David Silva's Beasts of the Mesozoic: Ceratopsian Series - WAVE TWO SHIPPING!

[Flaffy]

@Flaffy I would definitely suggest reaching out to him in some manner about this, unless you would want me too, if not someone else to relay the information on the kickstarter. While it is this early in the game, things can probably be adjusted (although perhaps in this figure's particular case, none of this will likely matter if the stretch goal is not unlocked).

I'm planning on bringing it up on Facebook. But I don't have access to Kickstarter comments atm, could you help bring this to David's attention on KS as well?
Maybe if more people mention the inaccuracies, David will be more incentivised to fix the sculpt.

What I do know is that there seems to be several different sculptors in this process, and the sculpts seem to start from the skulls, which are 3D printed, with detail filled in and over them. After digging for info, I saw that Simon Panek did the sculpting (and the skull was sculpted from Raul Ramos). The Regaliceratops you linked was also worked on by both of those artists.

Indeed. Therefore it is quite puzzling how Simon missed sculpting the frill knobs, Epiparietal 1, and the lower portion of the orbital protrusions, as he had Ramos's skull to sculpt on, which clearly depicts these features.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I mentioned some of the accuracy issues to him on Instagram and his response was....huh....he doesn't seem to really care honestly

[Faelrin]

@amargasaurus cazaui For which figure? I recall David being willing to make changes if they were caught in time with the raptor series (for example the Buitreraptor head was fixed, the rest of the raptors were given lips, etc). He even just had the horns for the Diabloceratops corrected after someone had asked about it from the update where it was first shown being painted. The issue with the hands on the Psittacosaurus looks to have been fixed as well. I'll post some comparisons down below for folks.

Diabloceratops:

Spoiler

Before:



After:

[close]

Psittacosaurus:

Spoiler

Before:



After:

[close]

@Flaffy Okay I'll certainly ask about it there. Is it fine if I copy the list of the issues you created?

[terrorchicken]

so since no one really answered any of my noob questions let me ask again as I would like to try to pledge before the campaign is over but I want to make sure I can pay for it.

does Kickstarter accept Visa Vanilla gift cards, the ones you can buy at grocery stores?

do I have to get one of the rewards to get a stretch goal? If I just want a stretch goal figure can I change my reward to the stretch goal I want later when its unlocked so I only have to buy that one figure?

another thing I didn't ask about previously, what is the difference b/w the regular price and the "add on" price? for example the zuni says $25 and then below $27: add on? why are there two prices?

Yes, a prepaid Visa card should work fine. This is exactly the kind of situation they're made for.

Right now you can only pledge for something that has been unlocked. But once a stretch goal is unlocked, you can change your pledge for just that item.

Regular price is the price for pledging for that item alone. "Add-on" is for any item you want to include in your pledge, once you have pledged for a different item. You can only choose one pledge item at regular price.

thank you! that's cleared up so much for me! 
So if I really want the avaceratops but it hasn't been unlocked yet, I can pledge for the zuni as an add on. Do I have to pledge $45 now when I select it(zuni) and later switch to the ava when it unlocks? What happens if I pledge the $45 and the ava doesn't unlock? Can I still go back to the zuni after the campaign ends or are you only allowed to switch your reward before?

[Faelrin]

@terrorchicken You can change your pledge amount and reward as many times as you need to before the campaign ends. If you only want the Avaceratops, though it has not been funded yet, you can select the Zuniceratops as the reward for the meantime, and pledge the amount needed for the Avaceratops, the $45, or whatever. Once the Avaceratops unlocks you can switch your pledge to that, and add on any remaining amount if there is any. If the Avaceratops does not get unlocked prior to the campaign ending, you would still have selected the Zuniceratops as your reward, but you would want to change the amount (to the $25 or whatever), though you can also cancel your pledge too, if need be.

Edit: If you want both, keep the Zuniceratops as the reward, and addon the $47 or $50 for the Avaceratops to your pledge total, or if the Avaceratops is unlocked you could switch your pledge to that and addon the amount for the Zuniceratops (at $27). So the total for both would be about $72 minimum.

