Smilodon figurine accuracy

If I had to pick the most scientifically accurate Smilodon of the 5 best list from above, that would have to go to Safari's Carnegie sculpting from 1988.  In looking at this sculpting of Smilodon, it has all the ingredients for accuracy in place.  The stocky frontal regions, with the more diminutive rear quarters.  The relatively smaller head compared to body size.  The relatively longer,  powerfully built neck, high shoulders, and extremely thick and muscular forelimbs.  Also this sculpting has the limbs shorter like the real cat's were.  
Its no wonder why this sculpting is so accurate overall.  The Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh is one of the world's foremost museums and famous for its work in Paleontology.  This Smilodon sculpting was based on paleontology research, so it has alot of scientific accuracy.   Forest Rodgers was the paleo-sculptor for the Carnegie line.  In 1987 an acquaintance of hers was doing some mold making at the Carnegie museum, and contacted her about the museum's prehistoric animal model plans.  She agreed to take on the project. I'm glad she did, so we could have such great figurines like this in our collections.

If you would like to see a rocket launcher brought to a knife fight (so to speak) between Smilodon figures,then here is the definitive Smilodon fatalis model.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

oooo... shiny

john2xtheman wrote:

If you would like to see a rocket launcher brought to a knife fight (so to speak) between Smilodon figures,then here is the definitive Smilodon fatalis model.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Just from what I can see from that angle, it looks real decent, but I do not agree with your analogy. The Carnegie Smilodon is excellent in morphology, and I believe every bit as accurate as that sculpting, if not more. It may not be sculpted as artistically well, or detailed, but from a pure
scientific accuracy standpoint and how the build is, the Carnegie Smilodon is excellent.

smilodoncalifornicus wrote:

john2xtheman wrote:

If you would like to see a rocket launcher brought to a knife fight (so to speak) between Smilodon figures,then here is the definitive Smilodon fatalis model.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Just from what I can see from that angle, it looks real decent, but I do not agree with your analogy. The Carnegie Smilodon is excellent in morphology, and I believe every bit as accurate as that sculpting, if not more. It may not be scuplted as artistically well, or detailed, but from a pure
scientific accuracy standpoint and how the build is, the Carnegie Smilodon is excellent.

As nice as the original one still is,imagine how nice a new sculpt of Smilodon would be if one came from the Carnegie Collection now.With Forrest Rogers still making models for that line,it would not only have the accuracy of the old one,but also crisp detail that would blow all the others from any other line out of the water.

john2xtheman wrote:

smilodoncalifornicus wrote:

john2xtheman wrote:

If you would like to see a rocket launcher brought to a knife fight (so to speak) between Smilodon figures,then here is the definitive Smilodon fatalis model.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Just from what I can see from that angle, it looks real decent, but I do not agree with your analogy. The Carnegie Smilodon is excellent in morphology, and I believe every bit as accurate as that sculpting, if not more. It may not be scuplted as artistically well, or detailed, but from a pure
scientific accuracy standpoint and how the build is, the Carnegie Smilodon is excellent.

As nice as the original one still is,imagine how nice a new sculpt of Smilodon would be if one came from the Carnegie Collection now.With Forrest Rogers still making models for that line,it would not only have the accuracy of the old one,but also crisp detail that would blow all the others from any other line out of the water.

Thats a great point.  I agree. As great as the scientific accuracy of the old Carnegie Smilodon figure is, the detailing, particularly in the face and saber teeth could be improved for sure. I think they could make the same style figure and build as they already have, just improve the details as you stated.

I think the Carnegie one is really ugly to be honest and much prefer the Papo one despite the inaccuracy. But I think my favourite has to be the 2015 CollectA version. I consider myself very knowledgable in dinosaur paleontology but not so much with prehistoric mammals, so have no idea how accurate it it.

GiselleGazelle wrote:

I think the Carnegie one is really ugly to be honest and much prefer the Papo one despite the inaccuracy. But I think my favourite has to be the 2015 CollectA version. I consider myself very knowledgable in dinosaur paleontology but not so much with prehistoric mammals, so have no idea how accurate it it.

