Safari 2020

[Doug Watson]

Actually @TaranUlas you did a pretty good job with your eyeball scaling you nailed several of them, here are the scales I worked from

Deinonychus - 1:14
Ichthyosaurus - 1:16
Pachycephalosaurus - 1:20
Shringasaurus - 1:22
Concavenator - 1:35
Edmontosaurus - 1:35
Qianzhousaurus - 1:35
Sarcosuchus - 1:35 (I originally used Paul Sereno's 40 foot estimate but the new paper from March 2019 by Haley O'Brien et al. puts the max TL estimate at 31 feet)
Dilophosaurus - 1:35

I'm glad to see that I wasn't too off on these then. I would have been embarrassed if they had been that badly off.

So now, with Doug Watson's scale numbers in, let's see the measurements now:

Concavenator remains the same at 19.34 feet long, 7.67 feet tall, and 4.17 feet wide

Deinonychus is a little smaller at 10.21 feet long, 4.01 feet tall, and 2.04 feet wide.

Dilophosaurus is smaller at 18.58 feet long, 8.75 feet tall, and 3.82 feet wide.

Edmontosaurus is definitely smaller and more around the average size at 30.13 feet long, 10.94 feet tall and 7.61 feet wide.

Ichthyosaurus is a bit bigger now at 10 feet long, 3.25 feet tall, and 3.51 feet wide.

Pachycephalosaurus is the same size at 13.55 feet long, 6.67 feet tall, and 4.38 feet wide.

Qianzhousaurus is also the same size at 26.31 feet long, 10.38 feet tall, and 5.54 feet wide

Sarcosuchus is bigger now at 30.25 feet long, 6.56 feet tall and 7.67 feet wide.

Shringasaurus is also bigger at 12.27 feet long, 4.33 feet tall and 5.06 feet wide.

(If anyone wants a really easy means to calculate this stuff, use excel or an equivalent program and set up the following formula for height, length, and width: (h/l/w of figure*scale number)/12 The easy formula to calculate scale using our knowledge of the figure size is (h/l/w of real animal in feet*12)/h/l/w of figure. Remember that scale is flexible so you can adjust it within reason to either direction. Say within 3-5 depending on how close to 0 you are.)

I guess you are scaling up the dimensions given by Safari Ltd so your lengths aren't the actual scaled maximum lengths for each animal just the physical length of the piece in that position. Actual body lengths in palaeontology are taken by laying the cranium and vertebrae out on a flat surface a and measuring in a straight line. In life the nose to tail length taken in a straight line would actually be smaller because the bends in the neck body and tail reduce the overall length that is why your numbers are coming out smaller. If you want to scale length on a figure run a string from the nose along the side following the vertebrae then lay the string out straight along a tape and that will give you a measurement you can then scale up.

[Shonisaurus]

In my case I celebrate that Doug Watson has made prehistoric animals without a certain scale. I am more interesting a brand of dinosaurs and prehistoric animals without scale since small prehistoric animals I prefer to be larger than normal, for a simple reason because if they are well sculpted they are much more detailed than any quality miniature figure from my point of view.

[Concavenator]

Here you can see more angles of the new figures:

https://partners.safariltd.com/what-s-new

[suspsy]

I made a little bar graph of 2020 Safari figures by geological period across the Phanerozoic. I don't mean this as a dig, Safari's offerings for 2020 are actually much more balanced than those of most companies in most years. This is just an illustration that the whole dinosaur toy market is really heavily weighted to the Cretaceous, whereas obviously if I had my druthers there would be a lot more Paleozoic and Triassic stuff. I get it, I'm not the main audience, but there's a whole lot of evolutionary history full of crazy morphologies kinda being left on the table. Anyway, you can see why I'm so pleased by the Shringasaurus!

I'm often puzzled at how the Jurassic doesn't receive more attention. I'd naturally expect it to come in second after the Cretaceous, but not so far behind. Tons of sauropods and stegosaurs they could tackle from that period. Plenty of theropods too. Not to mention all the sea reptiles.

[SidB]

In my case I celebrate that Doug Watson has made prehistoric animals without a certain scale. I am more interesting a brand of dinosaurs and prehistoric animals without scale since small prehistoric animals I prefer to be larger than normal, for a simple reason because if they are well sculpted they are much more detailed than any quality miniature figure from my point of view.

