|
Post by kevin on Oct 13, 2009 3:42:45 GMT
Well, a lucky fewinsiders here have seen them, and assure us we'll be happy
|
|
|
Post by itstwentybelow on Oct 13, 2009 4:24:36 GMT
I know I've seen the Cryo sculpt and it looks pretty good, but I want to see the final version. I can't go on someone else's word here, I need piccies!!
|
|
|
Post by mightyjptrex on Oct 13, 2009 15:07:28 GMT
I have seen them both. All I can say is the cryo has a very earth tone look with a blue crest and the icthy looks like a blue and black porpus. Something along those lines.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 13, 2009 16:18:51 GMT
I have seen them both. All I can say is the cryo has a very earth tone look with a blue crest and the icthy looks like a blue and black porpus. Something along those lines. Can't wait to see 'em!
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Oct 13, 2009 18:42:52 GMT
I should point out that no official price points have been revealed by Safari for the Carnegie figures (and some of the prices they listed for their 2010 WS figures were also incorrect). Anything you see listed at Link and Pin Hobbies should be taken with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
Post by nobs on Oct 13, 2009 18:45:51 GMT
I find it interesting that its been over 20 years and that Carnegie (and Safari in general) is just now getting around to making an ichy. I mean think about it, it was one of the first prehistorics discovered, and has had representations in lots of other lines, namely Invicta, bullyland, and Schleich with the shonisaurus.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Oct 13, 2009 18:49:05 GMT
It's all about the money, I'm afraid. And as much as we like Ichthyosaurus, there's no denyin' it - he ain't T. rex.
|
|
|
Post by bokisaurus on Oct 13, 2009 22:33:22 GMT
I find it interesting that its been over 20 years and that Carnegie (and Safari in general) is just now getting around to making an ichy. I mean think about it, it was one of the first prehistorics discovered, and has had representations in lots of other lines, namely Invicta, bullyland, and Schleich with the shonisaurus. I know, I wondered about that for a while,too ;D You would think that after being around for as long as they have they would have released one by now especially after the whole WWD phenomenon! ;D I guess it would be worth the wait Now, it would be only CollectA/Procon that has no Ichtyo in their collection... but maybe they too will release one next year, then we will have ichtyo from basically all the major players ;D and I don't think popularity is the reason behind why they have not released one yet... really, look at some of the figures released before then, not all of them are sure big sellers like mr. T ;D
|
|
|
Post by nobs on Oct 14, 2009 12:32:59 GMT
I agree with Boki on some of the less "sexy" animals released. thats right Im looking at you Mr. psitacosaurus!
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Oct 14, 2009 16:03:56 GMT
Hey hey, Psittacosaurus is sexy. Don't knock him. What did he ever do to you???
|
|
|
Post by kuni on Oct 14, 2009 21:50:30 GMT
Hey, I'd be all for a new quilltastic Psitta!
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 14, 2009 21:55:06 GMT
Hey, I'd be all for a new quilltastic Psitta! you mean like the CollectA one?
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Oct 14, 2009 23:02:11 GMT
I'd always assumed that was a big factor in the retiring of the original Carnegie Psittacosaurus. Although it's still very pretty.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Oct 14, 2009 23:18:47 GMT
Wasn't it retired before the quills were discovered?
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Oct 15, 2009 0:19:55 GMT
Wasn't it retired before the quills were discovered? That and there are different subspecies of psittacosaurus, many of which arent preserved well enough to know for sure if they would have had quills or not. I used to complain about the lack of quills too but after a little research came to the conclusion that technically theres nothing wrong with the Carnegie sculpt with regards to accuracy. I covered this all when i reviewed the Carnegie model for the blog. Its weird. As far as I know, only that one psittaco fossil has quills. All of the sudden I start seeing reconstructions of all kinds of other ceratopsians with quills as well. Its not absolutely wrong but really, until further evidence surfaces, for all we know psittacosaurus could have just been a bizarre dinosaur.
|
|
|
Post by kuni on Oct 15, 2009 1:21:39 GMT
Possibly. It would be interesting if all but the biggest dinos had a thick coat of dinofuzz - really makes them seem more like alternate mammals.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Oct 15, 2009 1:44:11 GMT
^ rather it would make mammals seem like alternate dinos, right
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Oct 15, 2009 1:50:36 GMT
Wasn't it retired before the quills were discovered? That and there are different subspecies of psittacosaurus, many of which arent preserved well enough to know for sure if they would have had quills or not. I used to complain about the lack of quills too but after a little research came to the conclusion that technically theres nothing wrong with the Carnegie sculpt with regards to accuracy. I covered this all when i reviewed the Carnegie model for the blog. Its weird. As far as I know, only that one psittaco fossil has quills. All of the sudden I start seeing reconstructions of all kinds of other ceratopsians with quills as well. Its not absolutely wrong but really, until further evidence surfaces, for all we know psittacosaurus could have just been a bizarre dinosaur. Some people think it was just some grass.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Oct 15, 2009 3:16:36 GMT
That and there are different subspecies of psittacosaurus, many of which arent preserved well enough to know for sure if they would have had quills or not. I used to complain about the lack of quills too but after a little research came to the conclusion that technically theres nothing wrong with the Carnegie sculpt with regards to accuracy. I covered this all when i reviewed the Carnegie model for the blog. Its weird. As far as I know, only that one psittaco fossil has quills. All of the sudden I start seeing reconstructions of all kinds of other ceratopsians with quills as well. Its not absolutely wrong but really, until further evidence surfaces, for all we know psittacosaurus could have just been a bizarre dinosaur. Some people think it was just some grass. Seriously? Grass didn't even exist back then.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Oct 15, 2009 4:17:30 GMT
Some people think it was just some grass. Let's be fair--one person thinks its grass. Some people think it was just some grass. Seriously? Grass didn't even exist back then. This may be a shock, but it's one of the same people that has decided to find fault with every other feather/filament/integument find. Which is as always, the problem--it's someone that will grasp at anything in order to be 'right', even though a) he gets generally ignored and b) sometimes ignores the obvious (like the 'grass' thing, which indeed did not exist until late in the Cretaceous--and long bladed grass came much later).
|
|