Well I think the complete opposite of you, but that's ok....that's what makes the world go around.   Your abrupt comment about the Carnegie Smilodon tells me that you would think a real Smilodon would be ugly then, and that you would much prefer Smilodon to look like a skinny canine, like the Papo Smilodon does.

smilodoncalifornicus wrote:

GiselleGazelle wrote:

I think the Carnegie one is really ugly to be honest and much prefer the Papo one despite the inaccuracy. But I think my favourite has to be the 2015 CollectA version. I consider myself very knowledgable in dinosaur paleontology but not so much with prehistoric mammals, so have no idea how accurate it it.

Well I think the complete opposite of you, but that's ok....that's what makes the world go around.   Your comment about the Carnegie Smilodon tells me that you would think a real Smilodon would be ugly then, and that you would prefer Smilodon to look like a skinny canine, like the Papo Smilodon does.

To be fair to GiselleGazelle's post, I don't think her comment in any way implies that a real Smilodon would be ugly. One can claim that a sculpt is ugly without thinking that the object it is representing must be ugly. I can easily imagine two painters creating a portrait of me. One uses an expressive style and strays far from representing the aspects of me which are, for those who know me, most characteristic. The result may be beautiful, but look nothing like me. The other painter, we can imagine, is not terribly talented, but focuses entirely on ensuring that the portrait is recognizedly a portrait of me.

The second portrait may be turn out to be much more accurate, but still a terrible (and ugly) piece of art. It doesn't follow that I'm ugly. (Thank goodness.) This is the idea underlying GiselleGazelle's comment.

Although I like the Carnegie Smilodon, I happen to agree with her basic point. One can put aside considerations of accuracy and ask whether a sculpt is aesthetically pleasing, including even whether it is "realistic-looking." (We have an idea of things looking "realistic" and "natural" even when they fail to fit the proportions of the object they are meant to represent.) I don't know enough about Hippos to judge which model most accurately represents actual Hippos, but the Papo Bull and Cow are so much more "life-like," so much more beautifully sculpted, so much more arresting in their poses, than the CollectA, Schleichs, or even the Mojo Fun. (And I'm a fan of the Mojo.) Those Papos Hippos are just awesome.

I'm not saying accuracy doesn't matter. I'm just pointing out that it's only one consideration among many. I'm also saying that regarding an accurate model as ugly does not force one to say that the original is ugly. As I've pointed out in other comments, the Mojo Fun Smilodon may have very accurate proportions, but I think it's a clunky, stiff, and awkward model. Does that mean I think Smilodons were clunky, stiff and awkward? Obviously not. The Mojo may have more accurate proportions, but the Papo sculpt feels more alive and has more movement.

In an ideal world, we would have a sculpt of a Smilodon that combines both accuracy with grace, movement, and that "living" quality that some (but not all) of the best sculpts have. The Lineol Sable springs to mind as both extremely accurate and also utterly beautiful. I'm not sure there is such a model of a Smilodon. I happen to find the Carnegie charming. (I have the old Bullyland, I find it charming, but it is not "life-like" at all. It's kind of silly-looking in many respects.) I also agree with you that the Papo does not look like a Smilodon. Even the Missing Links version could be more "realistic" despite the fact that it is a really nice sculpt. A superb Smilodon is still not available I believe.

scot(t) wrote:

smilodoncalifornicus wrote:

GiselleGazelle wrote:

I think the Carnegie one is really ugly to be honest and much prefer the Papo one despite the inaccuracy. But I think my favourite has to be the 2015 CollectA version. I consider myself very knowledgable in dinosaur paleontology but not so much with prehistoric mammals, so have no idea how accurate it it.

Well I think the complete opposite of you, but that's ok....that's what makes the world go around.   Your comment about the Carnegie Smilodon tells me that you would think a real Smilodon would be ugly then, and that you would prefer Smilodon to look like a skinny canine, like the Papo Smilodon does.

To be fair to GiselleGazelle's post, I don't think her comment in any way implies that a real Smilodon would be ugly. One can claim that a sculpt is ugly without thinking that the object it is representing must be ugly. I can easily imagine two painters creating a portrait of me. One uses an expressive style and strays far from representing the aspects of me which are, for those who know me, most characteristic. The result may be beautiful, but look nothing like me. The other painter, we can imagine, is not terribly talented, but focuses entirely on ensuring that the portrait is recognizedly a portrait of me.