I agree. Nevertheless, I'm pleased that five are in the 1/35 scale, which seems universally to be replacing the old 1/40 scale as the new standard. It has the great advantage of allowing more detail to be sculpted than the old 1/40th, while still displaying well with it. Great for collectors of new and old models.

[Sauropelta]

Alright, I take back what I said about them being bad seeing the new angles. I mainly dislike the paint jobs more than the sculpts.

I'll probably buy the pachy & concavenator for sure. Wish the edmonto had a more bright color like the jurassic world does. Want to see people re-paint some of these when they're released.

[TaranUlas]

I guess you are scaling up the dimensions given by Safari Ltd so your lengths aren't the actual scaled maximum lengths for each animal just the physical length of the piece in that position. Actual body lengths in palaeontology are taken by laying the cranium and vertebrae out on a flat surface a and measuring in a straight line. In life the nose to tail length taken in a straight line would actually be smaller because the bends in the neck body and tail reduce the overall length that is why your numbers are coming out smaller. If you want to scale length on a figure run a string from the nose along the side following the vertebrae then lay the string out straight along a tape and that will give you a measurement you can then scale up.

@Doug Watson Yeah, my bad. I should have made it clear that I was just trying to scale up the figures in the pose they are in. I usually do that for the figures I own since while the string along their length helps to figure out how long they are, I also like knowing how large they are in the pose they are in. That way, if I put it next to a modern day animal figure of the same scale (In the case of the Pachycephalosaurus, a Cassowary for instance or a Humpback whale in the case of the Sarcosuchus), I'm not having to explain to kids that a figure only looks taller or smaller because it is rearing up or crouching down (The Papo Quetzalcoatlus is particularly frustrating in that regards when I put it next to a giraffe figure I have. They should be similar height, but one's crouching.)

@suspsy I would suspect the issue for the Jurassic is that its not quite as filled with the popular dinosaurs outside of the Morrison Formation as other times. In addition, most of the big name dino groups like the Tyrannosaurs, the Ceratopsians, and the Raptors haven't quite made their way onto the scene. It's a time where we know that there's a lot of variety, but most of the public does not. Companies then feel like they are taking risks with unknown species in times where kids might not have the figures for it to be with, which is frustrating, but understandable. At the very least, we get some very unique animals in plastic form from Safari (Prestosuchus in particular. I love this figure so much. Easily my favorite of 2019.)

[Szajmin]

Wow, nice.

I voted for Shringasaurus figure in Sarafi poll for 2021 figures. So i guess, i should have wait for this reveal.

Deinonychus is my favourite. Is it somehow inspired by Emily Willoughby art, or just by an eagle?

[Shonisaurus]

I opted for many of the Safari figures produced in the year 2020 without a doubt I am a lucky person. Although I published in the post of dinotoyblog.com/forum countless lists of prehistoric animals of Safari 2020 so my predictions lack merit.

I was hoping Doug would make a paraceratherium from Safari but I know positively that this figure is cursed in the toy market and I think it is not attractive enough even for collectors.

[Shadowknight1]

I adore that Deinonychus.  It's even better than the Velociraptor from a while back.  It looks so fluffy and proud.

[CarnotaurusKing]

Suppose it says a lot that I'm finding it harder to decide which figures not to buy, than it is to decide which figures to buy. In fact,the only one that really doesn't interest me is the Shringasaurus, simply because the creature itself is one I'm indifferent to, and even so, the model of it looks quite tempting. High on my wishlist would have to be the Qianzhousaurus, Concavenator, Edmontosaurus, Deinonychus, and Sarcosuchus. Even then, the Pachycephalosaurus, Dilophosaurus and Ichthyosaurus are looking really nice as well. Good on ya, Doug.

[Shonisaurus]

I like the nine figures but the ones I like most are without a doubt the Qianzhousaurus Safari 2020, its sarcosuchus, edmontosaurus, pachycephalosaurus, concavenator and deinonychus. They are the six figures that interest me most in this group. The prehistoric animals of the Jurassic and Triassic are less interesting to me independently that there is a new figure, Shringasaurus whose figure is very beautiful and apart from that it is a new figure and overlooked not for its quality but for being very commercialized figures the ichythiosaurus (the better done with his Carnegie counterpart) and his dilophosaurus whose figure I like because it will be my first dilophosaurus with the jaw closed without articulating.

