Safari Ltd - new for 2019

[Doug Watson]

Okay last words on this I promise. First I made it clear in my previous post that Patryx commented on that I am frustrated by online reviews that state as fact that there are inaccuracies then provide no reference. If you wonder why I am frustrated just read the comments that follow a lot of these reviews, maybe not this one in particular but a lot of followers take the review as gospel and pile on. Just look at Dinoguy's response to your review, he said he was disappointed, that is the power you have. People say I should have a sick skin so I'll turn that back on you if you write a critique and the artist takes offence don't be surprised. It is only after I posted these rebuttals that you have decided to provide reference. In this case still you did not address what I said, I said to check Scott Hartman's skeletal for A. Fragilis but refer me to A. sp the wrong one. Please check his A. Fragilis. I stand by my interpretation of A fragilis. Fair enough, I asked for reference and you provided it, thank you. I have seen some of Francisco's work but and I am not trying to insult him here but I don't know who he is. It is ironic however that you send me to this interpretation because when I scale it to my original not only is the neck correct but his skull is even longer that Scott's. My background is working in museums with scientists and I have been interpreting scientific drawings for years. So I don't know how you are scaling off these skeletal lets just agree to disagree.
Again I am sorry you found my response rude but this has been piling up and frankly with more and more of these reviews coming out of the woodwork I think my best solution is not to respond to them. The one person that I had previously contacted and presented my evidence to eventually relented and made a correction but I see now this was an exception and like I said you seem to be interpreting the same skeletal differently from me so there is really no use in continuing the conversation, believe what you want.
As to the insult you seem to be feeling again think how I feel when everyday a new one of these shows up and will be there for posterity.
You say I hurt you well your last comment was obviously meant to be sarcastic and a shot at me so touche.

Well I am not going to get deeper into this argument anymore on here, I was sharing my honest opinions and I was genuinely respectful, and I extremely highly recommended the figure in my review. I see no harm. If you would like to discuss this further, maybe we can get on the same page, I am a really reasonable guy that will admit when I am wrong, I just currently am not convinced.

I would love to chat more personally about it with you if you would be willing.

I would prefer discord -
My username and tag: Kikiziller#4920
My server: https://discord.gg/E8B6zJt

or if that doesn't work then -
You can contact me through email at: [email protected]
or facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Kikizilla101/

Dinotoyblog is awesome but it is more difficult to keep up on and is frustrating to get notifications through. Let me know if you would be willing to chat about this, I would love to get your perspective on these figures and hear your side. Maybe I could make some kind of video sharing your side of the story so you can feel like your opinion is getting more exposure Keep up the great work!

Okay I lied those weren't my last words, I am reminded of an argument I had here about the Jurassic Park Movie series where the person I was arguing with kept repeating the same point without addressing my counterpoints. He just kept saying "I got you" I got frustrated and it never occurred to me to point this failing out. Eventually the person dropped out of the forum so I missed my chance.
In this case I have pointed out my interpretation of the reference I suggested but you keep pointing to different references and even come up with the exact opposite interpretation of your own reference so really it is pointless. I don't know if you can't scale properly, I know I can, I did it for 17 years in the museum and for another 15 years doing these miniatures or maybe you don't want to admit I am right. Either way I am happy to drop it and let my work stand for itself.

[The Prehistoric Traveler]

And Spinodude, i like your reviews but why would you even mention something that is accurate (arms) but nonetheless not to your liking. You should commend Watson's loyalty to accuracy. It's like saying: i don't like these black patches on the overal white color of this (domesticated) cow figure/model. It's just highly irrelevant. Animals current or prehistoric did't or do not exist to please our transient sense of aesthetics. From now on i'm going to mute these reviews (and do MORE of my own reading).

[Kikizilla101]

And Spinodude, i like your reviews but why would you even mention something that is accurate (arms) but nonetheless not to your liking. You should commend Watson's loyalty to accuracy. It's like saying: i don't like these black patches on the overal white color of this (domesticated) cow figure/model. It's just highly irrelevant. Animals current or prehistoric did't or do not exist to please our transient sense of aesthetics. From now on i'm going to mute these reviews (and do MORE of my own reading).

Because he is allowed to express his opinion in his video. Why is that an issue? He never states it is inaccurate, he just claims he is not a fan.

