2013 Hopes & Dreams

[John]

Both Concavenator and Giganotosaurus look similar as it is. Looking at skeletal drawings for both animals it looks like Carnegie made an effort to accurately create the Concavanator and the differences between the two are addressed. They may have reused parts of the Giga but if the animal they were re-creating looks a lot like it anyway, why does it matter?

Here are skeletal drawings of the two.

They look even more alike these days (if you catch my drift) - both Scott Hartman and Paul himself have come out with revised Giganotosaurus skeletals, both of which show a shorter head.



Look at those atrophied arms and stout legs...it must have been a scavenger

Well,I can't imagine it turning down a free meal when the opportunity arose.

[Balaur]

Both Concavenator and Giganotosaurus look similar as it is. Looking at skeletal drawings for both animals it looks like Carnegie made an effort to accurately create the Concavanator and the differences between the two are addressed. They may have reused parts of the Giga but if the animal they were re-creating looks a lot like it anyway, why does it matter?

Here are skeletal drawings of the two.

They look even more alike these days (if you catch my drift) - both Scott Hartman and Paul himself have come out with revised Giganotosaurus skeletals, both of which show a shorter head.



Look at those atrophied arms and stout legs...it must have been a scavenger

Well,I can't imagine it turning down a free meal when the opportunity arose.

Yeah. Any carnivorous dinosaur eats anything that is meat. If it's hungry, sees something dead, eats it. Hungry, finds something living, kills it then eats it. I believe T.rex was a scavenger from time to time, but evidence points to it being a predator. But yeah, now the creature we all think was the real killer is a scavenger.

[Gwangi]

It matters because Carnegie's dinosaurs are expensive, and I don't have money to chuck around.

Also, because Carnegie only tend to release one figure a year, this feels like a disappointment.  Sorry, it just feels to me like you're only defending them because they're Carnegie I was expecting a new interesting pose, but this just feels unimaginative to me.

Also, didn't Concavenator have quills and protofuzz?

I'm not defending them because they're Carnegie, that has nothing to do with it. I'm not a hopeless fanboy when it comes to any line of toy dinosaurs. I'm defending it because it looks good and more or less accurate. The reason it looks like the giga is because the actual animals looked much the same. I get what you're saying though. I'm not excited about that pose being used again either but it is still an excellent looking model from what I can tell.

[John]

Also, It is a prototype, so I may look different in the final product.

When it comes to the sculpt,that particular line never differs much (Ichthyosaurus and Carnotaurus didn't differ at all) from the prototype.I've seen some differences in color though,especially from the Wild Safari line.

[tyrantqueen]

Still, I think Carnegie needs to put out a new T.rex. We really haven't gotten a definitive Tyrannosaurus from any of the mainstream companies; there's Papo, but that's more of a movie monster than the real animal. And I won't even bother with the Schleichs. The closest thing we have to a good Tyrannosaurus is the latest Wild Safari one, but a new, bigger, and more accurate Carnegie Rex would really be sweet.

I like the Anniversary Rex, it's one of my fave figures. The only problem is trying to get a hold of one that doesn't have a deformed head. Why does it need to be bigger anyway? It's very big as it is.

The closest thing we have to a good Tyrannosaurus is the latest Wild Safari one

What about the version 3 Battat Rex?

[John]

It matters because Carnegie's dinosaurs are expensive, and I don't have money to chuck around.

Also, because Carnegie only tend to release one figure a year, this feels like a disappointment.  Sorry, it just feels to me like you're only defending them because they're Carnegie I was expecting a new interesting pose, but this just feels unimaginative to me.

Also, didn't Concavenator have quills and protofuzz?

I'm not defending them because they're Carnegie, that has nothing to do with it. I'm not a hopeless fanboy when it comes to any line of toy dinosaurs. I'm defending it because it looks good and more or less accurate. The reason it looks like the giga is because the actual animals looked much the same. I get what you're saying though. I'm not excited about that pose being used again either but it is still an excellent looking model from what I can tell.

That pose has never bothered me.I very much prefer that to the oversized feet on the new Wild Safari bipeds (it especially detracts from the Acrocanthosaurus and Ceratosaurus figures to me).But then,I don't have just the Carnegie Museum theropods,(my pewter Ceratosaurus that I got from the Smithsonian a long time ago is on a ground base stood horizonally,with the tail raised up off the ground,and Mike Trcic Tyrannosaurus from Favorite Collection is also on a base,this time stood on one foot kicking out) so I still have variety in poses whether the Carnegie line does or not.

And though you can't really see it very well because of the angle of the toy in the photo,the new Carnegie Concavenator DOES have feathering on it's arms,as per the "quill knobs" that were reported with the skeleton

[Horridus]

Well,I can't imagine it turning down a free meal when the opportunity arose.

Yeah, I was kidding - referring to Hornerian T. rex silliness.

[ZoPteryx]

And though you can't really see it very well because of the angle of the toy in the photo,the new Carnegie Concavenator DOES have feathering on it's arms,as per the "quill knobs" that were reported with the skeleton

Are you sure?  I don't see any at all in the photo, unless that reddish spot on the wrist is part of them.

[John]

And though you can't really see it very well because of the angle of the toy in the photo,the new Carnegie Concavenator DOES have feathering on it's arms,as per the "quill knobs" that were reported with the skeleton

Are you sure?  I don't see any at all in the photo, unless that reddish spot on the wrist is part of them.

The reddish part is indeed part of it,the fringe of feathers are just facing directly toward the camera,so they do not show so much on the outline of the arm from that angle.But they are definitely there.

[ZoPteryx]

And though you can't really see it very well because of the angle of the toy in the photo,the new Carnegie Concavenator DOES have feathering on it's arms,as per the "quill knobs" that were reported with the skeleton

Are you sure?  I don't see any at all in the photo, unless that reddish spot on the wrist is part of them.

The reddish part is indeed part of it,the feathers are just facing directly toward the camera,so they do not show so much on the outline of the arm from that angle.But they are definitely there.

Cool!

[Primeval12]

I hope this model isn't too expensive

[tyrantqueen]

Carnegies are always quite expensive, probably due to their size and quality. The Carno, for example, retails for about £15 here in the UK.

[ajax]

Papo's are bigger and better quality but cheaper, go figure?

[SBell]

Papo's are bigger and better quality but cheaper, go figure?

That's not true--the Brach is somewhere between $40 and $50--same as or less than a Carnegie big one.  The larger Papo theropods are around $20-$30, same as the larger Carnegies (at least in North America).  The other types are more variable, as much because they are all over the place in terms of size.

[ajax]

Well its true here then,

[Gwangi]

Papo's are bigger and better quality but cheaper, go figure?

It would seem to me that they are similarly priced depending on the size. Though Papo are generally of a better quality the Carnegie line pays closer attention to accuracy. Though it may not be a priority for some collectors for those of us who appreciate it the Carnegies are worth the price tag. I like both lines myself, they each have their merits.

[Himmapaan]

What about the version 3 Battat Rex?

Much luck we shall need getting that one readily at a good price! 

[pylraster]

The Battat's been discontinued... and well it's very rare. Hehe. Well I meant something bigger than the Wild Safari one, maybe the size of the Anniversary Rex. The problem is well, yes as you've said, finding one that has symmetrical eyes. I'm just wishing for an updated sculpt

[ajax]

Updated Rex sculpt would be great, I think the latest figures from Carnegie have improved greatly since their last Rex.

[Balaur]

Wow! I did spot the feathers on the arms! Very cool!