The second portrait may be turn out to be much more accurate, but still a terrible (and ugly) piece of art. It doesn't follow that I'm ugly. (Thank goodness.) This is the idea underlying GiselleGazelle's comment.

Although I like the Carnegie Smilodon, I happen to agree with her basic point. One can put aside considerations of accuracy and ask whether a sculpt is aesthetically pleasing, including even whether it is "realistic-looking." (We have an idea of things looking "realistic" and "natural" even when they fail to fit the proportions of the object they are meant to represent.) I don't know enough about Hippos to judge which model most accurately represents actual Hippos, but the Papo Bull and Cow are so much more "life-like," so much more beautifully sculpted, so much more arresting in their poses, than the CollectA, Schleichs, or even the Mojo Fun. (And I'm a fan of the Mojo.) Those Papos Hippos are just awesome.

I'm not saying accuracy doesn't matter. I'm just pointing out that it's only one consideration among many. I'm also saying that regarding an accurate model as ugly does not force one to say that the original is ugly. As I've pointed out in other comments, the Mojo Fun Smilodon may have very accurate proportions, but I think it's a clunky, stiff, and awkward model. Does that mean I think Smilodons were clunky, stiff and awkward? Obviously not. The Mojo may have more accurate proportions, but the Papo sculpt feels more alive and has more movement.

In an ideal world, we would have a sculpt of a Smilodon that combines both accuracy with grace, movement, and that "living" quality that some (but not all) of the best sculpts have. The Lineol Sable springs to mind as both extremely accurate and also utterly beautiful. I'm not sure there is such a model of a Smilodon. I happen to find the Carnegie charming. (I have the old Bullyland, I find it charming, but it is not "life-like" at all. It's kind of silly-looking in many respects.) I also agree with you that the Papo does not look like a Smilodon. Even the Missing Links version could be more "realistic" despite the fact that it is a really nice sculpt. A superb Smilodon is still not available I believe.

Hi Scot
 I myself cannot set aside accuracy and consider aesthetic qualities when that accuracy is so bad that the animal figure doesn't even look anything like the real thing. (Papo Smilodon)
 Now I find the Carnegie Smilodon charming, life like and scientifically realistic all in one. I also find it has a lot of character, with a quite natural as well as dynamic pose.  To my eyes this figure is just about at that superb Smilodon level, other than the sculpting not being very crisp in certain details such as it's saber teeth.

We do seem though to overall agree with many points about certain Smilodon figures.
I also think you have made some valid points.

One thing I have to point out though.  In real life I do think Smilodon would be a odd, and freakishly built cat, quite unlike the graceful proportions of a modern day leopard.  I could understand if one did in fact think the real cat was somewhat ugly. I myself really like how it is described by paleo experts to have looked like, and the Carnegie Smilodon, I believe, looks like what they have described.

Your reply back to me came off as rather abrupt. I wasn't implying I would find a real smilodon ugly. I was merely stating I prefer the Papo figure. This is because I feel the aesthetic quality is higher and the pose is more alive. Myself liking it more has nothing to do with how I'd prefer a real Smilodon's overall body shape to look.

GiselleGazelle wrote:

Your reply back to me came off as rather abrupt. I wasn't implying I would find a real smilodon ugly. I was merely stating I prefer the Papo figure. This is because I feel the aesthetic quality is higher and the pose is more alive. Myself liking it more has nothing to do with how I'd prefer a real Smilodon's overall body shape to look.

I didn't mean for it to sound that way. I understand now what you meant.  I kindly disagree though that the Papo Smilodon has more of a dynamic pose.  Being that the Carnegie Smilodon is such an older figure, I will admit that it's detail quality is not as crisp as many other modern sculpted figures.  We all have areas that are of more importance to us in these animal figures. With myself it's with scientific accuracy, and in this area I don't think any Smilodon figure can surpass the old Carnegie sculpting.

I have a hard time seeing the aesthetic quality and lively pose of the Papo Smilodon simply because I cannot get past how bad it is scientifically. To myself, if a figure of some animal is so wrong in accuracy and morphology, then it doesn't matter how good it is in poses or artistic styling.  This is just my own take on this.  I understand that to others there are more important factors with a sculpting, and that is perfectly ok.

I want to welcome you to the STS forum.

