Most (currently) accurate Acrocanthosaurus and Archaeopteryx (toy) models?

[Faelrin]

So I've been sort of desiring an Acrocanthosaurus to add to my growing collection of (mostly Safari Ltd) models/figures. I'm planning on getting the Safari Ltd Sauropelta, so I'd kind of prefer one that might be decent sized next to it (though if at the same scale it might be too big for me, considering my limited space), although that's probably most options on the market anyways. I've been looking at my options but I'm not really sure which would be the better one to go with if I want an "accurate" one. Most of the ones I'm aware about either suffer from shrink-wrapping in the head, huge feet, or other things, like the general proportions. Is there even one on the market that could even qualify as such right now?

I'd also like to add an Archaeoptyerx to my collection, but I'm not sure what my options are there. I'm aware about the Favorite one, the recent Bullyland one, and of course the Papo and Safari Ltd ones however. I think the Safari one appeals to me the most, and might be one of the most accurate out there to date (if Your Dinosaurs Are Wrong was anything to go by, give or take the few minor issues such as the reversed hallux). I'd also like this one to be on the small side (I know both the Safari Ltd and Papo ones are).

I know you folks here are really good with the science stuff, which is why I wanted to ask about these to get an idea. Any help would be much appreciated.

[acro-man]

We can hope Safari will release a new one next year.
As of now, none of the major brands have a satisfactory answer.
You can also try some 3D printing stores which sell a variety of dinosaurs in almost any scale.

[RobinGoodfellow]

Available Archaeopteryx in toy form:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130140542@N03/albums/72157688764112386
(Colorata one is missing)

[Halichoeres]

The Rebor Acrocanthosaurus is the largest, and therefore the closest to being in scale with the Sauropelta (which is about 1:25). The Papo is roughly 1:35, as is the CollectA (which is pretty ugly in my opinion). The Safari is probably the most accurate, but it's considerably smaller.

I think you're right that the Safari Archaeopteryx is the most accurate. I'm also fond of the Favorite version. There's also a lot of miniatures, but they're all from before any coloration was known, if you care about that.

[stargatedalek]

Long story short there is no currently accurate Archeopteryx, though some come closer than others.

The Safari one is the only one to take the colours into account, I don't know how much certainty over the colours we have, but black body with white primaries matches what I recall reading at the time. If that is the be-all-end-all for you, than look no further.

None of them have an alula, all of them are at least slightly shrink-wrapped (though more forgivable/overlook-able on the PNSO given its size), and none of them have the fused second and third finger. I don't know if any Archeopteryx fossils have been found with alula, but I'm fairly certain that some of the Microraptor fossils also didn't have one preserved. Alula are strange things, Microraptor had one, Zhenyuanlong did not, so the safest assumption seems to be that all flying members should be given one.

In addition to these common errors, the Safari model has the reversed hallux that you mentioned, and is also probably the most shrink-wrapped of them all.

The Papo model probably has the best feathers(/least shrink-wrapping), but it gets a lot of details wrong. The head is slightly too bulky, the tail and neck are too short, and it lacks the new upright toe (though I would argue we have very little evidence for this toe being held upright in quite so similar a pose to Dromaeosaurs).

The Kaiyodo is thin, but it's thin in a more realistic way ala swans or geese, rather than just making the feathers super small like the Safari's does. Its wings aren't perfect either, but they come closer than any of the others. It too lacks the upright toe.

The Favorite is what you'd get if you fixed up some of the details on the Papo, tail is fixed, wings still wrong, neck still stubby, head still a tad bulky, has the new feet.

PNSO is one of the better ones, it gets the wing anatomy wrong again, but the wings themselves are plenty large enough as is the tail. It also does a pretty good job with the feathers, but the main body is still on the skinny side to be sure (although it's largely hidden by those lovely wings).

Neither Bullyland sculpt is even in the running, they're neat if you're looking for a retro model though.

I'd recommend the Kaiyodo if the sculpt is of highest priority, but if it's a little to off from the current colours and feet for you the PNSO makes a nice middle ground between it and the Safari version.

[Faelrin]

Thanks for the in depth responses so far everyone. It will be hard for me to decide on figures, considering what my current options for both of these creatures are.

Considering my options for the Acrocanthosaurus, the Rebor Acrocanthosaurus looks the closest to having correct proportions, minus the oversized feet, and general shrink-wrapping. While I like the color scheme on that one, it is a bit out of my price range right now, and unless I were to get the rest of the diorama, the base and 1/3 carcass would be a little out of place when alongside my other figures. The Battat Terra one looks okay, but the arms seem too big. The Papo one looks close, minus the oversized arms, and shrink-wrapping, (and give or take the head shape). The Safari Ltd one has oversized hands and feet, and slight shrink-wrapping. The recent Schleich one is just all kinds of wrong. I'm not sure if Acrocanthosaurus had the enlarged claw on the first digit like Allosaurus, but other than that, am I correct in my evaluation of these figures? I'm leaning on either the Battat Terra, Papo (if I have the space for it down the road), or Safari Ltd.