If you are short on funds for these when it comes time to the backerkit survey, you can always pay the addition then, as well as add on/pay for more figures if you would be interested and/or can afford to do so then. It's likely what I will be doing for any of these stretch goal figures that I will unlikely be able to afford with all four figures and the print when the campaign ends (which is $242).

Also keep in mind Avaceratops is a Wave 2 figure (est shipping March 2021), and Zuniceratops is a Wave 1 figure (est Shipping Sept 2020).

[Flaffy]

He even just had the horns for the Diabloceratops corrected after someone had asked about it from the update where it was first shown being painted. The issue with the hands on the Psittacosaurus looks to have been fixed as well. I'll post some comparisons down below for folks.

The difference is, both of those inaccuracies didn't rly require 'major' alterations to the sculpt. Psittaco's hands were just in the wrong orientation during assembly, and didn't require new sculpts. And Diablo's horns could've been fixed without affecting to the rest of the head sculpt.

The sinoceratops and medusaceratops however, require much larger alterations to the sculpt.

@Flaffy Okay I'll certainly ask about it there. Is it fine if I copy the list of the issues you created?

Be my guest. 

[Faelrin]

@Flaffy Yeah that is certainly true. The major issues might not be fixed. Might be too late to do so. Still won't hurt to ask though. And thanks. I'll go post it now.

And what was wrong with the Medusaceratops?

Edit: This is what I posted:

I saw some concerns on the head sculpt of the Sinoceratops (in a discussion on the dinotoyforum), and I agreed to rely them here, though I do not know if it would be too late to have them fixed or not (though I suppose this also assumes this figure will be funded for production, which I certainly hope so). Anyways, here they are:
"- missing the knobs/protrusions on the top of it's frill.
- missing the lower portion of the orbital(?) protrusions.
- missing Epiparietal 1, the frill hornlet right between the top 2 curved hornlets not depicted on the figure.
- lower part of the frill looks folded/curved in too much"
Granted I'm not as familiar with this as this individual was, but it does seem like some of those features were on the skull but perhaps not carried over into the sculpt itself? Again I don't know if any of this would be too late to implement as the prototype for the Sinoceratops has already been assembled and painted up.

[Dinoguy2]

I mentioned some of the accuracy issues to him on Instagram and his response was....huh....he doesn't seem to really care honestly

That's dissapointing. I messaged him about an issue I noticed with the feet (foot pad was way too small to non-existent compared to trackway evidence) and he did fix that.

[Faelrin]

Alright, after I got in touch with David on the kickstarter, and messaged him the link to the post Flaffy made for the Sinoceratops stuff (here: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=6906.msg239629#msg239629 ), he said he would adjust it, and should have an update on it in about next week.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

@amargasaurus cazaui For which figure? I recall David being willing to make changes if they were caught in time with the raptor series (for example the Buitreraptor head was fixed, the rest of the raptors were given lips, etc). He even just had the horns for the Diabloceratops corrected after someone had asked about it from the update where it was first shown being painted. The issue with the hands on the Psittacosaurus looks to have been fixed as well. I'll post some comparisons down below for folks.

Diabloceratops:

Spoiler

Before:



After:

[close]

Psittacosaurus:

Spoiler

Before:



After:

[close]

@Flaffy Okay I'll certainly ask about it there. Is it fine if I copy the list of the issues you created?

I asked him about the size of the psittacosaurus upper jaws (the head and upper rostral area of the species he stated he was modeling were much more pronounced)  and the entirely too subdued jugals, in particular...he said huh and nothing further.


When I inquired about the reasoning behind running with all more derived species and making the few more basal models stretch goals his comment was.....wow.

Just havent been too impressed with his responses or concern for the models myself.I am probably in the minority in asking for the basal species although I see plenty of comments from others who werent particularly impressed with the choices either

[Faelrin]

@amargasaurus cazaui Which post was this made on (unless it was through a private message)? I go on instagram myself, and check the comments occasionally, but might have missed seeing that.

