|
Post by pawnosuchus on Oct 26, 2011 14:03:43 GMT
I agree with Seijun. I think it looks alot like the Carnegie Mosasaur. The strange thing is, I always kind of liked the Carnegie but the Papo looks hideous to me. Maybe it's because the Carnegie is 20 years old so I give it some slack, whereas the I expect the Papo to be more up to date.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Oct 26, 2011 14:22:43 GMT
You know, if they actually HAD just copied a piece of palaeoart from 1899, it actually would have looked a lot better (this is Charles Knight's Tylosaurus from that year): Of course, these days mosasaurs tend to look more like this (this being a restoration of Platecarpus - not so closely related, granted, but this is a nice modern mosasaur restoration in lateral view): And here's the Papo again, by way of a reminder: Further edit: thought I may as well include the Carnegie Tylo in (not quite) lateral view (seems like the tail is longer than it appears here):
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Oct 26, 2011 18:32:18 GMT
I bet I could easily make a fin for the back...lowering the head is a bit more difficult but not extremely so. If anyone wants to send me one to play around with I'm open for donations ! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Oct 26, 2011 18:36:08 GMT
I bet I could easily make a fin for the back...lowering the head is a bit more difficult but not extremely so. If anyone wants to send me one to play around with I'm open for donations ! ;D You've also got to change the size and shape of the fins, elongate the tail, and alter the body shape. So...you might as well chop the head off and sculpt your own body for it from scratch. And I am talking about making it match the Chaz Knight Tylo here, not a modern restoration. Oh, and the scales are also wrong.
|
|
|
Post by simon on Oct 26, 2011 19:35:22 GMT
Anyone want to take bets whether the new Papo Tylosaurus will have the second upper jaw set of teeth inside its mouth? Remember that the Carnegie Tylo. has the second set - but orientated the wrong way! Wouldn't it be something if Papo got this obscure detail right?
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Oct 26, 2011 20:01:10 GMT
I didn't realize that the inner teeth on the carnegie tylo pointed the wrong way. Was that mentioned in the review? (having trouble reaching it right now)
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 26, 2011 20:10:26 GMT
I didn't realize that the inner teeth on the carnegie tylo pointed the wrong way. Was that mentioned in the review? (having trouble reaching it right now) They are fine--I just compared the figure to the skeleton mount in our museum gallery. In fact, the palatine teeth are not in a v-shape at all, but taper at both ends. This is how the Carnegie is made.
|
|
|
Post by simon on Oct 26, 2011 20:26:44 GMT
I didn't realize that the inner teeth on the carnegie tylo pointed the wrong way. Was that mentioned in the review? (having trouble reaching it right now) They are fine--I just compared the figure to the skeleton mount in our museum gallery. In fact, the palatine teeth are not in a v-shape at all, but taper at both ends. This is how the Carnegie is made. I'll have to check the figure - memory playing tricks on me it seems. meanwhile here is a great photo:
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Oct 26, 2011 21:22:06 GMT
I bet I could easily make a fin for the back...lowering the head is a bit more difficult but not extremely so. If anyone wants to send me one to play around with I'm open for donations ! ;D You've also got to change the size and shape of the fins, elongate the tail, and alter the body shape. So...you might as well chop the head off and sculpt your own body for it from scratch. And I am talking about making it match the Chaz Knight Tylo here, not a modern restoration. Oh, and the scales are also wrong. lol I can't tell much from that image and the angle//but it looks like just a few minor changes to me still.