[Kikizilla101]

Okay I lied those weren't my last words, I am reminded of an argument I had here about the Jurassic Park Movie series where the person I was arguing with kept repeating the same point without addressing my counterpoints. He just kept saying "I got you" I got frustrated and it never occurred to me to point this failing out. Eventually the person dropped out of the forum so I missed my chance.
In this case I have pointed out my interpretation of the reference I suggested but you keep pointing to different references and even come up with the exact opposite interpretation of your own reference so really it is pointless. I don't know if you can't scale properly, I know I can, I did it for 17 years in the museum and for another 15 years doing these miniatures or maybe you don't want to admit I am right. Either way I am happy to drop it and let my work stand for itself.

I understand and respect your experience but I also respect my eyes. When I was lining up a diagram of Allosaurus in Photoshop for my research I saw distinct and obvious differences. I remain unconvinced and that is that. I will admit if I am proven wrong. Maybe in the future when I make these photoshop renders I will save them and put them in my reviews so people will stop complaining. I will let your figures stand on their own, but I am also going to be honest if I believe something could have been done better, that's what you do in these reviews, that's why people watch them.  I never try to hate on products or the hard work put into them, in-fact I desperately try to help out figures that I see being under appreciated, like the CollectA 2018 Roaring Tyrannosaurus Rex. If you dont feel like having a further discussion then fine I wont, I tried to help and be polite. Have a good day.

[The Prehistoric Traveler]

And Spinodude, i like your reviews but why would you even mention something that is accurate (arms) but nonetheless not to your liking. You should commend Watson's loyalty to accuracy. It's like saying: i don't like these black patches on the overal white color of this (domesticated) cow figure/model. It's just highly irrelevant. Animals current or prehistoric did't or do not exist to please our transient sense of aesthetics. From now on i'm going to mute these reviews (and do MORE of my own reading).

Because he is allowed to express his opinion in his video. Why is that an issue? He never states it is inaccurate, he just claims he is not a fan.

A review regarding models of prehistoric animals has to be a generic form of presentation to the public if it's to be rational and useful. It should be about skill, accuracy and paint application. The rest is utterly irrelevant. He can dislike how the arms look all day long but it doesn't belong in a review about prehistoric figures/models.

[Doug Watson]

Okay I lied those weren't my last words, I am reminded of an argument I had here about the Jurassic Park Movie series where the person I was arguing with kept repeating the same point without addressing my counterpoints. He just kept saying "I got you" I got frustrated and it never occurred to me to point this failing out. Eventually the person dropped out of the forum so I missed my chance.
In this case I have pointed out my interpretation of the reference I suggested but you keep pointing to different references and even come up with the exact opposite interpretation of your own reference so really it is pointless. I don't know if you can't scale properly, I know I can, I did it for 17 years in the museum and for another 15 years doing these miniatures or maybe you don't want to admit I am right. Either way I am happy to drop it and let my work stand for itself.

I understand and respect your experience but I also respect my eyes. When I was lining up a diagram of Allosaurus in Photoshop for my research I saw distinct and obvious differences. I remain unconvinced and that is that. I will admit if I am proven wrong. Maybe in the future when I make these photoshop renders I will save them and put them in my reviews so people will stop complaining. I will let your figures stand on their own, but I am also going to be honest if I believe something could have been done better, that's what you do in these reviews, that's why people watch them.  I never try to hate on products or the hard work put into them, in-fact I desperately try to help out figures that I see being under appreciated, like the CollectA 2018 Roaring Tyrannosaurus Rex. If you dont feel like having a further discussion then fine I wont, I tried to help and be polite. Have a good day.

I don't trust my eyes alone that is why I use proportional dividers and other measuring devices taking measurements off of the scientific papers and applying them directly to my models. You also have to know how to actually measure a dinosaur specimen, I have found a lot of people don't. Thanks for trying to help me I guess I will stumble on alone, you keep saying you have tried to be polite I assume you are suggesting I have not been polite. I have been frustrated but I do believe I have remained polite. Have a good day yourself.

[TaranUlas]

Hey guys, what's going on her-... oh.

I think I can understand where multiple people are coming from on this topic so I'm kinda torn on where I stand on this subject (It doesn't help that I have debated about reviewing dinosaur figures that I own on youtube myself so I have some biases in that field.)

