2013 Figures

[tyrantqueen]

What's wrong with the glaze? It makes the models look statuesque. Really, it's not too bad--My Papo Styraco has a bit of shine...it's not at all tacky, though.

I think we are currently living in an anti-3D, pro-matte, pro-HD world.  A few years from now, it will be back to pro-3D (auto-stereoscopic, perhaps) , pro-glaze and pro-4K.

Maybe it's just me, but I prefer a model that looks like it could be a living, breathing animal, than something that is statue-esque. And I don't have anything against 3D.

[tanystropheus]

You make a good point. I think that the very loss of articulation in dinosaur models, in itself, was an essential part of the 'statue-ization' process (although, it does help with the range of pose with respect to artistic conceptualization). The addition of moveable jaws (aesthetically, w/o seams) can be regarded as reverse-'statue-ization'. Furthermore, if one company were to apply beaded (e.g. taxidermy) eyes in their products, it would certainly add to the realism (e.g. Tyco/Tsukuda)

I'm fine either way. Reptiles and quasi-reptiles seem to come in both matte and glaze in real life. I would be very interested to know what material the Papo Dimetrodon's sail is made of---it looks quite organic in the catalog pictures.

[Splonkadumpocus]

Question: Is the Wild Safari Gryposaurus really supposed to be G. monumentensis? I haven't seen any official statements on what species it's supposed to be and the shape of the head really looks more like G. notabilis.

[Aram-Rex]

Ok then, well I hope Papo doesn't make the Dimetrodon the size of their Comodo dragon. Wouldn't have expected the Carno to be so small.

[John]

Question: Is the Wild Safari Gryposaurus really supposed to be G. monumentensis? I haven't seen any official statements on what species it's supposed to be and the shape of the head really looks more like G. notabilis.

Yes,it is G. monumentensis. Safari Ltd's site gives this description:

"This species of Gryposaurus was first described in 2007. It was a duck-billed plant eater that lived 75 million years ago in the Cretaceous period, and It is unique among duck-billed dinosaurs for its massive build and large number of teeth. It was thought to be about 40 feet (12 m) long and have 300 teeth that were continually replaced as they wore down."

They may not actually call out the specific name,but based on the year of description,and it's size estimated to be about 40 feet long,they clearly mean G. monumentensis.

[mmfrankford]

So I went to DeJankins link and just got the survey? Does anyone know where I can see some pics of the new 2013 dinosaurs? Thanks.

[Pawnosuchus]

I believe that the new Papo Carno is probably not as accurate as the Carnegie one, however I still think I'll be replacing my Carnegie with the Papo in my Dinosaur world. I think the Papo has a more dynamic pose and I much prefer figures in or near the 1-40 scale. It just makes my whole set-up more realistic . I still can't understand why Carnegie insists  on constantly changing the scale on their pieces.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

So I went to DeJankins link and just got the survey? Does anyone know where I can see some pics of the new 2013 dinosaurs? Thanks.

I know Amazon has pics of some..but I'm not sure what's new and what's not. :/

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I believe that the new Papo Carno is probably not as accurate as the Carnegie one, however I still think I'll be replacing my Carnegie with the Papo in my Dinosaur world. I think the Papo has a more dynamic pose and I much prefer figures in or near the 1-40 scale. It just makes my whole set-up more realistic . I still can't understand why Carnegie insists  on constantly changing the scale on their pieces.

The reasoning is simple. Some species are too small for them to do 1/40 so they up the size. Also kids like bigger dino figures. Plays heck with collectors who like a set scale though.

[Pawnosuchus]

Granted, some species are small, but I don't believe the Carno was. Heck, I have Carnegie's Deinonychus and Protoceratops and they're pretty small. Also CollectA did a couple small families last year. In the last few years, Carnegie has taken several medium size animals and upped the scale needlessly. I understand that not every collector has the same interest and the companies are in business to make money however that doesn't make it any less annoying. If you can make a Dilophosaurus in 1-40, there's no reason you can't make a Carno or Concaventor or others in 1-40.

[Simon]

The Papo Carno may not be accurate in all respects (thick legs for one) but it is a vast improvement on the Carnegie one, not just because it is about right, 1/40 scale-wise, but because the Carnegie Carno is in an ugly tripod pose, with fuzzy details, and undistinguished teeth that are worse than Papo's teeth, although both would need better definition, based on photos. 

[Seijun]

I like the carnegie version better.

[Horridus]

Granted, some species are small, but I don't believe the Carno was.

It's not as big as people think it is. Thanks to its fearsome appearance and renown, a lot of people seem to assume that it was in the Tyrannosaurus, Giganotosaurus etc. big leagues, but it wasn't - it was more of a mid-sized theropod. Which is still pretty big, granted. The original Carnegie Carnotaurus actually was 1:40 scale. Unfortunately, it wasn't pretty.

[Takama]

Yes. Carnotaurus was not a giant.     Somthing that lay people have a hard time grasping for some reason.(i blame Dinosaur)

[Simon]

The best Carnotaurus hands-down, in terms of scale, physiology and detail, is still the Battat Carnotaurus ...

[John]

I believe that the new Papo Carno is probably not as accurate as the Carnegie one, however I still think I'll be replacing my Carnegie with the Papo in my Dinosaur world. I think the Papo has a more dynamic pose and I much prefer figures in or near the 1-40 scale. It just makes my whole set-up more realistic . I still can't understand why Carnegie insists  on constantly changing the scale on their pieces.

Its because collectors like me keep on buying them up!So I have contributed to the end of the 1:40 scale line! Seriously though,from what I can tell from the pictures,(I don't have one so I can't be 100% positive about it) it looks to me like Papo's version of Carnotaurus is in 1:35 scale rather than 1:40.

[John]

The Papo Carno may not be accurate in all respects (thick legs for one) but it is a vast improvement on the Carnegie one, not just because it is about right, 1/40 scale-wise, but because the Carnegie Carno is in an ugly tripod pose, with fuzzy details, and undistinguished teeth that are worse than Papo's teeth, although both would need better definition, based on photos.

You may want to consider getting your Carnegie Museum models from a better source,because the 2011 Carnotaurus that I have most certainly does NOT have fuzzy details and undistinguished teeth.

[DinoToyForum]

The Papo Carno may not be accurate in all respects (thick legs for one) but it is a vast improvement on the Carnegie one, not just because it is about right, 1/40 scale-wise, but because the Carnegie Carno is in an ugly tripod pose, with fuzzy details, and undistinguished teeth that are worse than Papo's teeth, although both would need better definition, based on photos.

You may want to consider getting your Carnegie Museum models from a better source,because the 2011 Carnotaurus that I have most certainly does NOT have fuzzy details and undistinguished teeth.

Nor mine. In fact, I was stunned by detail on the Carnegie Carnotaurus when I finally saw it in person. 

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Martin's repaint of it was fantastic :


Really shows all the details in there.

[Spino-rex13]

I have  few that are more " wet looking " than others..but it doesn't bother me at all.

I asked Safari about a size reference pic for all their new pieces and they kindly obliged.

Where's the Elasmosaurus
Anyway The Gryposaurus looks bigger than I expected. It and the Diabloceratops will definitely be in my collection soon.