|
Post by totoro on Aug 20, 2011 20:30:16 GMT
MASTERLIST OF SCIENTIFICALLY-ACCURATE FIGURES:Species | Designer | Scale | Cost | Type | Family: Diplodocidaea | Apatosaurus | Kaiyodo Dinotales | ~1/100 | painted assembled figure | $10 | Apatosaurus | David Krentz | 1/72 | unpainted assembled figure | $50 | Apatosaurus | Rader Studios | 1/20 | kit | $275 | Apatosaurus | Shane Foulkes | 1/15 | kit | $600 | Apatosaurus | Sideshow | 1/20 | painted assembled figure | $300 | Barosaurus | Geene Models | 1/40 | kit | $180 | Diplodocus | Battat | 1/40 | painted assembled figure | $300? | Supersaurus | Rader Studios | 1/20 | kit | $500 |
*Some values for scale and cost are approximated** Families considered to date: DiplodocidaeDiscussion below line: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I always enjoy (and value) the discussions on the forum regarding scientific-accuracy of figures/toys. I know many members buy figures to complete collections of various lines, like the Sideshow statues. Furthermore, I've certainly purchased figures that I know are not scientifically accurate, just because I like something about the way they look - absolutely nothing wrong with that.
That said, I generally would prefer to build my collection around figures that I know are as scientifically-accurate as possible. It's kind of deflating to buy a figure and then find out the mouth is all wrong or the hands are turned in an impossible direction.
So...I looked for a thread that has a summary list of figures/models, etc. that were judged to be scientifically-accurate, but didn't find one. Does such a thread exist somewhere that I have missed? I know there are reviews of figures that talk in length about the accuracy of a particular figure, but I am looking for a place where the ones that got it right are collected for us to look to when trying to buy an accurate toy or model.
I'm thinking of something as simple as a master list of dinosaurs that all of us (or at least most of us) agree are scientifically-accurate. Then, perhaps, we could add in a series of lists by species, and maybe break this down into sub-lists of figures that are available fully built up and painted, those that are unfinished models/kits, and those for which no accurate figures exist. Something like this:
MASTERLIST OF SCIENTIFICALLY-ACCURATE FIGURES:
Species | Designer | Type | Alamosaurus | David Krentz | unpainted assembled figure | Spenacodon ferox | Galileo | kit | Triceratops maximus | Shane Foulkes | kit |
SPECIES LISTS:
Alamosaurus: David Krentz's 1/144 scale, 3D print model
This would seem to be a natural thing for the forum to collect in a single place that is easy to access and update. I know that I would so value a list of figures that seem "safest" to invest in.
What do you think? I'd be happy to create a list here and add to it as there is consensus from DTF members on which figures pass muster. OR...if such a list exists and I'm just looking past it, please help a dude out and point me to it (and I'll promptly delete this thing!)
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Aug 20, 2011 20:48:43 GMT
The biggest obstacle you might face is the constantly fluctuating views of scientists, working from a knowledge base that is constantly expanding. What seems like picture-perfect accuracy at one moment can all come crashing down within a matter of months, once some new study is published or new evidence is discovered.
When you mention "safest to invest in", I'm assuming you're talking about your personal anxiety about the accuracy of the figures. I honestly don't think it's worth fretting too much over, for the reasons I mentioned. If you are referring to investment for financial gain, that's a whole different ball game, with no relation to accuracy. If accuracy affected monetary value, nobody would care about that JP Carnotaurus.
|
|
|
Post by Libraraptor on Aug 20, 2011 20:50:22 GMT
This is an ambitious idea, totoro, for what you call "Scientific accurateness" does actually not exist, for dinosaurs are mainly products of the zeitgeist in which they´re being reconstructed. It changes over the years. For example, when Invicta Iguanodon was released, it was very accurate according to the state of research those days... And althoug Procon Psittacosaurus has quills only at its tail future discoveries may show he was covered with filaments all over its body. Hairy Ornithopods will thus be probably be the next big hype, so prepare to consider all extant ornithopod figures obsolete... Seriously, at most there is only the best possible approach for what the animal maybe looked like. 15 or so years ago I had a discussion with a friend of mine who said "Who knows, maybe T.rex had 2 gigantic meat antennas at the forehead". I could only tell my friend that T.rex most probably did not have antennas - but I will never be able to proof it.