As a result, I will kindly stay out of this since A. I have no dog in this fight and B. I respect everyone involved in this too much to waltz in like a fool and yell about stuff I don't know about. The only comment I even want to try and address is this one:

A review regarding models of prehistoric animals has to be a generic form of presentation to the public if it's to be rational and useful. It should be about skill, accuracy and paint application. The rest is utterly irrelevant. He can dislike how the arms look all day long but it doesn't belong in a review about prehistoric figures/models.

With all due respect, I immensely disagree with that concept. If the goal of a review of prehistoric models is solely to serve as teaching pieces about the accuracy of the model, then what is the point of multiple reviewers? There's nothing to disagree on accuracy wise. Same with Paint applications. Skill is also foolish to serve as a point of difference since to be blunt, most of these figures are made by skilled sculptors. We can't exactly claim that Safari figures, for instance, are incompetently made unless we are trolling or smoking a drug of some kind. The point of reviews is to provide your opinion and then back it up in some degree to show that you are not simply talking hot air. With art, this is especially important since no one can truly ever get 100% unanimous opinions from everyone who sees their work. Figures like these are a mixture of both science and art so while the science cannot and should not be disputed on a whim, the art side can be more up to debate and emotions. As Kikizilla pointed out, Spinodude didn't say that the elbows were inaccurate, just something he found weird and uncomfortable from the angle of looking straight on at the figure. There is nothing wrong with him stating that in his review of the figure. It is a comment on the art side of the figure and an acknowledgement that scientifically the figure is accurate there (Nature doesn't care about awkwardness in shape. Otherwise the Hippo would not be a thing.)

Anyway, now that I have finally gotten my hands on all of the Safari 2019 figures (Except the Tyrannosaurus rex, but is anyone actually counting that for these?), I really want to talk about them.

Pteranodon: I think this is my least favorite figure... and its still really good so that says quite a bit. The elbows are a tad weird to me like Spinodude mentioned (Accurate, but weird. Like a hippo.) I like the coloration and the posture is really nice. I wish the beak wasn't as prone to distorting in shipping as it appears to be right now, but I'm sure I can fix it (How do I fix it help.)

Woolly Rhino: For being the lone mammal of the group and being a mammal that I have never really cared a great deal about, I was worried that I would really dislike this figure in person. Nope, its really good. The color scheme is really cool to look at as well as rather accurate from what I have heard. I also really like the posture giving it a nice working stride.

Camarasaurus: I never owned the Carnegie one so I can't compare them, but I really like how big this figure is and just how... heavy it feels in posture and looks. This feels like a big animal and I can just imagine it plodding in front of me like some of the elephants I have seen. The muscles shifting and the slow steps... did I mention that I liked this figure? Cause I like it.

Spinosaurus: ... I like it. I admit the back legs are kinda awkward in shape even if they are accurate. Again, the hippo exists so I am willing to ignore that. The pose feels a bit off at an eye level, but I accept that I am just an idiot playing at intelligence sometimes (Other times it is an intelligent person playing at idiocy) so I might just be used to other Spinosaurus in their swimming poses.

Carnotaurus: I like how thick this creature feels. While it seems a tad odd with how it is supposed to be very fast, I think I can see how it is supposed to still be like that (it doesn't help that the cheetah comparison might be iffy due to Cheetahs being insanely specialized.) I love the color scheme and the lips are so cool.

Stegosaurus: This is my mom's favorite dinosaur so I was very nervous about this figure being good enough for her. She liked it. That is really all I needed from this one (Also everyone else has gone on about the accuracy stuff for this.) Color scheme's a little dry, but to be honest, it really works for this animal. It really does.

Allosaurus: I admit, I really didn't like this figure when I saw the stock photos. I thought the colors looked bad, the pose was awkward, and the application of the uneven paint scheme really skewed me. I have never experienced as much turnaround as I did upon actually getting this figure in hand. The colors look really good with the Stegosaurus, the pose works for such an agile predator with other dinosaurs, and the correction to the paint makes it look much better.

Citipati: The paint scheme is a little awkward, but I am just happy that it can stand and balance so very well. My Anzu struggles with that and it irritates me greatly. I also just love it being a Citipati instead of an oviraptor (If you want some more happiness, the zoo I volunteer at actually listed their Oviraptor as a Citipati without me doing any prompting. It had feathers and was easily one of our more talked about animatronics.)