While I am also disappointed about some of the obscure species that got scrapped (such as Turanoceratops, or Leptoceratops, etc), I still think it was a good choice to narrow it down and/or combine the campaigns, and even 25 is still a large number of potential figures (and more then the previous campaign). Featuring some of the more famous ones (particularly Triceratops) might even be crucial for creating a broader appeal, which is important to get the campaign funded. For the obscure species, at least we still have Zuniceratops, and some others that I don't think have any figures of currently (such as Wendiceratops and Spiclypeus I think), so not a complete loss in that regard.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

@amargasaurus cazaui Which post was this made on (unless it was through a private message)? I go on instagram myself, and check the comments occasionally, but might have missed seeing that.

While I am also disappointed about some of the obscure species that got scrapped (such as Turanoceratops, or Leptoceratops, etc), I still think it was a good choice to narrow it down and/or combine the campaigns, and even 25 is still a large number of potential figures (and more then the previous campaign). Featuring some of the more famous ones (particularly Triceratops) might even be crucial for creating a broader appeal, which is important to get the campaign funded. For the obscure species, at least we still have Zuniceratops, and some others that I don't think have any figures of currently (such as Wendiceratops and Spiclypeus I think), so not a complete loss in that regard.

my remarks were.made to Creative beast on Instagram in his open post showing the sort of tree like layout of ceratopsians and @ psittacosaurus on its introductory post there.  I use a different name on social media but the posts are there

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Regarding what got scrapped vs what did not he essentially chose almost 50 dinosaurs that are nearly identical aside from headgear and frills etc. The bodies are likely mostly interchangeable making it a simplification for himself  and far more profitable

   Placing the only two basal species as stretch goals was adding insult to injury ....looking at wave 2 and additional stretch goals this narrow focus seems to only get worse

I feel of he wanted to.truly offer a series on ceratopsians he might have considered they began mid to late Jurassic and.his.models other  than the two stretch goals are all give or take mid to late Cretaceous.

Surely he could have done even one or two from that vast time period rather  than offering all  of the nearly identical models ...I cannot speak for anyone else but I was excited for this series until he made the decision to axe everything that made it unique to me

[Flaffy]

]I asked him about the size of the psittacosaurus upper jaws (the head and upper rostral area of the species he stated he was modeling were much more pronounced)  and the entirely too subdued jugals, in particular...he said huh and nothing further.

Did you provide any references or sources to back up your arguments? Or just vague one liners like "where did the jugals go". David tends to respond well when provided with scientific evidence.

Also regarding BotM psittaco's  head shape, could you provide evidence? From looking at skeletals at P. mongoliensis, the figure faithfully depicts the features of the species. A smaller head compared to other species in the genus, and relatively subdued jugals.
I personally don't see any major innacuracies within the head sculpt.

(up: P. mogoliensis)

When I inquired about the reasoning behind running with all more derived species and making the few more basal models stretch goals his comment was.....wow.

Just havent been too impressed with his responses or concern for the models myself.I am probably in the minority in asking for the basal species although I see plenty of comments from others who werent particularly impressed with the choices either

Maybe David's response was due to the tone/wording of your original post?
"Blown opportunity with nothing basal like archaeoceratops...aquilops..udanoceratops. 20 models almost identical except the horns and frill. The only unique two are stretch goals. Yinlong...or even a micro pachycephalosaurus would have been unique and diversified"

Starting the post off in with "Blown opportunity" sets a negative, sarcastic tone for the rest of the message. "almost identical" has a bit of negative connotation to it. The words "only" and "even" further emphasise the tone of the piece.

[Flaffy]

@Flaffy Yeah that is certainly true. The major issues might not be fixed. Might be too late to do so. Still won't hurt to ask though. And thanks. I'll go post it now.

Very nice, thanks for the generous help! 

And what was wrong with the Medusaceratops?

While minor to some, it's a little bit of a big deal for me, since Medusaceratops is one of my favourite ceratopsians. Here goes (basically just gonna quote what I posted on David's FB):

"Regarding the Medusaceratops, I've noticed a few things that could be changed to improve the accuracy of the figure based on this paper:
http://sci-hub.tw/.../852C434AB7EC109D5654742EAB15FDEC

The paper (figure 3, the new reconstruction), and Ramo's skull, indicates that ep 3 and ep 4 should be positioned further apart from each other.
On the figure, ep 3 and ep 4's shape isn't quite correct. ep 3 should look like a minature version of ep 2, being flatter in shape, with it's base being wider.
ep 4 should be more akin to ep 5 in shape, size and position.


