|
Post by Seijun on Apr 14, 2011 19:43:22 GMT
?? I never said it was awful stoneage! I wasn't trying to insult you or you're rex. v1, 2, and 3 I still think are the best toy rexes ever made. By warped I didn’t mean that I thought he was ugly in any way, was just saying that if he was bent at the ankles (and or knees) it would easily result in a v3 rex that leans forward with his tail off the ground. That’s a good thing, not a bad thing. It is more realistic that way. I am always fascinated by variations, and the fact that you have a battat rex of ANY version that stands fine on just two feet is a rare and wonderful thing.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Apr 14, 2011 22:25:08 GMT
The one on the dinosaurcollector site does have the arms tucked in, though you are right, the hands are not as clenched. Because of the way plastic toys are made, and the material, there is often a small level of variation in the precise position of small thin parts, like arms, fingers, tails, and legs. I believe yours is most likely a v3 because both hind feet are completely forward and completely flat. One v1 the feet are nowhere near flat, and I don't think any amount of mold variation could have brought the entire leg forward, and flattened the foot so perfectly, without seriously warping other parts of the figure. There are also the teeth, which are more or less uniform on v1 and 2. On v3, the first two teeth (top jaw, right side) are small, followed by a noticeably larger tooth, followed by a small tooth, followed by another large one, which is the same sequence yours has. Some other small details pop out as well, like the pink flesh connecting the jaws. On v1 and 2 the flesh is far back on the jaws, but on v3 is it is far forward. Possibly yours is a v3 with the ankles warped, tilting the entire figure forward and lifting the tail of the ground? ;D No problem we're Kool! Hey now I'm the only person in the world with version 4.
|
|
|
Post by Pangolinmoth on Apr 14, 2011 22:27:47 GMT
The one on the dinosaurcollector site does have the arms tucked in, though you are right, the hands are not as clenched. Because of the way plastic toys are made, and the material, there is often a small level of variation in the precise position of small thin parts, like arms, fingers, tails, and legs. I believe yours is most likely a v3 because both hind feet are completely forward and completely flat. One v1 the feet are nowhere near flat, and I don't think any amount of mold variation could have brought the entire leg forward, and flattened the foot so perfectly, without seriously warping other parts of the figure. There are also the teeth, which are more or less uniform on v1 and 2. On v3, the first two teeth (top jaw, right side) are small, followed by a noticeably larger tooth, followed by a small tooth, followed by another large one, which is the same sequence yours has. Some other small details pop out as well, like the pink flesh connecting the jaws. On v1 and 2 the flesh is far back on the jaws, but on v3 is it is far forward. Possibly yours is a v3 with the ankles warped, tilting the entire figure forward and lifting the tail of the ground? ;D No problem we're Kool! Hey now I'm the only person in the world with version 4. Make that two. Mine looks just like yours.
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Apr 17, 2011 0:12:56 GMT
Niroot woot! I'm so sorry. I'm wretchedly envious of all of you people with Battat T.rexes; whichever version. Wah!
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Apr 23, 2011 22:19:00 GMT
Starlux is a french company that has made probably more prehistoric species then any other line. If you looking for accuracy you should probably look elsewhere. Still these retro figures have their charm and many people here on the forum have collected them.They were made from 1968 till 1984. Here we have their Nothosaurus from 1972,which is sort of a "Puff the Magic Dragon", which is too bad since there are few if any good ones out there.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Apr 24, 2011 4:03:59 GMT
One of the few Starlux dinosaurs I have, is the 1968 retro Iguanodon. Notice the lizard tongue.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Apr 24, 2011 12:31:53 GMT
Possibly the first Coelophysis toy from 1978. Not to bad all things considered.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Apr 24, 2011 16:09:11 GMT
A figure seldom seen is Monoclonius made by Starlux in 1976.
|
|
|
Post by deanm on Apr 24, 2011 17:28:23 GMT
So wonderfully retro (okay somewhere beyond retro). I have the three pterosaurs and they are great. The Starlux figures are neat but I keep wondering how they were kids toys since they are so fragile!
|
|
Battatitan
Junior Member
I am member 500!!
