2013 Figures

[Primeval12]

Okay, what gives? I swear that the older pictures of Elasmosaurus showed it with a completely straight neck, but the photos on Safari's site show it with a bent neck, and slightly different head...

New image


Older image


Or am I just crazy? Swan necks are so 1990s

fixed the teeth, messed up the neck...
But it's hard to tell how bent it is from that perspective.
Probably far less than the S shaped eslasmosaurus from Bullyland 

A little hot water could strighten it out

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I'll pick it up as well. I don't think Forest uses a texture stamp..not on the newer pieces anyway. There is detail in the Carnegie line..it's just not obvious with the paint Safari uses.

I wasn't talking about the Concavenator. It is pretty obvious the Carnegie line doesn't use texture stamps. It's the Wild Safari line which I suspect does- because of the uniformity of the scales, it just looks artificial and inorganic to me

That I agree with. It's pretty easy to tell on the new Diabloceratops.

[Brontozaurus]

Re: the Elasmosaurus, the neck position looks different between the two photos on the website. I know it might be a case of different angles...but could the neck actually be bendable? It would explain the different positions, if the neck was bent into a different shape between shots.

[tanystropheus]

I'm disappointed with the change of the Elasmosaurus, and I wish they'd kept the prototype, but I think I'll still go for it anyway.

Also, safari's new dinosaurs always look to me as though the person sculpting them has used a texture stamp. The detail is good, sure, but definitely doesn't have the organic, sculptural feel of a paposaur or Carnegie.

The Concavenator still hasn't impressed me





Skipping this one for definite.

Just my honest opinions

Best. Concavenator. Ever.

[tanystropheus]

Great detailing on the Gryposaurus skull.
The paint app on the Dimorphodon (a childhood favourite) looks richer on the recently released photos...
It now looks as if the Elasmo and the Dimorpho are bendy figures...
Gastornis. Awesome.
Safari still needs to upgrade/update (?) their paint apps (remember the long lost days of Postosuchus, Coelacanth, Dunkleosteus, Rhamphorhynchus, Icthyosaurus, Tylosaurus and Triceratops?)

[Simon]

Best. Concavenator. Ever.

Which is not saying much.

[Ikessauro]

Best. Concavenator. Ever.

Which is not saying much.

I agree with Simon
Easy to say that when there's only two Concavenator toys out there and one is by CollectA

[Jetoar]

Okay, what gives? I swear that the older pictures of Elasmosaurus showed it with a completely straight neck, but the photos on Safari's site show it with a bent neck, and slightly different head...

New image


Older image


Or am I just crazy? Swan necks are so 1990s

fixed the teeth, messed up the neck...
But it's hard to tell how bent it is from that perspective.
Probably far less than the S shaped eslasmosaurus from Bullyland 

I dont know the new change of the elasmosaurus neck............

[tyrantqueen]

Best. Concavenator. Ever.

Which is not saying much.

I agree with Simon
Easy to say that when there's only two Concavenator toys out there and one is by CollectA

I prefer CollectA's anyway, at least it is an original sculpt. 

[DinoToyForum]

Hi all. Doug Watson, one of Safari's sculptors, emailed me with a few comments in response to some of the queries above. I'm happy to pass them on:

"I was just checking the DinoToyBlog and I noticed the new images of my latest Safaris have sparked some questions. If you want I can answer them here for you to relay if you wish.
1. Neither the neck of the Elasmosaurus or the tail of the Dimorphodon are "bendy".
2. In the case of the first image that came out of the Elasmosaurus it was taken from a different side and the camera angle made the neck look straight & shorter plus the head is exactly the same in both shots. The neck is level as you last saw it in my sculpt and does not rise like a swan.
3. In the case of the Dimorphodon the tail on one of my paint guides became distorted in transit. That was the one from the first image that came out that showed a straighter tail pointing down. The proper position of the tail starts with a downward angle and ends with an upwards sweep as is shown in the newer image. I checked with Safari when the first shot came out and they have assured me that the resin used to make the mould had the proper angle.
4. As for Pixelboy and his "pronated" comments for the hands of my Diabloceratops as with all of my horned dinos I use the paper Thompson, S., and R. Holmes. 2007. FORELIMB STANCE AND STEP CYCLE IN CHASMOSAURUS IRVINENSIS (DINOSAURIA: NEOCERATOPSIA) PALAEO-ELECTRONICA.ORG"

[Dan]

So the Elasmo is still considered a scientifically sound restoration, then?

[John]

So the Elasmo is still considered a scientifically sound restoration, then?

Sort answer,yes

[DinoToyForum]

So the Elasmo is still considered a scientifically sound restoration, then?

Sort answer,yes

Yeah. I can confirm that the position of the neck is well within the possible range of motion in elasmosaurids. That second picture is a bit misleading because it doesn't show the extreme length of the neck, so it appears more curved than it really is. It is just the angle of the photo.

[Horridus]

Is this another one you were involved with, Adam...?

[Dan]

Excellent, thanks.

Is this another one you were involved with, Adam...?

Yes, you missed out on that happy announcement. His illustrations have that similar robustness in the neck.

[suspsy]

I don't care for the white patches on the Concavenator's head, but it still looks like a nice toy to me.

[John]

I don't care for the white patches on the Concavenator's head, but it still looks like a nice toy to me.

It's not a TOY! It's a REPLICA! A COLLECTIBLE! You know kind of like G.I.Joe is NOT a DOLL! It's an ACTION FIGURE!!!!!

[Takama]

Yes, calling The Carnegi Models Toys, is the most common mistake i found in Reviews on amazon that complain that the models are brittle or sharp.

They are not toys, they are teaching aids for kids. I known this since i was a five year old BTW

[John]

Yes, Caing The Carnegi Models Toys, is the most common mistake i find in Reviews on amazon that complai that the models are brittle or sharp.

They are not toys, they are teaching aids for kids. I known this since i was a five year old BTW

I've seen those reviews.It just makes me think that their kids are probably bouncing them off the walls or dropping them off the roof...
How else do you end up breaking one of the Carnegie Collection dinosaur toys?!?

[Takama]

Bashing them together to roughly like they think dinosaurs did.