Edit: I forgot about the CollectA (deluxe?) one. The coloration does not appeal to me, but that aside, it has the general shrink-wrapping, and the spine looks small. The rest of the proportions look okay though.

For the Archaeopteryx I might have to go with the Safari Ltd one, since it probably comes close with the colors from what is currently known, and because it's the most readily available one for me (although so is the Papo, but it does not appeal too much to me, with its lizard-like head). I'm not sure where I'd get the others, except on ebay maybe, and I don't know what their price range is.

@Stargatedalek When you mean shrink-wrapped, do you mean they are under-fluffed, not enough muscle, or both?

[stargatedalek]

@Stargatedalek When you mean shrink-wrapped, do you mean they are under-fluffed, not enough muscle, or both?

Mostly feathers, although the Safari is definitely under-muscled too. You should never be able to make out the outline of the pubic boot, the tail muscles nearly obscure it entirely even in modern birds with their tiny little tails, there should be no trace on a dinosaur with a longer tail.

My main issue with the Safari though is that the contour feathers look so small, they look they should be on an ostrich, not an animal only a few feet in length.

[Faelrin]

@Stargatedalek When you mean shrink-wrapped, do you mean they are under-fluffed, not enough muscle, or both?

Mostly feathers, although the Safari is definitely under-muscled too. You should never be able to make out the outline of the pubic boot, the tail muscles nearly obscure it entirely even in modern birds with their tiny little tails, there should be no trace on a dinosaur with a longer tail.

My main issue with the Safari though is that the contour feathers look so small, they look they should be on an ostrich, not an animal only a few feet in length.

Thanks for clarifying. I think I recall the Your Dinosaurs Are Wrong video having a similar criticism with the feathers on the Safari Ltd one in that regard.

Come to think of it, the Safari Ltd one also seems to suffer from the "horns" problem as well (or at least it looks it), if the discussion in the 2017 expo Troodon thread was anything to go by. That is probably a minor issue compared to the other problems though such as the shrink-wrapping, etc.

Considering most companies have produced one, but have issues in one form or another, it would be nice if CollectA could do one right if they were to create an Archaeopteryx. I won't get my hopes up though, and with their track record, theirs would probably suffer from shrink-wrapping as well.

[Shadowknight1]

Thanks for the in depth responses so far everyone. It will be hard for me to decide on figures, considering what my current options for both of these creatures are.

Considering my options for the Acrocanthosaurus, the Rebor Acrocanthosaurus looks the closest to having correct proportions, minus the oversized feet, and general shrink-wrapping. While I like the color scheme on that one, it is a bit out of my price range right now, and unless I were to get the rest of the diorama, the base and 1/3 carcass would be a little out of place when alongside my other figures. The Battat Terra one looks okay, but the arms seem too big. The Papo one looks close, minus the oversized arms, and shrink-wrapping, (and give or take the head shape). The Safari Ltd one has oversized hands and feet, and slight shrink-wrapping. The recent Schleich one is just all kinds of wrong. I'm not sure if Acrocanthosaurus had the enlarged claw on the first digit like Allosaurus, but other than that, am I correct in my evaluation of these figures? I'm leaning on either the Battat Terra, Papo (if I have the space for it down the road), or Safari Ltd.

Edit: I forgot about the CollectA (deluxe?) one. The coloration does not appeal to me, but that aside, it has the general shrink-wrapping, and the spine looks small. The rest of the proportions look okay though.

For the Archaeopteryx I might have to go with the Safari Ltd one, since it probably comes close with the colors from what is currently known, and because it's the most readily available one for me (although so is the Papo, but it does not appeal too much to me, with its lizard-like head). I'm not sure where I'd get the others, except on ebay maybe, and I don't know what their price range is.

@Stargatedalek When you mean shrink-wrapped, do you mean they are under-fluffed, not enough muscle, or both?

So far, there isn't a perfect Acrocanthosaurus.  I've yet to see one that includes the enlarged claw, so they all lose points for that.  The proportions of the REBOR are great, but it loses some points for the "angry eyebrows" that they gave it instead of the smaller crest.  The Papo is a great sculpt in a slightly awkward pose.  The Safari is great, but quite small.  The CollectA one is a Carcharodontosaurus with a slightly raised spine.

[spinosaurus1]

if you don't mind the small scale, theres always david krentz acrocanthosaurus, which is arguably the best affordable acrocanthosaurus around, dispite being only 5 inches in length

http://stores.dansdinosaurs.com/acrocanthosaurus-resin-kit-by-krentz/

f you don't mind forking in a bit of extra mulla, you can even get a professional to put it together and paint it up for you such as Martin Garratt. thats what i plan on doing with the majungasaurus

[Faelrin]

@Shadowknight1 Of what's on the market right now, the Rebor is probably my first choice, due to its proportions and coloration, but it is a bit of out my price range currently unless I save up for a while for it, otherwise I might need to go with the Papo or the Safari LTD ones at this rate. Either the Rebor or Papo would size up nice alongside the Safari Ltd Sauropelta I plan on getting though.

