What are your favorite dinosaurs?

[stoneage]

I think the safari is pretty good, considering what they had to go on at that time.

[sbell]

No arguments there, although I do remember wondering how exactly they created a figure for which the skull was not know in the family at all.
I think it could really use an update--maybe that is why it has been discontinued (the big Great Dinos one is very well done, although the feathers might bother some people).

[stoneage]

I like the Great Dinos I agree.

[piltdown]

Heh, I have the Great Dinos therizinosaurus--I couldn't do anything about the fuzz impressions on the body, but I was able to shave off the arm feathers ;D I'm a horrible painter and modeller, so the scars were not covered up properly, but at least the feathers are gone ;D

[stoneage]

Oh No! You've ruined it.

[sbell]

Jun 18, 2008 17:37:28 GMT piltdown said:

Heh, I have the Great Dinos therizinosaurus--I couldn't do anything about the fuzz impressions on the body, but I was able to shave off the arm feathers ;D I'm a horrible painter and modeller, so the scars were not covered up properly, but at least the feathers are gone ;D

That's really better? A butchered dinosaur doesn't seem better (to me) than a dinosaur with features you don't like. When it's a good figure

On the other hand, I have some Dimetrodon and pterosaur figures that have become Sauroctonus, Melosaurus, Eudimorphodon, etc., but they were all cheap-o ones.
Oh yeah, and a Schelich Gavial turned into a phytosaur.

[[][][]cordylus[][][]]

A spinosaurus I had turned into a baryonyx.

[stoneage]

Will the mutalations never end.

[thagomizer]

Jun 18, 2008 14:48:09 GMT sbell said:

No arguments there, although I do remember wondering how exactly they created a figure for which the skull was not know in the family at all.

Skulls were known from a few segnosaurs, and by the time the figure was made most people recognized that therizinosaurs and segnosaurs were the same thing. Skulls were known for Erlikosaurus, and Alxasaurus as found around that time.

Anyway, they managed to make figures for Spinosaurus (not known to be related to Baryonyx yet at the time), and Deltadromeus, which still doesn't have a skull known for it.

[sbell]

Jun 18, 2008 22:12:31 GMT thagomizer said:

Jun 18, 2008 14:48:09 GMT sbell said:

No arguments there, although I do remember wondering how exactly they created a figure for which the skull was not know in the family at all.

Skulls were known from a few segnosaurs, and by the time the figure was made most people recognized that therizinosaurs and segnosaurs were the same thing. Skulls were known for Erlikosaurus, and Alxasaurus as found around that time.

Anyway, they managed to make figures for Spinosaurus (not known to be related to Baryonyx yet at the time), and Deltadromeus, which still doesn't have a skull known for it.

A skull is known for Spinosaurus now (a JVP issue, 2005 I believe); I don't know about Deltadromeus and how they derived its head.

However, I think we can all agree that the old Spinosaurus figures--like the Carnegie and Schleich ones--never really looked all that good. It isn't like we had any reason to think otherwise, but the heads on those figures always seemed tacked on (mainly because they were).

[piltdown]

Here's a pic of the plucked therizinosaurus. It actually looks a little worse now, because I made a few modifications that exposed some of the putty and I haven't had the nerve to repaint and make it look worse, but you'll get an idea of the effect I was going for ;D

[tomhet]

Not too shabby

[stoneage]

Its naked, have you no decency?

[piltdown]

Jun 19, 2008 3:40:35 GMT stoneage said:

Its naked, have you no decency?

All in the name of art ;D

[sbell]

All right, you did a good job, but the trimming of the arms make them look skinny and weakling-like now.

[piltdown]

Jun 19, 2008 4:02:40 GMT sbell said:

All right, you did a good job, but the trimming of the arms make them look skinny and weakling-like now.

I thought of making the arms more bulky and 'round' by adding some model clay or cement, but experience soon showed my abilities don't reach that far

[sbell]

Jun 19, 2008 4:20:42 GMT piltdown said:

Jun 19, 2008 4:02:40 GMT sbell said:

All right, you did a good job, but the trimming of the arms make them look skinny and weakling-like now.

I thought of making the arms more bulky and 'round' by adding some model clay or cement, but experience soon showed my abilities don't reach that far

That reminds me, on a topic that will hopefully lead to new tangents--what do people prefer to use when it comes to customizing figures by adding to them? Trimming or painting is 'easy' compared to adding something, I have found, possibly due to the medium. It seems hard, to me at least (a totally not artistic person) to add new materials--the only real attempt I've made is turning a Schleich gavial into a phytosaur, using a putty epoxy (it subsequently let go, so now it looks odd). I have grand plans to turn some pronghorns into various other antilocaprids/protoceratids, for example, but I need to know the best way to add the modified horns, etc.

[[][][]cordylus[][][]]

Jun 19, 2008 1:02:02 GMT piltdown said:

Here's a pic of the plucked therizinosaurus. It actually looks a little worse now, because I made a few modifications that exposed some of the putty and I haven't had the nerve to repaint and make it look worse, but you'll get an idea of the effect I was going for ;D

You really should have just left the feathers on.
If you had left them on, the figure's value wouldn't have dropped 7 dollars. ;D

[stoneage]

What are you going to do to remove the fuzz?

[[][][]cordylus[][][]]

I don't think you can... Unless you melted nearly the whole outer layer of the skin...