Prestosuchus: This is my favorite figure of the year so far. I love the choice of species, the color scheme, the pose, the life like nature of its design... If I could buy an army of these figures for every little kid who loves prehistoric life, I would. They all deserve this great figure. I just... god, I absolutely adore this figure.

[The Prehistoric Traveler]

You can disagree but that's exactly my point. These figures/models are a mixture of science and art and realizing this is the art of a skilled review. Complaining about an accurate feature is somewhat idiotic. You mention hippo's but what if he complained about the features of an accurate hippo figure? Like: i don't like the short legs or the huge maw. How would that sound? to me that would sound utterly retarded. Collect fantasy shit and godzilla figures instead i would say.

[postsaurischian]

I never watch these video pre- or reviews. I don't like them. I don't like the voices and the talking and I don't like youtube. I'm the only person who decides what's good and what's not good for my collection .
This discussion bears me out in continuing to do so. I'm just hoping that it doesn't cause Doug to stay away from the forum, because on the other hand I love to read what the artists have to say about their creations.
So please all you reviewers and newcomers - do not destroy our friendly community!

[Shonisaurus]

I never watch these video pre- or reviews. I don't like them. I don't like the voices and the talking and I don't like youtube. I'm the only person who decides what's good and what's not good for my collection .
This discussion bears me out in continuing to do so. I'm just hoping that it doesn't cause Doug to stay away from the forum, because on the other hand I love to read what the artists have to say about their creations.
So please all you reviewers and newcomers - do not destroy our friendly community!

Totally agree with you. We need Doug Watson for me is the Michelangelo as a paleoescultor of toy dinosaurs metaphorically speaking and it's an honor to have him in the forum.

[Ravonium]

You mention hippo's but what if he complained about the features of an accurate hippo figure? Like: i don't like the short legs or the huge maw.

This is a poor example to use. Unlike short legs, hippos don't have huge, gaping maws all the time, so I think it is perfectly valid to complain about the look of them while also being someone who looks for accuracy in a figure.

Hell, I think it can be argued that making a hippo figure without an open mouth is the more scientific choice since 1) most, if not all, animals, hippos included, have their mouths closed more often than not, and 2) having it with an open mouth is more likely to appeal to the 'overly looks-oriented collector' (that you rightfully criticised SpinoDude for coming across as) that doesn't care much about science.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

You can disagree but that's exactly my point. These figures/models are a mixture of science and art and realizing this is the art of a skilled review. Complaining about an accurate feature is somewhat idiotic. You mention hippo's but what if he complained about the features of an accurate hippo figure? Like: i don't like the short legs or the huge maw. How would that sound? to me that would sound utterly retarded. Collect fantasy shit and godzilla figures instead i would say.

Watch your wording and tread carefully.  You might get annoyed but watch taking it out here on the forum.

[Flaffy]

As amazing as the stegosaurus is, I still wish it kept the paint scheme seen on the 2019 catalog.

[Killekor]

And, finally, the Spinosaurus. I sincerely don't know what to say about this one. When I discovered this brand, I really hoped for a modern Spinosaurus figure. I'd always think that they're version of this animal would have been fabulous, that it would have been one of the best dinosaur figures ever... But now I'm just terribly deluded. I've never saw a worst Spinosaurus figure. Even the CollectA mini it's better. The only positive thing about that model is it's pose, but the rest it's simply bad. The color scheme it's boring, the head doesn't look like a Spinosaurus one, and the cocodrillian scutes are a thing that I don't like in any dinosaur paleo art.
Sorry Doug but I really don't like your Spinosaurus.

Killekor

@Killekor  I had been meaning to address this comment about the head but got busy and forgot then I saw your post about a head of a "Spinosaurid"? you made out of crumpled foil so that reminded me. I won't comment on your other points since those are opinion and I don't comment on opinion but stating "the head doesn't look like a Spinosaurus one" reads as a statement of fact so I do take exception there.
When I sculpt something I base it off actual fossil reference so I am interested to know what reference you based your critique of my head on and just where you think I am wrong.

Here is my sculpted head


Here is the reconstructed skull from the 2014 NG mount based on the Ibrahim paper and the 2005 Dal Sasso et al paper.


Here is the illustration of the skull from the 2005 Dal Sasso et al paper.


Please tell me where I got it wrong? Maybe you could provide your reference?

