figures for me in every aspect,plus,the accuracy is spot on.And also,the fact that it is an Anzu makes it even more attractive .
It is not by any means,inferior to the Velociraptor,if that's what you mean.

[stargatedalek]

Anzu is triple, if not quadruple, the bulk and height of a Velociraptor, keep that in mind when comparing detail.

I have to say, smooth sculpts suit birds very, very, well, and the same logically applies to properly bulked out feathers on dinosaurs. Even in modern birds less is more with contour feathers unless your sculpting down or in a very small scale.

[Doug Watson]

In what sense is the Apatosaurus retro? The neck has the wider proportions that are known and the pose is what was accepted at least at the time, I don't know if still is though. I haven't seen it in person but I think it has the correct number of claws and the shape of the feet. But I don't see how is retro, it's not the tail dragging slow creature of the older movies and art.

I was trying to be polite so I didn't go into the details and I'm not saying it's a bad figure. I was rather fond of it when I bought it 4 years ago but I do have some issues with it. The way the skin sags and wrinkles so excessively on the sides and underside of neck looks bad. By retro I don't mean 19th century, tail dragging swamp monster. More recently it has been determined that diplodacids fed closer to the ground and they would have not been able to arch their heads up like safari's model depicts. Also the flexibility of the tail seems slightly exaggerated but that's rather minor. It was one of the better saurapod figures when it came out 7 years ago but some of the more recent saurapod figures like collecta's Daxititan and Ampelosaurus and safari's Shunosaurus and Diplodacus are in a whole different league.

Normally I don't address critique of my pieces since in most cases it is based on opinion rather than fact as in the case of your dislike of the skin folds on the neck, unless you have access to Professor Peabody's Wayback machine and can prove otherwise that is opinion and yours is just as valid as those who like the neck skin treatment.
However I will sometimes comment  when science is brought into the critique. Could you please provide the references for those studies you are quoting for the neck posture. When I did it in 2009 the latest study was from that same year by Taylor and that was what I based it on. Are you quoting Matthew Cobley et al. (2013) because Taylor has disputed their findings in 2014. If there is a newer study I would be very interested to see it heavens knows I can't keep up with everything and every prehistoric toy may at some time in the future become obsolete as new findings surface. As a sensitive artist I would however suggest that when that occurs with any company's toy you could say the piece was great, good or fair for its time but is now outdated rather than bluntly stating "the Apatosaurus isn't that great" and then ask the artist for information accompanied by a winky face.

[Faelrin]

On the topic of the Anzu, sorry if I was not clear with my previous post. I did not say it was worse per se, but it (the sculpt) might stick out when the rest of my figures are covered head to toe with lots of tiny details, where as the Anzu has a few smooth or flat areas.  I'll probably still get it, when I order the 2018 figures, as I like everything else about it, such as the coloration and pose, and for what it represents, and the accuracy of it (I think, I don't know much about oviraptorids).

On topic of the Apatosaurus, I enjoy it for what it is, retro details or no. In fact it's the only sauropod figure in my collection (currently). It does remind me of the charming "long necks" from my childhood, so perhaps that plays a part of why I enjoy it. It was actually one of the first Safari Ltd figures I bought not too long ago, alongside the Woolly Mammoth and Smilodon figures, as well.

[Neosodon]

In what sense is the Apatosaurus retro? The neck has the wider proportions that are known and the pose is what was accepted at least at the time, I don't know if still is though. I haven't seen it in person but I think it has the correct number of claws and the shape of the feet. But I don't see how is retro, it's not the tail dragging slow creature of the older movies and art.

I was trying to be polite so I didn't go into the details and I'm not saying it's a bad figure. I was rather fond of it when I bought it 4 years ago but I do have some issues with it. The way the skin sags and wrinkles so excessively on the sides and underside of neck looks bad. By retro I don't mean 19th century, tail dragging swamp monster. More recently it has been determined that diplodacids fed closer to the ground and they would have not been able to arch their heads up like safari's model depicts. Also the flexibility of the tail seems slightly exaggerated but that's rather minor. It was one of the better saurapod figures when it came out 7 years ago but some of the more recent saurapod figures like collecta's Daxititan and Ampelosaurus and safari's Shunosaurus and Diplodacus are in a whole different league.