Posts: 94
|
Post by Battatitan on Apr 24, 2011 19:37:46 GMT
Retro dinosaurs never really appeal to me... But I do like their Eohippus!
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Apr 24, 2011 21:00:33 GMT
Yes Starlux figures are breakable just like dino-riders and other plastic figures. There are no child proof dinosaurs. I wouldn't recommend them for very small children because they could be a choking hazard. If you have older children that respect things then they should be able to gently play with them without destroying them. Starlux figures don't appeal to everyone. Different people collect different ones, some just want the mammals, pterosaurs, or pre-dinosaurs. Also remember these pictures are close ups and the defects are not as noticable at a normal distance..
|
|
|
Post by deanm on Apr 24, 2011 21:33:40 GMT
I guess you have not meet my children - both of them can be pretty hard on their toys (hence my there is a daddy and a childs collection).
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Apr 25, 2011 1:05:05 GMT
Yes Starlux figures are breakable just like dino-riders and other plastic figures. There are no child proof dinosaurs. I wouldn't recommend them for very small children because they could be a choking hazard. If you have older children that respect things then they should be able to gently play with them without destroying them. Starlux figures don't appeal to everyone. Different people collect different ones, some just want the mammals, pterosaurs, or pre-dinosaurs. Also remember these pictures are close ups and the defects are not as noticable at a normal distance.. I don't know--the plaster and glue composite of a Starlux seems to leave them among the most brittle--hence, the finer ones (Synthetoceros horns, Sloth tongue, various tails) tend to be broken off, and very-good-condition pieces can be very expensive. They are certainly more brittle than your average plastic toy.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Apr 25, 2011 2:32:52 GMT
Yes Starlux figures are breakable just like dino-riders and other plastic figures. There are no child proof dinosaurs. I wouldn't recommend them for very small children because they could be a choking hazard. If you have older children that respect things then they should be able to gently play with them without destroying them. Starlux figures don't appeal to everyone. Different people collect different ones, some just want the mammals, pterosaurs, or pre-dinosaurs. Also remember these pictures are close ups and the defects are not as noticable at a normal distance.. I don't know--the plaster and glue composite of a Starlux seems to leave them among the most brittle--hence, the finer ones (Synthetoceros horns, Sloth tongue, various tails) tend to be broken off, and very-good-condition pieces can be very expensive. They are certainly more brittle than your average plastic toy. True but I think collectors wouldn't have a problem with them. I would think they'd be better then say Miller.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Apr 25, 2011 2:42:25 GMT
Starlux Pterodactyle 1974
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Apr 25, 2011 3:46:29 GMT
I don't know--the plaster and glue composite of a Starlux seems to leave them among the most brittle--hence, the finer ones (Synthetoceros horns, Sloth tongue, various tails) tend to be broken off, and very-good-condition pieces can be very expensive. They are certainly more brittle than your average plastic toy. True but I think collectors wouldn't have a problem with them. I would think they'd be better then say Miller. Certainly, they are great for collectors, but it is almost ludicrous that they were originally meant as toys for children.
|
|
|
Post by deanm on Apr 25, 2011 13:48:56 GMT
The Starlux Pterodactyle - one of my favorites of that genus (so infrequently done).
|
|
|
Post by sumo on Apr 25, 2011 17:59:54 GMT
These old veterans are so awesome! I'm not always a retro fan, but when it's done well..!
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Apr 26, 2011 0:52:51 GMT
Starlux Rhamphorhynchus 1974 I never got the Pteranodon, probably because it is such a common figure.
|
|
|
Post by deanm on Apr 26, 2011 1:28:11 GMT
The Pteranodon is the weakest of the three Starlux pterosaurs (in my opinion - okay lets throw out the fact that it looks like the Rhamp was impaled upon its own tail and that the Pterodactylus looks batlike...).
|
|