It’s kind of funny how other animal figures such as the  T- Rex, Mammoths, Leopards,  etc.,  etc.  get better and better as newer figures of that subject come out,  while the Smilodon figures seems to get worse and worse.

In the Smilodon figurine world, it’s the older figures that are the most accurate scientifically, such as the 1988 Carnegie & 1997 Missing Link figures.  Newer figures, such as the 2009 CollectA & 2011 Papo Smilodonts, to name a few,  are ridiculous looking.  Bullyland's 2013 release of Smilodon to me looks like a starving, sickly built modern day Lion with long canine teeth.  Even the 2015  CollectA  Smilodon, in my eyes at least,  is not entirely accurate scientifically.   I think the new CollectA  Smilodon has much to long and slender front legs and shoulders that are not big enough. Also, it's neck is MUCH to short for Smilodon Fatalis.   Smilodon had a relatively long neck for its body size that was very muscular.

Another outstanding figure of Smilodon was the one by AAA (large version). This figure is quite impressive, and I believe, scientifically sound except for one glaring error.... It's tail is MUCH to long. I am not sure what made AAA make this figure's tail that long when the rest of the figure is so decent

I would also suggest looking into the new Smilodon model from CollectA--I have both, and the new one is light years ahead of everybody else (I have dozens of Smilodon myself, and had owned even more):

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I just finally got them in my store (Canada is a little slow).

Also, the Kaiyodo Dinotales Smilodon is pretty great as well.

We have very different views on what a great Smilodon figurine is.  I do not agree that the new CollectA Smilodon is light years ahead of all others.   I believe the old Carnegie Smilodon is much more accurate in body shape / morphology than the CollectA one.  The Carnegie Smilodon has the correct length limbs that  were shorter in real life than modern big cat's limbs and also much thicker 
I think CollectA's new Smilodon has forelimbs that are way to long and slender for a Smilodon, and a neck that is MUCH to short.
To myself, CollectA's Smilodon has several inaccuracy issues.

smilodoncalifornicus wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Posting links to your local computer files is not the best idea...

smilodoncalifornicus wrote:

We have very different views on what a great Smilodon figurine is.  I do not agree that the new CollectA Smilodon is light years ahead of all others.   I believe the old Carnegie Smilodon is much, much more accurate in body shape and morphology than the CollectA one.  The Carnegie one is much more stocky with the correct massive forelimbs and bulky frontal areas.  The Kaiyodo and new CollectA ones have very modern cat shapes with more slender forelimbs.  

I am not a fan of either Carnegie Smilodon--the original was too blocky and angular; the later Missing Links model was just a weird scale with the rest of the models in its set. And I don't think that current reconstructions produce an animal that is excessively massive in the front; stronger yes, but within reason.

In general, I tend to be more influenced by reconstructions of anatomists/artists like Mauricion Anton, who knows how to blend the skeletons and create a living representation with them:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Given his interpretation, I find the Dinotale and current CollectA just fine.

That's very interesting,  but I myself tend to be more influenced by Paleo artist Charles R. Knight's renditions of Smilodon Fatalis.  I don't think the 2015 CollectA Smilodon looks like the drawing you provided by Mauricion Anton.  His rendition has a lot longer neck and thicker as well as shorter forelimbs than the CollectA figure has.
Most Paleo experts agree that Smilodon had very heavy set frontal regions and noticeably more diminutive rear areas.  I believe the Carnegie Smilodon got this spot on perfect.
The one Smilodon figure that I believe got the saber teeth perfect is the Mojo Smilodon.
The head I believe is oversized compared to it's body, but those saber teeth are so beautifully curved, and knife like. Overall, the Mojo sabertooth is a great figure.
Many Smilodon figurines have the saber teeth blunt and cone shaped with the wrong curvature completely.
.  It's ok that we disagree on this topic.  I just think that the Carnegie & Missing Link figures are among the very few that got the build stocky enough and the limbs short enough.

