|
Post by stoneage on Aug 3, 2009 22:05:20 GMT
Invicta Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals
1973 Blue Whale, Scelidosaurus 1974 Megalosaurus, Diplodocus 1975 Glyptodon, Triceratops, Woolly Mammaoth, Stegosaurus 1977 Tyrannosaurus 1978 Plesiosaur, Pteranodon 1980 Iguanodon, Mamenchisaurus 1984 Brachiosaurus 1985 Cetiosaurus 1986 Ichthyosaurus 1987 Brontosaurus-Apatosaurus 1988 Stenonychosaurus (Trodon) 1989 Muttaburrasaurus, A Pliosaur (Liopleurodon), Baryonyx 1993 Lambeosaurus, Dimetrodon
;D
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Aug 4, 2009 6:14:36 GMT
Thaks you for your answers, guys. Didn't know ARTHUR HAYWARD was the scrulptor of the Invicta ones... Great!! Was HAYWARD the sculptor also in the late figures of the 80's when they "modernized" the designs, or that was another sculptor? (If so, do you know the name)? I would really love to know more about that sculptor -though not much info in the web, really- though there is an AMAZING video on youtube of HAYWARD working. It probes my theory he was hugely influenced by retro paleoartists like Knight and Burian. www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYxuEEbDpxwAnd what do you guys think about the possible inspirations of the Invictas that I posted? Do you agree, or find some too farfetched? They do not seem far fetched at all. After all, every sculptor uses reference material. Obviously at the time they didn't have a picture of the Jurassic Park Tyrannosaurus at their disposal as all these other companies seem to be using nowadays. They probably did use some, if not most of these at some point in the creation of the line. If not these, than obviously ones that were quite similar.
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Aug 4, 2009 15:10:40 GMT
Thx for the answer Tyrannax Invicta Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals 1973 Blue Whale, Scelidosaurus 1974 Megalosaurus, Diplodocus 1975 Glyptodon, Triceratops, Woolly Mammaoth, Stegosaurus 1977 Tyrannosaurus 1978 Plesiosaur, Pteranodon 1980 Iguanodon, Mamenchisaurus 1984 Brachiosaurus 1985 Cetiosaurus 1986 Ichthyosaurus 1987 Brontosaurus-Apatosaurus 1988 Stenonychosaurus (Trodon) 1989 Muttaburrasaurus, A Pliosaur (Liopleurodon), Baryonyx 1993 Lambeosaurus, Dimetrodon ;D Woah, that is highly interesting. The brontosaurus (with all its "retro") looking was actually sculpted in 1987!! Well, I still remember a lot of dinosaur books of the late 80's which still were depincting the dinos in the old way... Intereting thing is they started to make the dinos in a modern design the very same next year... Anybody knows if the sculptor was the same one, all the time? Btw, the Dimetrodon is one of the best ones i have ever seen don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Aug 4, 2009 19:04:05 GMT
Yeah, the Dimetro is quite good but it's still based on early reconstructions, as you can see, his fingers are not separated.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Aug 4, 2009 19:27:01 GMT
I bet that's more of a molding/castting problem then anything else...
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Aug 4, 2009 19:56:46 GMT
I bet that's more of a molding/castting problem then anything else... I don't think so, the theropods have grouped, hoof-like fingers too, perhaps it had to do with the theories that reigned at the moment?
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Aug 6, 2009 7:01:01 GMT
I bet that's more of a molding/castting problem then anything else... I don't think so, the theropods have grouped, hoof-like fingers too, perhaps it had to do with the theories that reigned at the moment? Tomhet is right. Invicta was never lacking with their scientific accuracies. I cannot see them overlooking even the smallest of details. Then again, the size of the figure may have meant that separation of would almost definitely lead to breakage of the fingers.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Aug 6, 2009 17:35:38 GMT
I bet that's more of a molding/castting problem then anything else... I don't think so, the theropods have grouped, hoof-like fingers too, perhaps it had to do with the theories that reigned at the moment? I still say it was a casting issue. If they were just going with scientific accuracy at the time, they still could have made the theropods have open mouths-- Surely that would have attracted children more than a static trex with little nubbin teeth showing through his lips....