as seen here on the figure; ep 3 and 4 are too close together, and the shape of the 2 hornlets could be improved to better reflect the dinosaur's anatomy.
"

@Faelrin The rest of the convo can be found in the link below, basically addressing how it's likely ontogenetic differences rather than individual variation.
FB link: https://www.facebook.com/BeastSculptKit/posts/2919345848080601

[amargasaurus cazaui]

]I asked him about the size of the psittacosaurus upper jaws (the head and upper rostral area of the species he stated he was modeling were much more pronounced)  and the entirely too subdued jugals, in particular...he said huh and nothing further.

Did you provide any references or sources to back up your arguments? Or just vague one liners like "where did the jugals go". David tends to respond well when provided with scientific evidence.

Also regarding BotM psittaco's  head shape, could you provide evidence? From looking at skeletals at P. mongoliensis, the figure faithfully depicts the features of the species. A smaller head compared to other species in the genus, and relatively subdued jugals.
I personally don't see any major innacuracies within the head sculpt.

(up: P. mogoliensis)

When I inquired about the reasoning behind running with all more derived species and making the few more basal models stretch goals his comment was.....wow.

Just havent been too impressed with his responses or concern for the models myself.I am probably in the minority in asking for the basal species although I see plenty of comments from others who werent particularly impressed with the choices either

Maybe David's response was due to the tone/wording of your original post?
"Blown opportunity with nothing basal like archaeoceratops...aquilops..udanoceratops. 20 models almost identical except the horns and frill. The only unique two are stretch goals. Yinlong...or even a micro pachycephalosaurus would have been unique and diversified"

Starting the post off in with "Blown opportunity" sets a negative, sarcastic tone for the rest of the message. "almost identical" has such a negative connotation to it. The words "only" and "even" further emphasise the tone of the piece.

Maybe my response was in return for my views of what was done there...Thanks for your word by word translation of my comments. Blown opportunity is my view of what was done and is concise and accurate. It is negative, it was meant to be...as in gee I dont like what happened here. As for sarcasm, no it really is not. Stating my view that it was a blown opportunity contains zero sarcasm , rather a factual view of my thoughts on the affair. Almost identical is an appropriate description of the some 50 models offered in wave 1 and 2, each with as you of course well know, pieces modeled and even shared multiple times on the group. Unsure how you see anything bot...almost identical since they share parts! Only and even were placed for emphasis, and you are correct in that regard...THE ONLY UNIQUE TWO ARE STRETCH GOALS .....EVEN a pachycephalosaurus would have been unique or diversified. It seems like you are doing your divine best to draw and write entire sentences from my each and every word. I told David my thoughts, and his comment was...wow...okay fair enough. Not my thing then, sorry. He chose all more derived models, which looks like a cash grab from my viewpoint and chose not to model anything that did not fit the basic body plan. I made him aware of my view, he did not care, I wont spend my money, enough said.

   As for P. mongoliensis,you posted a Hartman skeletal and zero actual fossil evidence....but sure lets look more closely at what you chose to cherry pick and use....now go to the bottom image.Now take a good hard look at the jugals in the image...notice they flare out adequately enough to nearly double the size of the skull....and then tear yourself away from your fixation with skeletals for a moment and realize that those jugals would have likely been covered in keratin which would add enormously to their size.  Kind of the issue with using a single skeletal to try and make your case what a living model would resemble ....

Now look at the skull of the dinosaur from the side closely.Notice where the jaw line falls...there is more skull above the jawline than below by a 2.5 or 3/1 disparity ....the upper cranium was huge compared to the lower jaw . Lets say its even a factor of 2/1 with the upper being larger than the lower.....that frill has four fenestrae in it, two per side and two more across the top....now remember that is a frill and beak, and the entire thing was likely encased in keratin ...not raw bone as your skeletal shows. On a living animal, once you add musculature, nerves, optics, sensory organs, that head was massive....again sort of the problem with basing your entire understanding of an animal on a skeletal.