Because I think you do not consider this a satisfying answer I name two dinosaurs that I find credible and authentic: Wild Safari Nigersaurus and Kaiyodo Struthiomimus.
|
|
|
Post by totoro on Aug 20, 2011 22:47:36 GMT
Well, here's the way I see it. The list would really be a sort of living document that adjusts to the newest science. So, let's say that Foulkes' Spinosaurus is on the list for accurate Dinosaurs and Spinosaurs, and then some new evidence shows it's actually inaccurate. All that has to happen is that the members of the forum would bring that new evidence up in the thread, debate it and make good-natured snarkiness happen, leading to a consensus. Then, the Foulkes Spinosaurus would be removed from the list. I don't expect that there will be complete agreement on everything (that's half the fun, I suppose, if it fuels some constructive debates), and don't expect the list to be anything like a standard for anyone but us toy collectors that want to move our collection along in the best direction of those dinosaurs (and prehistoric reptiles, etc.!) figures that look most like what the best available information says they did. And, yes Dan, when I said "safest", I was said that in regard to someone not wanting to spend limited money on figures they expect to be accurate, only to later find they are not. Granted, there is no avoiding this risk for many species that have limited fossil evidence thus far, but it can be avoided for many, and can help people that would like accurate models from buying figures that are clearly "not right" given what we know. That's obviously a very personal thing, and I think this list can be done without denegrating figures that are not on the list. Some won't/don't care that much about accuracy (including me sometimes), so not "fretting" anything. (Frankly, I think I clarified that issue right up front in my first message. )
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Aug 21, 2011 10:14:02 GMT
Hmm, are we including resin models as well? I can't speak for them (there are SO many that are extremely accurate), but of course any of the shapeways models by krentz, angie, or battlebrak I would highly recommend to anyone who is seeking current scientific accuracy.
For toys, the ones that I actually own and would recommend for being the most accurate of their species (and which are unlikely to be replaced with anything better anytime soon) are: schleich elasmo, battat galli, para, maia, ourano, pachy, para, rex (v1 or 2), tric, euplo, and edmonto invicta lambeosaurus and liopleurodon safari brachi, anato, stego, inostra, scuto, and all of their prehistoric mammals carnegie cryolo, caudi, microraptor, tylo, dimetrodon, protoceratops, mammoth, and ML wooly rhino bullyland giant sloth, chalico, andrewsarchus, and anchitherium (their deinotherium and gompotherium look very nice also, but I have yet to acquire them) papo stepe mammoth and pachyrhinosaurus
|
|
|
Post by totoro on Aug 21, 2011 12:48:55 GMT
Thanks Seijun. I must confess, this was one of those ideas that sounded a lot better when it first arose in my head than it does now with a little reflection. It's a daunting task. But I think it could a really fun one too - discussing the scientific merits of various figures. I say this knowing that I am woefully unqualified to provide much help with this endeavor. I mean, I can recognize many models that are grossly inaccurate, but rarely notice the less obvious features that disqualify some figures. Also, there is the risk that by listing some figures as scientifically-superior, some members may consider other figures that are not listed as inferior. That is absolutely not my intent. I think almost all of us eagerly collect and value figures that are not accurate. Some of my favorite toys/figures fall into that category. So, that's why I am proposing to create a list of figures with perceived scientific accuracy rather than a list of figures that are perceived to be inaccurate. The latter might seem like a list of failures. Anyway, I was thinking of a manageable way to do this, and the idea of being somewhat methodical seemed best. On reflection, I think if we all start listing a bunch of models we think are accurate it will be hard to discuss or resolve anything. Perhaps a better way would be to sort of walk our way through the population of models out there by family? Since the stunning Sideshow Apatosaurus just came out, I thought we could start with Diplodocidae. Would that be interesting to anyone? To kick things off, I have added a new Masterlist Table in the beginning of the first post and begun populating it with Diplodocids that are out there in kits that seem accurate. Hopefully some will find this fun and decide to suggest additions to that. If it gains any momentum, I'll try to slowly move it along through the families as we seem to settle on a completed list for each. If few seem interested, I may just drop it, as I don't want to push an idea that's not popular, and really am not qualified to do this myself. In the interest of sharing some extra info, I've added columns to the table for scale and approximate cost for each figure. So....what other Diplococid figures should be on that list?