No matter accuracy, - I just can't WAIT to get this one

I never liked the old CollectA one so much that I bought it...and that says a lot, as I like most cat models

I agree with you about the older CollectA Smilodon. I think that one looked ridiculous. The new one is certainly better by far.

smilodoncalifornicus wrote:

That's very interesting and going by those reconstructions, the two figurines you mention are decent renderings,  but I myself tend to be more influenced by Paleo artist Charles R. Knight.
Most Paleo experts agree that Smilodon had very heavy set frontal regions and noticeably more diminutive rear areas.  I believe the Carnegie Smilodon got this spot on perfect, although I will have to admit  
this figurine is lacking in certain details, with very crude saber teeth compared to more modern
figurines.
The one Smilodon figure that I believe got the saber teeth perfect is the Mojo Smilodon.
The body I believe has its problems, but those saber teeth are so beautifully curved, and knife like.
Many Smilodon figurines have the saber teeth blunt and cone shaped with the wrong curvature
completely.
.  It's ok that we disagree on this topic.  I just think that the Carnegie & Missing Link figures are
among the very few that got the build stocky enough and the limbs short enough.

See, I appreciate the old Carnegies, especially the original, as historical pieces, but that's as far as it goes.

As for the sabre teeth, I think most companies are afraid of leaving the teeth sharp for safety reasons, so they dull and blunt them (like a lot of horns, spikes, etc on many animal models). I will admit that the Mojo is a favorite as well!

Yes I'm sure your right on the reasons for making the teeth that way.

sbell wrote:

smilodoncalifornicus wrote:

We have very different views on what a great Smilodon figurine is.  I do not agree that the new CollectA Smilodon is light years ahead of all others.   I believe the old Carnegie Smilodon is much, much more accurate in body shape and morphology than the CollectA one.  The Carnegie one is much more stocky with the correct massive forelimbs and bulky frontal areas.  The Kaiyodo and new CollectA ones have very modern cat shapes with more slender forelimbs.  

I am not a fan of either Carnegie Smilodon--the original was too blocky and angular; the later Missing Links model was just a weird scale with the rest of the models in its set. And I don't think that current reconstructions produce an animal that is excessively massive in the front; stronger yes, but within reason.

In general, I tend to be more influenced by reconstructions of anatomists/artists like Mauricion Anton, who knows how to blend the skeletons and create a living representation with them:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Given his interpretation, I find the Dinotale and current CollectA just fine.

You mentioned the Missing Link Smilodon figure not being in scale with the rest of the set. I only collect Smilodonts, so I don't even have the rest of that Missing Link set, so the fact that its out of scale is a mute point to me. Do you not like this figure as a Smilodon? How good is it to yourself? To myself its one of the very best made. I think it's style is excellent with overall good scientific accuracy.

I found the ML too big--it was about the size of the rhino! As well, on a shelf, it looked weird, just because it was as large or larger than most of the mammoth figures!

As a Smilodon, it looked okay. better than the original Carnegie (keeping in mind, my version of that was from the original 1988 run, which was...not a great casting).

sbell wrote:

I found the ML too big--it was about the size of the rhino! As well, on a shelf, it looked weird, just because it was as large or larger than most of the mammoth figures!

As a Smilodon, it looked okay. better than the original Carnegie (keeping in mind, my version of that was from the original 1988 run, which was...not a great casting).

I agree the original casting of the Carnegie Sabertooth was in a lot of ways crude, especially its saber teeth (they were terrible).  When I state this figure was good, I am only referring to its body morphology / build.  There are numerous more current Smilodonts that have more crisp detail
and improved aesthetics, but most all of those are also very wrong in morphology and scientific accuracy.
The Carnegie & Missing link figures have very good scientific accuracy compared to other figures.

Paleontologist Julie Meachen-Samuels of the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center in Durham talking about Smilodon's forelimbs:
“I found that they had exceptionally thick humerus cortical bones—much thicker than any non-saber-toothed cat living or extinct,” said Meachen-Samuels, who used a digital X-ray machine to analyze the limb bones of Smilodon specimens from California’s La Brea Tar Pits in 2010. “I hypothesized that this extreme cortical thickening was correlated with the extremely long sabers. The robust limbs allowed Smilodon to restrain its prey so that it would be able to make a killing bite without damage to its saber teeth.”

The above findings by this Paleontologist are the complete opposite of how almost ALL Smilodon figurines are sculpted.  Most Smilodon figurines are sculpted with very average or even slender forelimbs that are way to long and with more modern cat shaped frontal extremities.   The Carnegie Smilodon however, is sculpted like what the above Paleontologist has described.