I visited a few of the sites for the guys who restore psittacosaurus skeletons for museums and universities, as well as checked the skeleton I have sitting behind me here in the living room. Take the time to actually go and look at a few of the mounted skeletons for P.Mongoliensis and look at the jugals and the size of that head in particular. Look at some actual fossils...and then see if you feel the same

[Flaffy]

It is negative, it was meant to be...as in gee I dont like what happened here.

Then why do you seem surprised when David gave a warranted response of "wow"?

He chose all more derived models, which looks like a cash grab from my viewpoint and chose not to model anything that did not fit the basic body plan. I made him aware of my view, he did not care, I wont spend my money, enough said.

Or maybe sharing parts helps in keeping the figures more affordable? Along with easily representing multiple popular species at minimal cost.
While I too do wish that more basal ceratopsians were included, derived ceratopsians with more extravagant horns and frills tend to sell better. A trend seen in most if not all dinosaur toy companies, where the only ceratopsians made that aren't ceratopsids are Psittacosaurus with the occasional rare Protoceratops.

...zero actual fossil evidence....

The same could be said for you. Though as psittacosaurus is also one of my favourite dinosaurs, I am genuinely interested in learning more about it. Precise measurements and dimensions of the fossils would be nice.

but sure lets look more closely at what you chose to cherry pick and use....

Didn't rly cherry pick anything, wasn't my intention. But most if not all depictions of P. mogloliensis, mounts, skeletals or artwork, show rather subdued jugals as compared to other species of Psittacosaurus, e.g. P. neimogoliensis or P. sibiricus.
While I don't have the exact measurements of P. mogoliensis skeletals, nor do I claim to know all about the species; the fossil images I found do not show extreme jugal protrusion as you suggest.

now go to the bottom image.Now take a good hard look at the jugals in the image...notice they flare out adequately enough to nearly double the size of the skull....

But the bottom image does not depict P. mogoliensis, rather P. neimongoliensis (I think, but it's definitely not P. mongoliensis).

and then tear yourself away from your fixation with skeletals for a moment and realize that those jugals would have likely been covered in keratin which would add enormously to their size.  Kind of the issue with using a single skeletal to try and make your case what a living model would resemble ....

I do realise those limitations, I never claimed that particular skeletal is the definitive depiction of a Psittacosaurus, or any skeletal for the matter or fact. I am fully aware that (most) skeletals are conservative with tissue and keratin. I don't understand why you insist on being so aggressive with your language, and your baseless assumptions on my supposed "fixation" on skeletals.
Also, Hartman never made a P. mongoliensis skeletal. Not publicly anyways.

On a living animal, once you add musculature, nerves, optics, sensory organs, that head was massive....again sort of the problem with basing your entire understanding of an animal on a skeletal.

I've said it before, I agree that this is a conservative reconstruction of the jugals, but imo it is within the realm of possibility. To my knowledge, no keratin extensions of the jugals have been found on P. mongoliensis as of now, no one can know for sure how far/short the keratin extended. You're treating as if speculative large keratin extensions on the jugals of P. mongoliensis is an absolute fact that can't be disputed.

I visited a few of the sites for the guys who restore psittacosaurus skeletons for museums and universities, as well as checked the skeleton I have sitting behind me here in the living room. Take the time to actually go and look at a few of the mounted skeletons for P.Mongoliensis and look at the jugals and the size of that head in particular. Look at some actual fossils...and then see if you feel the same

Not everyone has the luxury of having their own personal Psittacosaurus mount, nor does everyone have access to good mounts of Psittacosaurus in their local area. It is unfortunate, but skeletals, papers and images of fossils are all I've got. And I most certainly don't claim to be the most knowledgable on the subject of Psittacosaurus.
I'm just trying to get you to present the information you have, so we can have a calm civil discussion on the accuracy of an action figure.

[Flaffy]

The discrepancies between the ratio of upper and lower skull portions could also be due to the fact that soft issue was already taken into consideration.