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Aug 21, 2011 13:50:56 GMT
What's "Triceratops maximus" when it's at home...?
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Aug 21, 2011 15:16:50 GMT
I don't know. What is 'Triceratops maximus' when it's at home?
Regarding the diplodocids masterlist, I don't know whether this qualifies, insofar as it doesn't really count as being something readily available, but the Battat Diplodocus is a winning diplodocid in terms of accuracy.
|
|
|
Post by totoro on Aug 21, 2011 15:39:53 GMT
What's "Triceratops maximus" when it's at home...? Ummm...horny? No? Defensive, then?
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Aug 21, 2011 15:42:30 GMT
What's "Triceratops maximus" when it's at home...? Triceratops maximus!
|
|
|
Post by totoro on Aug 21, 2011 15:52:41 GMT
Regarding the diplodocids masterlist, I don't know whether this qualifies, insofar as it doesn't really count as being something readily available, but the Battat Diplodocus is a winning diplodocid in terms of accuracy. Yeah, I figured that would be the first one nominated. And, yes, I think it is still available to collectors that want to pay a premium price on eBay or elsewhere, right? I think it's appropriate to include discontinued figures. BTW, I noticed that there is one up for auctions now on eBay, currently selling for $99, but with 4 days left, I assume that will at least double, and probably end up closer to $300, am I right? Haven't really been tracking the Battats, and their value seems a little hard to gauge but seems to be trending upward even in this economy. I'll add it to the list. What about the following? Carnegie Diplodocus Wild Safari Apatosaurus Schleich Apatosaurus Kabaya Seismosaurus Kaiyodo Dinotales Apatosaurus Kinto Apatosaurus Others?
|
|
|
Post by DinoLord on Aug 21, 2011 15:58:08 GMT
What about the following? Carnegie Diplodocus Wild Safari Apatosaurus Schleich Apatosaurus Kabaya Seismosaurus Kaiyodo Dinotales Apatosaurus Kinto Apatosaurus Others? The Carnegie Diplodocus has inaccurate front feet. The Schleich Apato? I laugh... ;D I don't have the Kabaya Seismosaurus so I can't comment on that one. The Kaiyodo Apatosaurus is pretty accurate though. The Kinto one isn't too accurate; the neck posture isn't quite right and the tail is much much too short.
|
|
|
Post by totoro on Aug 21, 2011 16:09:53 GMT
What about the following? Carnegie Diplodocus Wild Safari Apatosaurus Schleich Apatosaurus Kabaya Seismosaurus Kaiyodo Dinotales Apatosaurus Kinto Apatosaurus Others? The Carnegie Diplodocus has inaccurate front feet. The Schleich Apato? I laugh... ;D I don't have the Kabaya Seismosaurus so I can't comment on that one. The Kaiyodo Apatosaurus is pretty accurate though. The Kinto one isn't too accurate; the neck posture isn't quite right and the tail is much much too short. I'm gonna just add the Kaiyodo dinotales Apatosaurus. I was going to at the beginning, but, along with the Battat, figured it'd stimulate more feedback if I left some likely candidates off of the list. I'm hoping to add Malcolm's Apatosaurus and Supersaurus soon (nudge, nudge ) What do you think about the Wild Safari Apatosaurus? That is one I will end up getting regardless, as I just love it for some reason. Partially the color. BTW, I finally grabbed some boxes at a reuse center in town called SCRAP, so I will soon send out some fossils to you Dinolord!