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Aug 6, 2009 22:36:23 GMT
I don't think so, the theropods have grouped, hoof-like fingers too, perhaps it had to do with the theories that reigned at the moment? I still say it was a casting issue. If they were just going with scientific accuracy at the time, they still could have made the theropods have open mouths-- Surely that would have attracted children more than a static trex with little nubbin teeth showing through his lips.... That is a very, very good point. Obviously Invicta sculpted their dinosaurs with their mouth's closed for a reason other than their charm. It is also obviously more difficult to caste a toy with an open mouth full of teeth. Perhaps they were just avoiding the trouble? Or, perhaps they thought the material was too brittle for teeth? Little did they know that decision helped them lose the battle when Carnegie came about.
|
|
|
Post by robert01 on Aug 6, 2009 23:13:55 GMT
I like the closed mouthed rexes. And if they really were following Knight's reconstructions and such, THAT Rex and Trike have closed mouths too. And the plastic was brittle. Blackdanter has reported problems getting them intact in the mail these days. I don't see a lot of stuff sticking off of them. Only what was absolutely necessary. I think the scelido is that way cause of old reference, bit the closed fingers and hoofs betray a poorer casting process on the invictas than later companies. Certainly getting away from that, and embracing newer more dynamic images helped Carnegie progress, and put invicta down. On the other hand, some of the older Schleichs and Bullys also are very retro. Those companies survived a while. They adapted. The newer invictas have more modern poses and such, but the fingers, faces and all are still far more primitive than Carnegie's. Although, the lambeo in particular, is actually better. The front feet are more accurate than even some later carnegie hadros.The Mutta is nice, but the face and fingers are still kinda...indestinct.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Aug 7, 2009 3:05:26 GMT
...Yep. And even though carnegie was of lesser quality, the open mouths and pointy claws sticking out this way and that, and combined with the fact that all were painted, seemed to help kill off invicta......
|
|
|
Post by blackdanter on Aug 7, 2009 11:34:23 GMT
I think that focusing on Safari killing the Invicta line off is a load of hog really (don't flatter yourselves). In truth, Invicta were never a toy company as such but a plastics manufacturer that happened to branch out into producing items with the material they were producing. The end of the Invicta dinosaur line was due to a lot of factors such as a lack of interest in the line from within, a focus on producing industrial materials, an effort to produce more interactive and educational toys (usable in teaching institutions), economics (the costs involved in actually producing something such as a toy figure which has minimal return within the UK), company reorganisation in order to survive in a difficult economic climate, the fact that traditional toy lines waned in popularity in the face of the electronic age (we lost a lot of classic UK toy companies in the late 80's and 1990's) etc. There were political reasons why some companies couldn't or wouldn't shift production abroad to places such as China (where more mercenary companies have traditionally exploited local economic conditions .................. happily ignoring serious moral issues along the way (take a look at the way animals are treated in China, you may never buy another Chinese made toy again )). The advent of lines such as Safari's Carnegie had an impact in terms of markets overseas but not in the UK (where the line has only recently become widely available) and the company (Invicta) had a monopoly on the market here and a bloody great shop called the BMNH. So in UK terms, the advent of Safari as a deciding factor is a total red herring ...................... but gets chundered out here time and time again Invicta is still here: www.invictagroup.co.uk/index.htm ................... a remarkable feat for smaller UK based company. UK industry and manufacturing is pretty much insignificant now . Ironically, although Invicta still produce novelty items for company promotional purposes, the fact that they got out of producing dino toys may well be one of the reasons why they are still here and a viable company!
|
|
|
Post by robert01 on Aug 7, 2009 11:51:12 GMT
;D ok,Bob
|
|
|
Post by blackdanter on Aug 7, 2009 12:36:52 GMT
Bob to Bob ;D
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Aug 7, 2009 21:59:55 GMT
I think that focusing on Safari killing the Invicta line off is a load of hog really (don't flatter yourselves). In truth, Invicta were never a toy company as such but a plastics manufacturer that happened to branch out into producing items with the material they were producing. The end of the Invicta dinosaur line was due to a lot of factors such as a lack of interest in the line from within, a focus on producing industrial materials, an effort to produce more interactive and educational toys (usable in teaching institutions), economics (the costs involved in actually producing something such as a toy figure which has minimal return within the UK), company reorganisation in order to survive in a difficult economic climate, the fact that traditional toy lines waned in popularity in the face of the electronic age (we lost a lot of classic UK toy companies in the late 80's and 1990's) etc. There were political reasons why some companies couldn't or wouldn't shift production abroad to places such as China (where more mercenary companies have traditionally exploited local economic conditions .................. happily ignoring serious moral issues along the way (take a look at the way animals are treated in China, you may never buy another Chinese made toy again )). The advent of lines such as Safari's Carnegie had an impact in terms of markets overseas but not in the UK (where the line has only recently become widely available) and the company (Invicta) had a monopoly on the market here and a bloody great shop called the BMNH. So in UK terms, the advent of Safari as a deciding factor is a total red herring ...................... but gets chundered out here time and time again Invicta is still here: www.invictagroup.co.uk/index.htm ................... a remarkable feat for smaller UK based company. UK industry and manufacturing is pretty much insignificant now . Ironically, although Invicta still produce novelty items for company promotional purposes, the fact that they got out of producing dino toys may well be one of the reasons why they are still here and a viable company! Animals, what about the way China treats it's people?