This is the Safari Carnegie Smilodon from my collection.  I have changed its saber teeth, as the original
ones were poorly sculpted. To myself, this figure has the most scientifically accurate body for a Smilodon.
I think this figure most accurately portrays what paleontologists describe when talking about this cat.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Cool :)

Wilorvise wrote:

Cool :)

Much appreciated.

Great work with these teeth. Even if their shape is well known, for many reasons, manufacturers insist in making them wrong. I also like the robuste looking of that figure.

Roger wrote:

Great work with these teeth. Even if their shape is well known, for many reasons, manufacturers insist in making them wrong. I also like the robuste looking of that figure.

Thank you Roger.  I agree with you about the manufacturers sculpting them wrong. I think most of the time, mainstream toy companies get Smilodon's morphology completely wrong.

I' m sorry I paste my post about CollectA smilodon here because I'm too lazy to write it a second time  
It is obvious I agree with Sbell, i think M. Anton reconstruction are more realistic and accurate.
A robust forelimb able to restrain a prey must look like a Greco-Roman wrestler musculature, not like a weightlifter or bodybuilder one. Even if it is not a sprinter, a smilodon isn't a static animal.

smilodoncalifornicus wrote:

I respectfully do not agree about the Mojo figure.  I don't think its too stocky.  I don't even think its stocky enough in certain areas.  The Mojo cats limbs are too long according to fossils and its forelimbs still not built thick enough.  The CollectA figure's forelimbs are MUCH to long and much to slender for a Smilodon.  Look at this:

Paleontologist Julie Meachen-Samuels of the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center in Durham talking about Smilodon's forelimbs:
“I found that they had exceptionally thick humerus cortical bones—much thicker than any non-saber-toothed cat living or extinct,” said Meachen-Samuels, who used a digital X-ray machine to analyze the limb bones of Smilodon specimens from California’s La Brea Tar Pits in 2010.

The CollectA Smilodon to me is not true to skeletons according to this Paleontologist's findings.
There is nothing stocky about the CollectA's forelimbs on that figurine...they are very slender and long, more like a modern extant cats are.

I believe just about 95% of all Smilodon figurines made, are not scientifically accurate at all.

I understand your point but I'm not convinced. Talking about bones and talking about muscles is not the same thing.

Human beings are human beings, same skeletal but with big differences in muscles and shapes.

Some are looking like thin people without big muscles, some with very big muscles, some with more fat than muscles, some...

A marathon runner has a different body than a sprinter.
A weightlifter has a different body than a Body-builder.
A boxer has a different body than a Greco-Roman wrestler.

A Body-builder has a different body than a Greco-Roman wrestler. The body-builder has big static musculature and the Greco-Roman wrestler has a dynamic musculature. The shape is completely different.

IMHO a smilodon isn't a body-builder, no animal can have a body-builder musculature. A smilodon is not hunting like a sprinter or a weightlifter, it was an animal who needed to ambush preys and firmly hold them in place for the killing. The best analogy for me is the Greco-Roman wrestler. Greco-Roman wrestler have a dynamic musculature, powerful but not inflated like body-builder one.

Paleontologist Julie Meachen-Samuels is talking about exceptionally thick humerus cortical bones, not about stocky forelimbs. A thick humerus cortical bones means that smilodon had powerful muscles, not necessarily stocky. Elephants have thick bones, it doesn't mean they have Schwarzenegger body shape.

The other constant reference is the bear like shape. Let's talk about brown bears, grizzlies or polar bears: Powerful animals, hunters, with big bones, very strong forelimbs AND thick fur.

Remove the thick fur and change for a lion fur, far less thick (exept for the mane   ), bears haven't a body-builder body, they have a dynamic musculature, very powerful but not stocky.

Carnegie or Mojo smilodon are looking as stocky has a polar bear with thick fur but they have short smooth coat. Each time I look at them I think there is something weird.