|
|
|
Post by DinoLord on Aug 21, 2011 16:21:04 GMT
Oops must have left out the Safari one lol. It's pretty good. The front feet are correct. If anything the angles at which the tail bends may be a bit extreme. And if you want me to get really nitpicky, the neck could be a bit thicker, but that depends on the species I guess.
|
|
|
Post by totoro on Aug 21, 2011 16:35:39 GMT
Oops must have left out the Safari one lol. It's pretty good. The front feet are correct. If anything the angles at which the tail bends may be a bit extreme. And if you want me to get really nitpicky, the neck could be a bit thicker, but that depends on the species I guess. I'll wait for some more opinions on the Wild Safari Apatosaurus. I guess others to consider are the Futura Apatosaurus and Kaiyodo National Science Museum Expo Apatosaurus. Safari Ltd. Carnegie Diplodocus? What am I missing? Several, I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Aug 21, 2011 18:03:55 GMT
What's "Triceratops maximus" when it's at home...? Triceratops maximus! The point was...there are only two accepted species of Triceratops right now, and "T. maximus" isn't one of them. So the model is either T. horridus or T. prorsus and should be judged as such.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Aug 21, 2011 18:17:17 GMT
What's "Triceratops maximus" when it's at home...? Triceratops maximus! Isn't that a Japanese, Voltron-style multi-part robot hero? If not, it should be.
|
|
|
Post by totoro on Aug 21, 2011 18:51:38 GMT
Ahh, I see, didn't catch that. I still think they are pretty horny most of the time.
Anyway, it was just an example (copied from the description on Shane's website). Happy you're being constructively critical, Marc. You're one of the people I'm hoping will contribute to this discussion re: figure accuracy, since you like that sort of thing and clearly are able to share what you've learned about several taxa.
On that note, care to express an opinion about the current list of Diplodocids, or any that should be added to the list?
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Aug 21, 2011 18:57:53 GMT
I wouldn't really like to stick my nose in here, as I'm not any sort of authority. I am of a level of nerddom that I can spot something pretty obviously wrong, and maybe not-quite-so-obviously, but people with the proper knowledge see a lot more. (I know I normally have no such qualms and wade in anyway, but there's something a bit too...definitive, or official about a list like that.)
In any case there are different opinions out there as to what constitutes accurate. Mike Taylor popped up on the blog recently and criticised the Krentz Apatosaurus for having hollowed-out areas where he thought there should be air sacs (although he still praised the model overall as "the best he'd seen", no less).
|
|
|
Post by totoro on Aug 21, 2011 19:28:54 GMT
I wouldn't really like to stick my nose in here, as I'm not any sort of authority. I am of a level of nerddom that I can spot something pretty obviously wrong, and maybe not-quite-so-obviously, but people with the proper knowledge see a lot more. (I know I normally have no such qualms and wade in anyway, but there's something a bit too...definitive, or official about a list like that.) In any case there are different opinions out there as to what constitutes accurate. Mike Taylor popped up on the blog recently and criticised the Krentz Apatosaurus for having hollowed-out areas where he thought there should be air sacs (although he still praised the model overall as "the best he'd seen", no less). Well, that won't do, Marc. ;D Seriously, I hope you change your mind and jam your nose way in (come on, it could be fun). You have lots of great opinions - it's you as much as anyone that made me think of doing this in the first Gorram place, as you are more likely than most to point out inaccuracies. And I've gone to great lengths to qualify the list as being completely unofficial, and as inclusive as possible. My idea was to give members an idea of where to find some of the most accurate models for each taxa, not necessarily define any standards or consider it an official DTF list or anything. And, in my mind, questionable models/features are fine until they are proven wrong. So, I'd leave Krentz' Apatosaur on the list. Maybe I could add a comments column to allow us to add in features that are in question. For me, this is all about learning and tracking things. I'm always fascinated to hear from other members about joint articulations and incorrect features. It brings me a little closer to these fabulous creatures.
|
|