[Dinoguy2]

I guess you are scaling up the dimensions given by Safari Ltd so your lengths aren't the actual scaled maximum lengths for each animal just the physical length of the piece in that position. Actual body lengths in palaeontology are taken by laying the cranium and vertebrae out on a flat surface a and measuring in a straight line. In life the nose to tail length taken in a straight line would actually be smaller because the bends in the neck body and tail reduce the overall length that is why your numbers are coming out smaller. If you want to scale length on a figure run a string from the nose along the side following the vertebrae then lay the string out straight along a tape and that will give you a measurement you can then scale up.

@Doug Watson Yeah, my bad. I should have made it clear that I was just trying to scale up the figures in the pose they are in. I usually do that for the figures I own since while the string along their length helps to figure out how long they are, I also like knowing how large they are in the pose they are in. That way, if I put it next to a modern day animal figure of the same scale (In the case of the Pachycephalosaurus, a Cassowary for instance or a Humpback whale in the case of the Sarcosuchus), I'm not having to explain to kids that a figure only looks taller or smaller because it is rearing up or crouching down (The Papo Quetzalcoatlus is particularly frustrating in that regards when I put it next to a giraffe figure I have. They should be similar height, but one's crouching.)

@suspsy I would suspect the issue for the Jurassic is that its not quite as filled with the popular dinosaurs outside of the Morrison Formation as other times. In addition, most of the big name dino groups like the Tyrannosaurs, the Ceratopsians, and the Raptors haven't quite made their way onto the scene. It's a time where we know that there's a lot of variety, but most of the public does not. Companies then feel like they are taking risks with unknown species in times where kids might not have the figures for it to be with, which is frustrating, but understandable. At the very least, we get some very unique animals in plastic form from Safari (Prestosuchus in particular. I love this figure so much. Easily my favorite of 2019.)

An easy way to avoid the problem of pose is just to ignore length completely and scale based on a single known element, like skull length. This also compensates for differences in proportions between reconstructions.

I agree with your take on why we have a lack of Jurassic animals. If add that the Cretaceous is nearly twice as long as the Jurassic, AND the first half of the Jurassic has almost no dinosaur fossil record outside if some pretty similar looking prosauropods. The second half of the Jurassic had pretty homogeneous fauna in the areas we have sampled. The only Jurassic "sets" I think we need more of would be China and Germany, but a lot of the most interesting animals you'd want to make for those are tiny, and the bigger animals look a lot like their more well known Morrison counterparts, with a couple exceptions.

I actually think there's more potential in exploring the Triassic. Have we ever gotten any basal dinosauromorphs or Silesaurids?

[Fenestra]

I'm as hyped about the Edmontosaurus as I was this year with the Stegosaurus. It is wonderful. So is the Deinonychus. Yum.
Every new year reveal, I'm excited to see which dinosaurs are sculpted by Mr. Watson.
Because then I know that I will be buying the most updated and accurate model possible, because the man sure does his research! 
Bravo Mr. Watson!

Personally, I find it really hard to understand people who complain about the colours a figure is painted. Maybe it is because I like to repaint figures, so I only look at the sculpt, but somehow it always sounds to me like: "I would be happy to take that Ferrari off your hands for free, but I won't, ...because it's red." 

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

Now this is an absolutely stunning set of figures. I'm especially in love with the Edmontosaurus and Deinonychus, they're both basically a dream come true. To briefly sum up for me anyway:

Deinonychus: Like I said stunning. I've been wanting a beautiful and accurate figure of my favourite Dromaeosaur (and one of my all time favourites full stop) for a while now, and not only does it not disappoint, it frankly blows even Watson's Velociraptor out of the water. I am incredibly chuffed also about the closed mouth (which I will mention again later). This is just so good. The feathers look beautiful, the pose so full of life. Also, I can now remove this from my wish list.

Edmontosaurus: Again, absolute perfection. I've been wanting a beautiful accurate up to date figure of Edmontosaurus, and just a nice big Hadrosaur in general, and I am very pleased to have a large Hadrosaur. Before seeing this, I was worried I would have to stoop to buying a Mattel/Jurassic World toy to get an up to date Edmontosaurus, I'm very relieved. And yet another stunning and beautiful piece. Something else to remove from my wish list.