The CollectA is maybe not perfect but the forelimbs are more powerful than those of the CollectA lion for example. I prefer this one to the Carnegie and even more to the Mojo. Even if my favorite is still the Kaiyodo one  

Kikimalou wrote:

I' m sorry I paste my post about CollectA smilodon here because I'm too lazy to write it a second time  
It is obvious I agree with Sbell, i think M. Anton reconstruction are more realistic and accurate.
A robust forelimb able to restrain a prey must look like a Greco-Roman wrestler musculature, not like a weightlifter or bodybuilder one. Even if it is not a sprinter, a smilodon isn't a static animal.

smilodoncalifornicus wrote:

I respectfully do not agree about the Mojo figure.  I don't think its too stocky.  I don't even think its stocky enough in certain areas.  The Mojo cats limbs are too long according to fossils and its forelimbs still not built thick enough.  The CollectA figure's forelimbs are MUCH to long and much to slender for a Smilodon.  Look at this:

Paleontologist Julie Meachen-Samuels of the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center in Durham talking about Smilodon's forelimbs:
“I found that they had exceptionally thick humerus cortical bones—much thicker than any non-saber-toothed cat living or extinct,” said Meachen-Samuels, who used a digital X-ray machine to analyze the limb bones of Smilodon specimens from California’s La Brea Tar Pits in 2010.

The CollectA Smilodon to me is not true to skeletons according to this Paleontologist's findings.
There is nothing stocky about the CollectA's forelimbs on that figurine...they are very slender and long, more like a modern extant cats are.

I believe just about 95% of all Smilodon figurines made, are not scientifically accurate at all.

I understand your point but I'm not convinced. Talking about bones and talking about muscles is not the same thing.

Human beings are human beings, same skeletal but with big differences in muscles and shapes.

Some are looking like thin people without big muscles, some with very big muscles, some with more fat than muscles, some...

A marathon runner has a different body than a sprinter.
A weightlifter has a different body than a Body-builder.
A boxer has a different body than a Greco-Roman wrestler.

A Body-builder has a different body than a Greco-Roman wrestler. The body-builder has big static musculature and the Greco-Roman wrestler has a dynamic musculature. The shape is completely different.

IMHO a smilodon isn't a body-builder, no animal can have a body-builder musculature. A smilodon is not hunting like a sprinter or a weightlifter, it was an animal who needed to ambush preys and firmly hold them in place for the killing. The best analogy for me is the Greco-Roman wrestler. Greco-Roman wrestler have a dynamic musculature, powerful but not inflated like body-builder one.

Paleontologist Julie Meachen-Samuels is talking about exceptionally thick humerus cortical bones, not about stocky forelimbs. A thick humerus cortical bones means that smilodon had powerful muscles, not necessarily stocky. Elephants have thick bones, it doesn't mean they have Schwarzenegger body shape.

The other constant reference is the bear like shape. Let's talk about brown bears, grizzlies or polar bears: Powerful animals, hunters, with big bones, very strong forelimbs AND thick fur.

Remove the thick fur and change for a lion fur, far less thick (exept for the mane   ), bears haven't a body-builder body, they have a dynamic musculature, very powerful but not stocky.

Carnegie or Mojo smilodon are looking as stocky has a polar bear with thick fur but they have short smooth coat. Each time I look at them I think there is something weird.

The CollectA is maybe not perfect but the forelimbs are more powerful than those of the CollectA lion for example. I prefer this one to the Carnegie and even more to the Mojo. Even if my favorite is still the Kaiyodo one  

Hi Christophe
We just have different views on what Smilodon may have looked like, and that's ok. You make 
some valid points, but I believe in real life Smilodon was a very stocky built cat, especially in its frontal areas.  I do not think this cat was shaped anything like extant big cats. I also think that Smilodon had much more muscle mass and muscle development than modern cats do.  Any Paleontologist's findings I have read overwelmingly agree that Smilodon would have been exceedingly heavier than a large African Lion of the same dimensions. I believe in what they are saying.  This cat was not fleet footed, and was likely a expert in ambush. It's entire method of killing prey, such as wresting a large herbivore to the ground and restraining it all point to a cat that had exceptional muscle development in its frontal regions compared to a modern cat.

smilodoncalifornicus wrote:

Hi Christophe
We just have different views on what Smilodon may have looked like, and that's ok. You make 
some valid points, but I believe in real life Smilodon was a very stocky built cat, especially in its frontal areas.  I do not think this cat was shaped anything like extant big cats. I also think that Smilodon had much more muscle mass and muscle development than modern cats do.  Any Paleontologist's findings I have read overwelmingly agree that Smilodon would have been exceedingly heavier than a large African Lion of the same dimensions. I believe in what they are saying.  This cat was not fleet footed, and was likely a expert in ambush. It's entire method of killing prey, such as wresting a large herbivore to the ground and restraining it all point to a cat that had exceptional muscle development in its frontal regions compared to a modern cat.