|
|
|
Post by blackdanter on Aug 8, 2009 7:28:46 GMT
I think that focusing on Safari killing the Invicta line off is a load of hog really (don't flatter yourselves). In truth, Invicta were never a toy company as such but a plastics manufacturer that happened to branch out into producing items with the material they were producing. The end of the Invicta dinosaur line was due to a lot of factors such as a lack of interest in the line from within, a focus on producing industrial materials, an effort to produce more interactive and educational toys (usable in teaching institutions), economics (the costs involved in actually producing something such as a toy figure which has minimal return within the UK), company reorganisation in order to survive in a difficult economic climate, the fact that traditional toy lines waned in popularity in the face of the electronic age (we lost a lot of classic UK toy companies in the late 80's and 1990's) etc. There were political reasons why some companies couldn't or wouldn't shift production abroad to places such as China (where more mercenary companies have traditionally exploited local economic conditions .................. happily ignoring serious moral issues along the way (take a look at the way animals are treated in China, you may never buy another Chinese made toy again )). The advent of lines such as Safari's Carnegie had an impact in terms of markets overseas but not in the UK (where the line has only recently become widely available) and the company (Invicta) had a monopoly on the market here and a bloody great shop called the BMNH. So in UK terms, the advent of Safari as a deciding factor is a total red herring ...................... but gets chundered out here time and time again Invicta is still here: www.invictagroup.co.uk/index.htm ................... a remarkable feat for smaller UK based company. UK industry and manufacturing is pretty much insignificant now . Ironically, although Invicta still produce novelty items for company promotional purposes, the fact that they got out of producing dino toys may well be one of the reasons why they are still here and a viable company! Animals, what about the way China treats it's people? Nothing enrages me more than skinning dogs alive, tieing live animals up with wire in markets or cooking them alive and such like .............................. I don't think you can deal with the way people treat each other until peoples attitudes towards the rest of life on Earth are sorted out really. With that in mind, I do find myself questioning the the fact that I buy toys which are largely manufactured in such a nasty place when I have phased out virtually everything else produced there from what I buy in daily life (I avoid anything tested on animals as well). I am of course aware that animal cruelty is a global issue (exquisite marine life toys from Japan vs chopping up marine mammals in the name of science etc ) but it seems to be particularly pernicious in China and other areas of Asia.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 8, 2009 8:40:56 GMT
"I am of course aware that animal cruelty is a global issue (exquisite marine life toys from Japan vs chopping up marine mammals in the name of science etc ) but it seems to be particularly pernicious in China and other areas of Asia." Along with what appears to be an almost completely arrogant mentality regarding conservation. The worlds chelonians are currently being funneled at a horrifying rate into china. I have been to several conferences and have at least half dozen T shirts regarding the Asian Turtle Crisis. Its a disaster. Even in the USA, go to any city center with a "China Town", and you will find Turtles for sale for food - Florida and Smooth Softshells along with Diamondback Terrapins are favorites, (The Alligator Snapper used to be, but thankfully is more protected now) along with various exotics, in vile conditions. NO chelonian species can withstand commercial harvest. nytts.org/Asianturtlecrisis.htmltortoise-aid.org/asianturtles.htmlwww.tortoisetrust.org/articles/asia.htmlwww.asianturtlenetwork.org/home/more_about_turtle_crisis.htm
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Aug 8, 2009 9:12:56 GMT
"I am of course aware that animal cruelty is a global issue (exquisite marine life toys from Japan vs chopping up marine mammals in the name of science etc ) but it seems to be particularly pernicious in China and other areas of Asia." Along with what appears to be an almost completely arrogant mentality regarding conservation. The worlds chelonians are currently being funneled at a horrifying rate into china. I have been to several conferences and have at least half dozen T shirts regarding the Asian Turtle Crisis. Its a disaster. Even in the USA, go to any city center with a "China Town", and you will find Turtles for sale for food - Florida and Smooth Softshells along with Diamondback Terrapins are favorites, (The Alligator Snapper used to be, but thankfully is more protected now) along with various exotics, in vile conditions. NO chelonian species can withstand commercial harvest. nytts.org/Asianturtlecrisis.htmltortoise-aid.org/asianturtles.htmlwww.tortoisetrust.org/articles/asia.htmlwww.asianturtlenetwork.org/home/more_about_turtle_crisis.htmIt just shows that the general bulk of the human population cares little for animal populations, and if not told otherwise will eliminate it completely if desired.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Aug 8, 2009 21:10:27 GMT
Why wipe out turtles, like we almost did to the Buffalo?We farm other meat sources like cows, pigs, chickens, turkey and fish. Wouldn't they be able to do that with turtles?
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Aug 9, 2009 7:22:31 GMT
Why wipe out turtles, like we almost did to the Buffalo?We farm other meat sources like cows, pigs, chickens, turkey and fish. Wouldn't they be able to do that with turtles? It isn't a popular tradition to breed any sort of reptile simply for food, so I guess they feel hunting them to extinction is less costly.
|
|