|
|
|
Post by dinonikes on Oct 26, 2011 21:40:04 GMT
The second set of teeth in the 'bunker' tylosaur definitely look to be wider at the front part and get narrower towards the back-at least if photos available on the web- have not see either the skeleton or the figure in person, but do remember this coming up when I was working on my tylosaur, and remember seeing a photo posted by a member where the Carnegie was different. That was where Simon probably read it- on that thread -
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 26, 2011 22:03:50 GMT
And here is the Saskatchewan specimen--anterior is to the right. The palatine teeth have a very definite taper on both ends. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Oct 26, 2011 22:39:05 GMT
Anyone want to take bets whether the new Papo Tylosaurus will have the second upper jaw set of teeth inside its mouth? I am willing to bet 10,000 DTF$ against it. (Note: not actual currency.) Then again, the head is the only part of that model that is remotely right.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 26, 2011 23:04:20 GMT
You know, if they actually HAD just copied a piece of palaeoart from 1899, it actually would have looked a lot better (this is Charles Knight's Tylosaurus from that year): Of course, these days mosasaurs tend to look more like this (this being a restoration of Platecarpus - not so closely related, granted, but this is a nice modern mosasaur restoration in lateral view): And here's the Papo again, by way of a reminder: Further edit: thought I may as well include the Carnegie Tylo in (not quite) lateral view (seems like the tail is longer than it appears here): Papo is the only known dinosaur company that releases models that are better than their stock photos. There is a possibility that Papo's Tylosaurus might look more "charming" when viewed from alternate angles. Papo dinosaurs : www.flickr.com/photos/kusou-gallery/3718789095/in/photostream/www.flickr.com/photos/kusou-gallery/3764463509/in/photostream/Papo stock image: marinetime.co.uk/thumbs/1201109.jpgThere is a thread for Papo arguments now. Please keep those posts there.
|
|
|
Post by tanystropheus on Oct 26, 2011 23:07:57 GMT
Hey, no problem. Post transferred.
|
|
|
Post by anchry6 on Oct 27, 2011 16:07:24 GMT
I learned that Carnegie Branchiosauro 1:50 ... What a shame ... A missed opportunity. From 1:30 had to be beautiful and huge, from 1:30 to 1:40 that was a decent well with Diplodocus. But from 1:40 to 1:50, which is fine with ... BHO?? What a pity I do not think will buy it at this point ...
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Oct 27, 2011 16:31:09 GMT
If its at 1:50 how much different will it be from the WS brachio?
|
|
|
Post by postsaurischian on Oct 27, 2011 16:52:43 GMT
If its at 1:50 how much different will it be from the WS brachio? It will definitely be bigger than 1:50 .
|
|
|
Post by simon on Oct 27, 2011 17:19:22 GMT
If its at 1:50 how much different will it be from the WS brachio? It will definitely be bigger than 1:50 . Yeah - I kept running the numbers provided by Dan on the length and height of this figure and comparing them to the 1/30 Tamiya Brach - I couldn't figure out where they got 1:50 from. It seemed to me that even if we call it "Sauroposeidon" it would be about 1:40 scale at that size..... ....needless to say, I am awaiting it with baited breath....
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Oct 27, 2011 17:23:13 GMT
The ad does say 1:50 though... :/ but I'm not great on scales..literally. I weigh too much.. lol
Pulling out a measuring tape though, it seems workable to me. It will be larger than the WS version, but might appear slightly smaller than the Carnegie Diplo. It def won't feel as massive as the one it's replacing..most of the 21" length will also be neck you have to consider. It might look like an adult and juvenile or sub adult when paired with WS piece.
|
|
|
Post by Allosaurus89 on Oct 27, 2011 18:19:38 GMT
The ad does say 1:50 though... :/ but I'm not great on scales..literally. I weigh too much.. lol Pulling out a measuring tape though, it seems workable to me. It will be larger than the WS version, but might appear slightly smaller than the Carnegie Diplo. It def won't feel as massive as the one it's replacing..most of the 21" length will also be neck you have to consider. It might look like an adult and juvenile or sub adult when paired with WS piece. I think the scale of some of the Carnegies is kinda.....iffy. I've seen them list the original Brachi as both 1:40 and as 1:50. Also, I can't seem to find the original on their site, is it retired? Because I recall safari saying on their fb that they weren't retiring it
|
|