P.S. Glad you like the pose I found a paper last night from 2018 by Rebecca J. Lakin*, Nicholas R. Longrich  "Juvenile spinosaurs (Theropoda: Spinosauridae) from the middle
Cretaceous of Morocco and implications for spinosaur ecology" I hadn't seen it until last night in fact it came out the same month that I was finishing up my piece for Safari Ltd. I was pleased to see the image below in the paper that depicts the Spinosaurus with the same rear leg position that I used. A position that was influenced by large crocodilians that propel themselves with their tails while the legs go along for rhe ride in a relaxed position. Not part of this discussion but I found it interesting since several people apparently couldn't grasp the concept.

Dear Doug,
Thanks for the answer. I actually hadn't based my phrase on any article. I thought that the head was wrong looking at the promotional picture, in which the head looked inaccurate. But now that I see the photo of the prototype sculpt I understand that I was completely wrong, and that the head is completely right and accurate; so sorry about that and congrats for the perfect sculpt (talking about accuracy)!

Killekor

[The Prehistoric Traveler]

You can disagree but that's exactly my point. These figures/models are a mixture of science and art and realizing this is the art of a skilled review. Complaining about an accurate feature is somewhat idiotic. You mention hippo's but what if he complained about the features of an accurate hippo figure? Like: i don't like the short legs or the huge maw. How would that sound? to me that would sound utterly retarded. Collect fantasy shit and godzilla figures instead i would say.

Watch your wording and tread carefully.  You might get annoyed but watch taking it out here on the forum.

I agree. I think my tone was just to harsh in more than one way. I apologize. And again i really enjoy Spinodude's reviews. Probably a nice guy as well so yeah, i should have worded my opinion differently.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I just looked through the Mark Witton blog post, and I found the holotype skull that your sculpt is based on. The caption under the photo says this:

"The holotype skull of Pteranodon longiceps, the only Pteranodon specimen which can be objectively referred to the genus. This skull is from a small (presumed female) morph."

Mark Witton also wrote about sexual dimorphism in P. longiceps. The holotype skull is presumed female, and females have straighter beaks and short crests.

This image right here shows sexual dimorphism in Pteranodon, depicting a male and female P. longiceps. The male has a longer crest with a curved beak, and the female a short crest with a straighter beak.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mm9OcviNQm0/V5XKrlCpt1I/AAAAAAAACSY/Z9iPnOfbXT8t00FlbA1iIDn6Syc9mc9wwCK4B/s1600/Pteranodon%2Bmorphs%2Blow%2Bres%2BWitton%2B2013.jpg

The Safari 2019 Pteranodon seems to have the straighter beak of the female, and the longer crest of the male.

Just to clarify, I never meant to attack your work. I am just clarifying my reasoning for bringing it up in my review because you seem offended by my comments in the video.

Also, I don't appreciate being thrown into this "stereotype" for reviewers who don't do their research. 

The illustration that you linked to is based on Bennet's 1992 restoration and if you read on in the blog you will see that it has been called into question and further down you will see that the only fossil beak attributed to P. longiceps is the one with the straight beak for me whether or not it is a male or female is neither here nor there it is the only beak attributed to P. longiceps. Down further in the examples he gives the only two with curved beaks are D. kanzai and G. sternbergia. When I do a piece I stay on the conservative side and try to stay away from speculation so I stand by my piece, in the future it could very well be proven wrong. All the material I used was based on scientific papers available at the time not images that I found on the internet.
You say you take offence that I questioned your research well so far the only thing you have referenced is a blog I sent you to. You say you consulted people were any of them palaeontologists? When I did my life sized Pteranodons I worked with three palaeontologists as well as having access to the CMN collection.
You say you consulted people were any of them palaeontologists? When I did my life sized Pteranodons I worked with three palaeontologists as well as having access to the CMN collection.
I will agree that it seems like the curved beak version has become accepted at least amongst paleo artists but like I said until they find a definitive fossil I have to go by the material I have.
You say I seem offended and you don't appreciate my questioning your research well as I mentioned to Kikizilla101 when these reviews get posted for posterity and viewers take what is said as gospel and sometimes pile on how else do you think I will feel. I have read some reviews where the reader has said he was thinking about buying a piece but after reading the review he or she had decided not to. That is a fair amount of power. And like I also said if you write a critique that suggests inaccuracies don't be surprised when the artist takes offence, I have been told to grow a thicker skin well I guess that goes for reviewers as well. Hopefully that is all on this. If I haven't convinced you well we can leave it at that.