I just did some rough measurments of the two Psittacosaurus heads using these 2 images (while not perfect, it's the closest side view we have of the BotM figure):



Here are the results (in ratio, Upper portion : Lower portion)
BotM Psittacosaurus
Region A~  1.32 : 1
Region B~  1.62 : 1
Region C~  2.11 : 1

Skeletal
Region A~  2.05 : 1
Region B~  1.61 : 1
Region C~  2.27 : 1

As seen here, Region A's discrepancy is the largest, while B and C are acceptable margins of error.
The reason for A's discrepancy can be concluded as:
1) Human error on my part, e.g. including bits that aren't part of the lower jaw (likely)
or
2) Jake was generous when sculpting the soft tissue to not make the dinosaur look emaciated.
or
3) The sculpt in that region is inaccurate and was made too tall. (unlikely, since Jake is very well educated and experienced in regards to dinosaur anatomy)

[suspsy]

Beginning a critique with "Missed opportunity" immediately sets a decidedly hostile tone. It wouldn't surprise me if David Silva was inclined to dismiss such comments, regardless of how accurate or helpful they are. He's only human, after all. And yes, he most likely is concerned about being economical whenever he can and turning a profit. Neither is an inherently bad thing. It's how he keeps his business alive. It's how all the dinosaur toy companies stay alive. 

[Faelrin]

@amargasaurus cazaui I agree with a lot of the points Flaffy made. The parts sharing is absolutely a necessity to make production not only easier, but also to keep the prices for the consumer down. That's kind of the reality of making highly articulated action figures. That clearly wouldn't be much of a problem if they had less articulation overall or were static figures. Considering the scale chosen (which was likely chosen as it is a popular scale used for action figures, thus creating a form of compatibility with them), that is important in keeping the costs down, since many are already pretty costly from being made in this scale, and not a smaller scale (though in the case of Protoceratops and Psittacosaurus it certainly makes sense to keep them in 1/6 for compatibility with the previous raptor series figures). Additionally not having many of the popular species represented does impact potential sales and/or in this case funding for the kickstarter to even get them to a place where they can be sold after, which I did mention earlier (which is why having Triceratops was only a good thing, as many people were consistently asking for it before the campaign was merged, and the sad reality is that it is one of the few dinosaurs the general public at large are interested in, which might not express interest in this otherwise, and then possibly additional species, if it wasn't there. Though it is also a good choice with the loads of fossil evidence behind it). And yes it is good to take risks with certain obscure or less represented species every once in a while, which is certainly why I am planning on getting the Zuniceratops (and the rest of the first four), and many of the stretch goal species, if they get funded that is.

If I recall correctly ceratopsians (and Styracosaurus I know is one of his favorites in particular), are one of his favorite group of dinosaurs, hence why they were chosen for the next kickstarter, etc. So if I had to guess maybe many of the species chosen were ones he was personally interested in having made, other then fan demand of course. So basically while many of the species share similar body plans, many of those species are quite popular and good choices to be made to increase demand and have a broader audience, as well as keeping the total cost of the figures down in addition to making things simpler for production overall. I do agree with some of your suggestions (such as Yinlong in particular, which would be a great counterpart to Guanlong if it were ever made), but maybe in the future they can get another chance to be made.

Edit: I also would like to say that the similar body plans does not bother me. It really is the fact that the heads are so diverse that peaks my interest (aside from the color schemes). Even prior to the color schemes being made I was really set on wanting particular species on the basis of their skulls, etc, such as Regaliceratops and Diabloceratops. It's also why I would also be particularly interested in hadrosaurids (specifically lambeosaurines) if they were ever made, aside from many of those not having much representation to begin with outside of Parasaurolophus (though that is one of my favorite dinosaurs too), and being a crucial part of many late Cretaceous ecosystems, but again still ignored for the most part. They also have quite the evidence behind many of them, including integument (and in large amounts in some species), which come to think of it many of the ceratopsian species chosen also have a fair amount of evidence (and readily available research material online), and in some cases even integument (Triceratops, and Chasmosaurus, and while not the same species used, there was that one specimen of Psittacosaurus as well, which was likely referenced for skin texture on the sculpt), which also lends well to figures being made (and in the species that lack evidence, when they relatives that do have plenty of evidence, it's safe to fill in the blanks based on them for the meantime, which was the case for many of the species chosen for the raptor series).

@Flaffy Huh. Thanks for those references and pointing that stuff out about the Medusaceratops. I'm certainly not familiar with that dinosaur so I wouldn't have known otherwise.