Normally I don't address critique of my pieces since in most cases it is based on opinion rather than fact as in the case of your dislike of the skin folds on the neck, unless you have access to Professor Peabody's Wayback machine and can prove otherwise that is opinion and yours is just as valid as those who like the neck skin treatment.
However I will sometimes comment  when science is brought into the critique. Could you please provide the references for those studies you are quoting for the neck posture. When I did it in 2009 the latest study was from that same year by Taylor and that was what I based it on. Are you quoting Matthew Cobley et al. (2013) because Taylor has disputed their findings in 2014. If there is a newer study I would be very interested to see it heavens knows I can't keep up with everything and every prehistoric toy may at some time in the future become obsolete as new findings surface. As a sensitive artist I would however suggest that when that occurs with any company's toy you could say the piece was great, good or fair for its time but is now outdated rather than bluntly stating "the Apatosaurus isn't that great" and then ask the artist for information accompanied by a winky face.

My op came across a little to bluntly and I apologize.  By "isn't that great" I did not mean it as an insult I meant it literally. It's a nice well made figure but not the greatest most incredible outstanding of all sauropod models. I was just comparing it to the standard set by more recent models since Takama said it needed a remake.

About the neck posture there was an sauropod article from the 2014 scientific american dinosaur magazine were they talked about saurapods being more specialized in their feeding and they state "Different reasearch groups have drawn similar conclusions from analyses of saurapod neck postures, which show that saurapod feeding was additionally constrained by vertabral flexibility."

[Vidusaurus]

In what sense is the Apatosaurus retro? The neck has the wider proportions that are known and the pose is what was accepted at least at the time, I don't know if still is though. I haven't seen it in person but I think it has the correct number of claws and the shape of the feet. But I don't see how is retro, it's not the tail dragging slow creature of the older movies and art.

I was trying to be polite so I didn't go into the details and I'm not saying it's a bad figure. I was rather fond of it when I bought it 4 years ago but I do have some issues with it. The way the skin sags and wrinkles so excessively on the sides and underside of neck looks bad. By retro I don't mean 19th century, tail dragging swamp monster. More recently it has been determined that diplodacids fed closer to the ground and they would have not been able to arch their heads up like safari's model depicts. Also the flexibility of the tail seems slightly exaggerated but that's rather minor. It was one of the better saurapod figures when it came out 7 years ago but some of the more recent saurapod figures like collecta's Daxititan and Ampelosaurus and safari's Shunosaurus and Diplodacus are in a whole different league.

Normally I don't address critique of my pieces since in most cases it is based on opinion rather than fact as in the case of your dislike of the skin folds on the neck, unless you have access to Professor Peabody's Wayback machine and can prove otherwise that is opinion and yours is just as valid as those who like the neck skin treatment.
However I will sometimes comment  when science is brought into the critique. Could you please provide the references for those studies you are quoting for the neck posture. When I did it in 2009 the latest study was from that same year by Taylor and that was what I based it on. Are you quoting Matthew Cobley et al. (2013) because Taylor has disputed their findings in 2014. If there is a newer study I would be very interested to see it heavens knows I can't keep up with everything and every prehistoric toy may at some time in the future become obsolete as new findings surface. As a sensitive artist I would however suggest that when that occurs with any company's toy you could say the piece was great, good or fair for its time but is now outdated rather than bluntly stating "the Apatosaurus isn't that great" and then ask the artist for information accompanied by a winky face.

My op came across a little to bluntly and I apologize.  By "isn't that great" I did not mean it as an insult I meant it literally. It's a nice well made figure but not the greatest most incredible outstanding of all sauropod models. I was just comparing it to the standard set by more recent models since Takama said it needed a remake.

About the neck posture there was an sauropod article from the 2014 scientific american dinosaur magazine were they talked about saurapods being more specialized in their feeding and they state "Different reasearch groups have drawn similar conclusions from analyses of saurapod neck postures, which show that saurapod feeding was additionally constrained by vertabral flexibility."