can attest Doug does the hard leg and ground work with the paleos relevant to each model because  have spoken to a few of them and was able to confirm he does get their input as he sculpts ....by example his award winning sauropelta and ken Carpenter or his nasutoceratops and Eric lund.....both men confirmed they were consulted .Doug does the research. I accept his work at face value because I know for fact he asks the guys who found or studied the specimens

[Doug Watson]

The illustration that you linked to is based on Bennet's 1992 restoration and if you read on in the blog you will see that it has been called into question and further down you will see that the only fossil beak attributed to P. longiceps is the one with the straight beak for me whether or not it is a male or female is neither here nor there it is the only beak attributed to P. longiceps. Down further in the examples he gives the only two with curved beaks are D. kanzai and G. sternbergia. When I do a piece I stay on the conservative side and try to stay away from speculation so I stand by my piece, in the future it could very well be proven wrong. All the material I used was based on scientific papers available at the time not images that I found on the internet.
You say you take offence that I questioned your research well so far the only thing you have referenced is a blog I sent you to. You say you consulted people were any of them palaeontologists? When I did my life sized Pteranodons I worked with three palaeontologists as well as having access to the CMN collection.
You say you consulted people were any of them palaeontologists? When I did my life sized Pteranodons I worked with three palaeontologists as well as having access to the CMN collection.
I will agree that it seems like the curved beak version has become accepted at least amongst paleo artists but like I said until they find a definitive fossil I have to go by the material I have.
You say I seem offended and you don't appreciate my questioning your research well as I mentioned to Kikizilla101 when these reviews get posted for posterity and viewers take what is said as gospel and sometimes pile on how else do you think I will feel. I have read some reviews where the reader has said he was thinking about buying a piece but after reading the review he or she had decided not to. That is a fair amount of power. And like I also said if you write a critique that suggests inaccuracies don't be surprised when the artist takes offence, I have been told to grow a thicker skin well I guess that goes for reviewers as well. Hopefully that is all on this. If I haven't convinced you well we can leave it at that.

can attest Doug does the hard leg and ground work with the paleos relevant to each model because  have spoken to a few of them and was able to confirm he does get their input as he sculpts ....by example his award winning sauropelta and ken Carpenter or his nasutoceratops and Eric lund.....both men confirmed they were consulted .Doug does the research. I accept his work at face value because I know for fact he asks the guys who found or studied the specimens

Thanks for that but I should clarify when I said in my statement above "I worked with three palaeontologists", that was on the life-sized models for CMN and I mentioned that it in the statement. When I did the Safari Ltd model I didn't consult with anyone since I had already done so on those models. I did get a hold of any new papers and books that had come out since the time that I had worked on the life sized models however. I changed for instance the attachments of the wing membranes to the legs and the extent of the uropatagium based on the new information that I gathered.

[Doug Watson]

Dear Doug,
Thanks for the answer. I actually hadn't based my phrase on any article. I thought that the head was wrong looking at the promotional picture, in which the head looked inaccurate. But now that I see the photo of the prototype sculpt I understand that I was completely wrong, and that the head is completely right and accurate; so sorry about that and congrats for the perfect sculpt (talking about accuracy)!

Killekor

Great I was wondering if I missed something.

[Concavenator]

Got the Allosaurus earlier today and just got around to open it.I love it, it looks  more detailed than I was expecting it to be.The sculpt itself is really great, I like how it isn't shrink wrapped, and the head sculpt Doug nailed it, it also has some very nicely done skin folds.It's now my favorite theropod from Safari, I think I like it even more than the Tyrannosaurus from 2017, which is a masterpiece.

Feels great to have a model in my collection that I have been requesting for so long .

Also, a big thank you to Dan for sending it to me, it got here in mint condition, as expected 

[SidB]

Just got my Allo from Dejankins and totally have to join the chorus of accolades for it. Staggering level of detail, striking coloring that surprised me with its effectiveness and a strong shelf presence for its size. A very small amount paint run-off from the teeth (easily corrected) was the only visible flaw. Comparing the flamboyance of the Papo model with the Safari's high level of accuracy combined with beauty of execution leads me to conclude that this is the best mass-produced model of this genus ever made, surpassing both of the Favorite soft models as well.