|
Post by crypto1 on Sept 16, 2009 19:06:58 GMT
For those hoping for the Carnegie ichthyosaurus to be something other than hue's blue I am sad to say you will have to keep waiting. The paint job is very much different sets of blues, darker atop, lighter on the bottom. Its not a gentle blend but rather like splotching seen in whales. If I recall it has a small brown line sepperating the two main colour segments. I cant recall what it looks like perfectly as I saw a few of the varitions of the paint before the final one. Ultimately, although not highly innovative in colour, it does look very good and believable. People should really, really like it. Of course, the sculpt is fantastic. And where & how did you see this? I must have missed that part of the story. Or do you work for Safari? Yes, it does seem to look like what this appears to show... www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/ichthyo-2010/
|
|
|
Post by Flipyap on Sept 16, 2009 19:31:14 GMT
For those hoping for the Carnegie ichthyosaurus to be something other than hue's blue I am sad to say you will have to keep waiting. The paint job is very much different sets of blues, darker atop, lighter on the bottom. Its not a gentle blend but rather like splotching seen in whales. If I recall it has a small brown line separating the two main colour segments. I cant recall what it looks like perfectly as I saw a few of the variations of the paint before the final one. Ultimately, although not highly innovative in colour, it does look very good and believable. People should really, really like it. Of course, the sculpt is fantastic. And where & how did you see this? I must have missed that part of the story. Or do you work for Safari? Yes, it does seem to look like what this appears to show... www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/ichthyo-2010/I work at the Carnegie Museum, and get to work with the Paleontologist who essentially runs the Carnegie line. Often times I get to see the prototypes, either in person or just by him sharing pictures. So often times I can share different tid-bits of information.
|
|
|
Post by brontozaurus on Sept 18, 2009 11:46:56 GMT
I like what could possibly be the big Icthyosaurus, although the marine toob appeals to be more because of the range of creatures within it.
|
|
|
Post by crypto1 on Sept 18, 2009 16:21:57 GMT
I work at the Carnegie Museum, and get to work with the Paleontologist who essentially runs the Carnegie line. Often times I get to see the prototypes, either in person or just by him sharing pictures. So often times I can share different tid-bits of information. Now that's very cool. ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) Thank you for sharing your insights. Sincerely!
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Sept 18, 2009 23:05:31 GMT
... So who else is loving that toob elasmosaurus? ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by Gorgonopsid on Sept 23, 2009 3:39:25 GMT
I am so buying these! YES!!! ![:'(](http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/martianleader1/car%20show/Walking%20with%20monsters/OrthoconeAnim.gif)
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Sept 24, 2009 17:09:10 GMT
Maybe I missed it on a previous page. Does anyone know exactly how big the bracho and the apato will be?
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Sept 24, 2009 22:09:38 GMT
I thknk the brachi is 13 inches long, and I'm guessing apato is 9 or so inches long with the tail curved.
|
|
|
Post by itstwentybelow on Sept 24, 2009 23:44:41 GMT
Is anyone else loving the fact that the Nothosaurus, Metriorynchus, and Dolichorynchops are going to be roughly 1/40 scale in the toob size? The ichthyosaur may also make a good 1/40 scale baby for the Carnegie ichthy.
And does anyone know what scale the Liopleurodon will be? I'm hoping for 1/40 but it's WS so who knows.
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Sept 25, 2009 2:22:49 GMT
L&P cut off the sizes in their pics, so there's no way to tell as of now. I'm expecting something in the same size range as the Invicta and WWD ones though, so maybe close to 1/40 (depending on how big Liopleurodon was, I know there's some confusion with the misrepresentation in WWD).
|
|
|
Post by darwinian on Sept 25, 2009 4:20:42 GMT
Wow. Overall these look terrific and will make nice additions to my desk top display. Not sure what to do when it comes time to put the sauropods out - do I stick with the more recent versions, or keep the older ones out there too? Oh well, I won't have to decide for awhile.
I'm not so sold on the Mosasaur (eyes look... dead... and toyish, and he sculpt like something from 10 years ago, but hopefully the final will be better) or the fossils, especially since I can readily buy real fossils or full sized replicas of most of those shown. I'd have much preferred more critters, but I also applaud C/WS for rolling the dice on something unusual. Who knows, if it works, we may get some larger sized replicas.
|
|
|
Post by darwinian on Sept 25, 2009 4:22:43 GMT
I work at the Carnegie Museum, and get to work with the Paleontologist who essentially runs the Carnegie line. Often times I get to see the prototypes, either in person or just by him sharing pictures. So often times I can share different tid-bits of information. Any chance he'd do an interview or Q&A? I'd love to hear how they make the decisions of what toys to include or not, who goes to which line, when to retire figures, which sculpts need updating, and how they resolve "accuracy" conflicts.
|
|
|
Post by kuni on Sept 25, 2009 4:43:24 GMT
That would be a cool little article for the blog. A Q&A with Ramona would be sweet too.
I actually like the mosasaur a lot - it's nice to see they went with smooth skin and it'll be a good size when compared to the Tylosaurus.
|
|
|
Post by bokisaurus on Sept 25, 2009 6:12:04 GMT
L&P cut off the sizes in their pics, so there's no way to tell as of now. I'm expecting something in the same size range as the Invicta and WWD ones though, so maybe close to 1/40 (depending on how big Liopleurodon was, I know there's some confusion with the misrepresentation in WWD). Brachi is 14.25" LX7.75" H Kentro 5" L X 2" H Apato 13.5" L X 5" H Coelacanth 5.75" L X 3" H Liop 7" L X 4" H Mosasaur 8.75" L X 3.25 " H Rhampho 8" L X 7.5" H ;D
|
|
|
Post by itstwentybelow on Sept 25, 2009 6:23:03 GMT
Wait, so the Brach is twice as long as it is tall and the Mosasaur is larger than the Liopleurodon? Are you sure about that?
|
|
|
Post by Ajax on Sept 25, 2009 6:28:19 GMT
Wait, so the Brach is twice as long as it is tall and the Mosasaur is larger than the Liopleurodon? Are you sure about that? Braci's lengths are usually measured from head to tail, and the height is usually to the shoulder.
|
|
|
Post by bokisaurus on Sept 25, 2009 6:31:14 GMT
Wait, so the Brach is twice as long as it is tall and the Mosasaur is larger than the Liopleurodon? Are you sure about that? Ask Safari, that is the measurement they printed on their catalog ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) I'm just copying what is printed. And remember, these are WS figures, so the scale are not exactly consistent ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png)
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Sept 25, 2009 6:31:47 GMT
Not to mention that the Liopleurodon was indeed smaller than the Mosa.
|
|
|
Post by kuni on Sept 25, 2009 8:03:08 GMT
Oh snap! Tomhet brings the facts!
(more seriously....wow, Mosasaurs was right up there with Tylosaurus, and Liopleurodon was smaller than both)
|
|
|
Post by itstwentybelow on Sept 25, 2009 8:34:15 GMT
I guess I always envision Liopleurodon as a lot more massive animal because mosasaurs were so long and serpentine.
|
|