A popular science magazine probably isn't the most trustworthy source especially considering there are many studies that have confirmed that sauropods would have held their necks in at the very least more upright positions due to the way that tetrapod cervical vertebrae articulate and also the added flexibility afforded by cartilage that many studies claiming straight-necked sauropods fail to take into account.

[Doug Watson]

My op came across a little to bluntly and I apologize.  By "isn't that great" I did not mean it as an insult I meant it literally. It's a nice well made figure but not the greatest most incredible outstanding of all sauropod models. I was just comparing it to the standard set by more recent models since Takama said it needed a remake.

About the neck posture there was an sauropod article from the 2014 scientific american dinosaur magazine were they talked about saurapods being more specialized in their feeding and they state "Different reasearch groups have drawn similar conclusions from analyses of saurapod neck postures, which show that saurapod feeding was additionally constrained by vertabral flexibility."

A popular science magazine probably isn't the most trustworthy source especially considering there are many studies that have confirmed that sauropods would have held their necks in at the very least more upright positions due to the way that tetrapod cervical vertebrae articulate and also the added flexibility afforded by cartilage that many studies claiming straight-necked sauropods fail to take into account.

I will maintain that my neck posture for Apatosaurus is within reason based on the information in the most recent and credible paper Taylor, M.P. (2014). "Quantifying the effect of intervertebral cartilage on neutral posture in the necks of sauropod dinosaurs". PeerJ. 2: e712. The arguments within are basically what Vidusaurus talks about.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

This discussion of sauropod cervical verts reminds me of something I read once written by Ken Carpenter......tasked with updating and reposing the Diplodocus in the Denver museum of Science, he was attempting to decide a pose for the big guy and wished something more than a simple static pose. He had also read a few studies that suggested these big guys could not bend or twist their necks so ....essentially he spent an entire night at the museum with the neck laid out on the floor and repeated moving the neck verts around a dozen different ways to demonstrate it could bend or raise .......the mount today demonstrates the movement he was able to show moving the actual bones around , laid out on the floor. Despite what some computer generated models suggested, the neck itself was capable of the movements assigned it

[DinoToyForum]

This discussion of sauropod cervical verts reminds me of something I read once written by Ken Carpenter......tasked with updating and reposing the Diplodocus in the Denver museum of Science, he was attempting to decide a pose for the big guy and wished something more than a simple static pose. He had also read a few studies that suggested these big guys could not bend or twist their necks so ....essentially he spent an entire night at the museum with the neck laid out on the floor and repeated moving the neck verts around a dozen different ways to demonstrate it could bend or raise .......the mount today demonstrates the movement he was able to show moving the actual bones around , laid out on the floor. Despite what some computer generated models suggested, the neck itself was capable of the movements assigned it

I did this with a plesiosaur neck once, for fun. Science it 'aint. My 'results' were meaningless because it depends so much on guessing the extent of cartilage and other soft tissues. In both the sauropod and plesiosaur 'experiments', another person might have eyeballed it differently.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Perhaps if he was wrong, time will tell and the Diplodocus will have to be altered. In the interim it seems he felt justified mounting it as is. It is amusing in context regardless if it is the best answer or not though

[stargatedalek]

While it certainly doesn't prove anything it's likely going to be the best "test" we'll ever have to go by. And to top that off even if we can estimate a very rough range of motion that still doesn't tell us how the animal would have preferred to hold its neck in life. A goose can stretch its neck straight forwards but it won't hold it there for any length of time or risk straining itself, some degree of curve is simply the status-quo regardless of an animals potential range of motion.

[Neosodon]

I imagine a giraffe would be the best modern animal for a comparison.

[tanystropheus]

Is the situation even more complex for animals with disproportionate (or highly exaggerated) necks (e.g Tanystropheus and/or Mamenchisaurus).

[Gwangi]

I imagine a giraffe would be the best modern animal for a comparison.

Probably not though, since a giraffe only has 7 vertebrae in its neck. Like a human. Sauropods would have had double that number, or more.

[suspsy]

I imagine a giraffe would be the best modern animal for a comparison.

Not in the slightest. A giraffe has only seven neck vertebrae, long, spindly limbs that are taller in front, and a relatively tiny tail.