@spinosaurus1 I'm not too interested in resin mostly because of the price, and how delicate it is compared to plastic. In my situation it would more then likely end up damaged by one of my cats if I had such a thing around. It is a lovely sculpted piece though, for how small it is, but I'd be afraid of getting it and having it end up damaged.

[Reptilia]

So far, there isn't a perfect Acrocanthosaurus. I've yet to see one that includes the enlarged claw, so they all lose points for that.

Isn't the Rebor one pretty much accurate in that regard?

I'd say the Papo being just slightly smaller than "Hercules" would fit better for scale purposes with the WS Sauropelta.

[Halichoeres]

So far, there isn't a perfect Acrocanthosaurus. I've yet to see one that includes the enlarged claw, so they all lose points for that.

Isn't the Rebor one pretty much accurate in that regard?

I'd say the Papo being just slightly smaller than "Hercules" would fit better for scale purposes with the WS Sauropelta.

To the first point, the first finger of Acrocanthosaurus is the one that's supposed to be longer than the others. On the Rebor, the second finger's claw appears to be longest.

To the second point, the WS Sauropelta is at a surprisingly large scale, about 1:25, and the Rebor is probably the closest to being that large. I only have the Papo, which is around 1:35, but from other people's photos it seems like the Rebor version is a little larger.

[Reptilia]

I don't know if it is any accurate, but googling Scott Hartman's skeletal I get this:



To me looks like the middle finger is the one that's elongated. Anyway I find the Rebor one quite accurate regarding fingers' anatomy. Unless this skeletal is totally wrong, of course. Maybe is outdated and Rebor (and Papo too, I'd say) referenced it for their sculpt.

[tyrantqueen]

No, it's good. Scott Hartman's skeletals are generally accurate and up to date. Better Hartman than GSP.

[Faelrin]

That's the skeletal that I was referencing in regards to my comments about the figures too. It was either that or that one skeleton image on Wikipedia. 

So I did some measurements of the figures I have currently, and it seems like I'll have enough space for either of the big Acrocanthosaurus figures. Here I was thinking they'd be much larger then what they actually are (like much bigger then my Battat Terra T. rex for some reason). I think I'm leaning on getting the Papo for right now, only because it is much cheaper then the Rebor one. Might be a while since I have quite a wishlist to get through beforehand so anything could change by then, give or take some older Papo models.

In fact I was actually thinking of getting the Papo Allosaurus, when I realized that Allosaurus might have this dilemma as well. While the Papo one is pretty decent, it does have its flaws (pronated wrists and too wide of a head), and honestly I'm not sure what is more accurate out there currently beyond the Kaiyodo versions perhaps. The green Safari one is shrink-wrapped in the head pretty badly, and is a tripod in pose, but has properly oriented wrists. The new Mojo one looks okay, but has its flaws as well.

[Halichoeres]

I don't know if it is any accurate, but googling Scott Hartman's skeletal I get this:



To me looks like the middle finger is the one that's elongated. Anyway I find the Rebor one quite accurate regarding fingers' anatomy. Unless this skeletal is totally wrong, of course. Maybe is outdated and Rebor (and Papo too, I'd say) referenced it for their sculpt.

Right, I see now that I was unclear. You're completely right that the middle finger is the longest, but the longest, heaviest claw is on the first digit. This is from Currie & Carpenter 2000 (Geodiversitas 22:207):

That's the claw that's too small on pretty much every Acrocanthosaurus toy. In addition to being longer, it's also heavier and more strongly curved, so it's larger even than what this drawing's angle suggests. I might be mistaken, but I think only the Kaiyodo has an appropriately robust first claw.

[Reptilia]

On Scott Hartman's blog the current reconstruction is the one in my previous post, although with a simple Google search comes up another one which seems to have the first claw a bit more prominent, but only because it is pointing up. As for the length and size of the three claws they still look quite the same to me:



If you search for museal reconstructions it doesn't seem there's any difference either, at least looking from these two different perspectives:





The only depiction I've found that shows an evident difference between the finger claws is the following:



Now I wonder on what this knowledge of an enlarged claw is based on. I mean, there's any complete fossil of an Acrocanthosaurus "hand" or the claws' size is simply a conjecture based on fragmentary remains? In any case seems like most reconstructions doesn't feature an enlarged claw on the first finger, at the very least it is depicted pointing upwards, but still not any bigger than the other two. I'd say that sculptors are somehow justified, cause there's not much reliable material to reference.

Back to the original question I think that it is purely a matter of personal taste, cause more or less all Acrocanthosaurus models available are on the same level of accuracy. Minus the Schleich version, obviously.

[IrritatorRaji]

If you don't mind the fact that you'd have to paint them yourself, you can get some pretty good  Acros on Shapeways

https://www.shapeways.com/search?q=Acrocanthosaurus&type=

[Mirroraptor]

The best Acro figure you can found maybe is Galileo Hernandez' articulate Acrocanthosaurus. But as we know, he is on our blacklist of slow sellers.
Or you can think about some model kits, such as CreativeBeast Acrocanthosaurus series or Krenz' 1/72 scale Acro. Or Kaiyodo Dinotale?