Pachycephalsoaurus: The sculpt once again is fantastic, and though I don't really want a massive Pachycephalosaurus, this is a lovely sculpt and I will have to pick it up, depending on the size I was going to replace the Dracorex with it, but if it scales well I may keep it as parent and child. I can't remember whether I put it on my list, but it won't be on if it is.

Dilophosaurus: Another beautiful sculpt, the pose is interesting, and yet again the closed mouth really does it for me. This figure is a must, and great scale too. I'm not removing this from my wish list though because I really want a feathered Dilophosaurus, I may actually buy two of these, and gave a go at sculpting feathers on one myself. I just hope when Cryolophosaurus is redone that one has feathers at least.

Shringasaurus: Was not expecting to see this one. Well, I did expect there to be an interesting and unusual Permian and/or Triassic animal, but not this one, not by a long shot. It is an absolutely fantastic surprise. A lovely figure. I will be pleased to add this one.

Sarcosuchus: A crocodilian with a closed mouth? Well, another nice surprise. A lovely figure, and I'm pleased with the choice of crocodilian because a) Sarcosuchus is the first prehistoric crocodilian I heard of, and secondly because it can sit nicely with the Suchomimus, Nigersaurus and Battat Ouranosaurus.

Qianzhousaurus: Again a lack of feathers, but a stunning piece nonetheless, I love having non-Tyrannosaurus Tyrannosaurids, and this one is great. I think the roaring pose should help it sell to people who've never heard of it, so I don't mind it. It's still a beautiful piece.

Ichthyosaurus: Possibly the one I'm least interested in because I recently tracked down the Carnegie Ichthyosaurus and paid a heft amount for it, but this is such a good sculpt, and due to being ammonite-free, is sufficiently different.

Concavenator:  Another beautiful closed mouth, this is fantastic. And even if it wasn't, it would still be the best Concavenator figure. The Carnegie has a wide tripod stance and gaping mouth and the Favorite has the gaping mouth, shrink-wrapped head and silly elbow quills. The less said about the CollectA the better, so this new figure is certainly a welcome addition.

[SBell]

It's things like this that make it so hard...I literally just moved and reorganized my shelves, and now I will have to make room/adjustments all over again!

Although all nine by @Doug Watson are brilliant, space and focus are going to limit me to only some...the Shringasaurus, the Sarcosuchus, the Qianzhousaurus, probably the unique Edmontosaurus and Deinonychus...

But lets be honest, the new Catfish, Stingray, Sand tiger shark, Great Lakes toob and South Africa toob (well, mostly that hyena) are of equal or greater interest to me anyway!

[Shonisaurus]

The edmontosaurus of Safari 2020 is perhaps the best that has been done to date the same I can say about sarcosuchus, concavenator, deinonychus, pachycephalosaurus (the best by far for me).

As for the shringasaurus and qianzhousaurus of Safari 2020, they are unpublished figures in my collection and I applaud Doug's decision to make such figures, especially I really like the qianzhosaurus will be the substitute with difference from the alioramus that I would have also wanted and finally another tyrannosauroid which is not a tyrannosaurus rex.

As for the dilophosaurus of Safari 2020, I like that it has its mouth shut and I think it can also be the best thing that has been done in the collection of toy dinosaurs (in this case I am wrong).

The ichythiosaurus from Safari 2020 is nice but I like more its Carnegie counterpart with that ammonite in the mouth.

I also always celebrate (I comment every year) that Safari has the deference of revealing all its figures before any toy dinosaur company and the first to market them in online stores. It is what I value most of Safari apart from its outstanding quality.

[terrorchicken]

my favorite is the qianzhousaurus, edmontosaurus and the deinonychus. That's a very birdy looking raptor!

Im disappointed that there's no prehistoric mammals. 

[Shonisaurus]

my favorite is the qianzhousaurus, edmontosaurus and the deinonychus. That's a very birdy looking raptor!

Im disappointed that there's no prehistoric mammals. 

The same happens to me with respect to prehistoric mammals. I would have liked a paraceratherium.

[Appalachiosaurus]

I was honestly disappointed when I first saw the images, but those higher quality turntable pictures linked earlier quickly quelled anything but excitement. Shows me for doubting Doug Watson. That Deinonychus especially is an absolute beaut.