Yes, we just have different views on what Smilodon may have looked like, and that's ok for me too. I like to read your posts and I totally agree with this one. Sometimes we just don't have the same picture behind the same word.

At least I think we will agree about this one

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Kikimalou wrote:

smilodoncalifornicus wrote:

Hi Christophe
We just have different views on what Smilodon may have looked like, and that's ok. You make 
some valid points, but I believe in real life Smilodon was a very stocky built cat, especially in its frontal areas.  I do not think this cat was shaped anything like extant big cats. I also think that Smilodon had much more muscle mass and muscle development than modern cats do.  Any Paleontologist's findings I have read overwelmingly agree that Smilodon would have been exceedingly heavier than a large African Lion of the same dimensions. I believe in what they are saying.  This cat was not fleet footed, and was likely a expert in ambush. It's entire method of killing prey, such as wresting a large herbivore to the ground and restraining it all point to a cat that had exceptional muscle development in its frontal regions compared to a modern cat.

Yes, we just have different views on what Smilodon may have looked like, and that's ok for me too. I like to read your posts and I totally agree with this one. Sometimes we just don't have the same picture behind the same word.

At least I think we will agree about this one

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Who is that one from!? It's amazing!

sbell wrote:

Who is that one from!? It's amazing!

You can find it [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Kikimalou wrote:

smilodoncalifornicus wrote:

Hi Christophe
We just have different views on what Smilodon may have looked like, and that's ok. You make 
some valid points, but I believe in real life Smilodon was a very stocky built cat, especially in its frontal areas.  I do not think this cat was shaped anything like extant big cats. I also think that Smilodon had much more muscle mass and muscle development than modern cats do.  Any Paleontologist's findings I have read overwelmingly agree that Smilodon would have been exceedingly heavier than a large African Lion of the same dimensions. I believe in what they are saying.  This cat was not fleet footed, and was likely a expert in ambush. It's entire method of killing prey, such as wresting a large herbivore to the ground and restraining it all point to a cat that had exceptional muscle development in its frontal regions compared to a modern cat.

Yes, we just have different views on what Smilodon may have looked like, and that's ok for me too. I like to read your posts and I totally agree with this one. Sometimes we just don't have the same picture behind the same word.

At least I think we will agree about this one

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yes, that one we are in agreement with.  She did a beautiful job overall on that Smilodon

The 1972 Inpro Smilodon - decent in scientific accuracy, but not great in aesthetics, painting, or detailing compared to modern figures.

smilodoncalifornicus wrote:

Here are a couple more examples of Smilodon figures that I believe are quite decent in scientific accuracy, but not great in aesthetics, painting, or detailing compared to modern figures:

1972 Inpro Smilodon
1989 Imperial Smilodon    ( decent sculpting , although tail is much to long)


The Inpro Smilodon, in fact I think has really good morphology overall.  It's just a very early rendition toy that does not have the artistic detailing or good paint schemes like some of the  more current figures.

Do you have pictures, please ??

SUSANNE wrote:

smilodoncalifornicus wrote:

Here are a couple more examples of Smilodon figures that I believe are quite decent in scientific accuracy, but not great in aesthetics, painting, or detailing compared to modern figures:

1972 Inpro Smilodon
1989 Imperial Smilodon    ( decent sculpting , although tail is much to long)


The Inpro Smilodon, in fact I think has really good morphology overall.  It's just a very early rendition toy that does not have the artistic detailing or good paint schemes like some of the  more current figures.

Do you have pictures, please ??

This is it:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You are right ! I am no expert at all, but this model has the true , almost bear-like appearance

sbell wrote:

SUSANNE wrote:

smilodoncalifornicus wrote:

Here are a couple more examples of Smilodon figures that I believe are quite decent in scientific accuracy, but not great in aesthetics, painting, or detailing compared to modern figures:

1972 Inpro Smilodon
1989 Imperial Smilodon    ( decent sculpting , although tail is much to long)


The Inpro Smilodon, in fact I think has really good morphology overall.  It's just a very early rendition toy that does not have the artistic detailing or good paint schemes like some of the  more current figures.

Do you have pictures, please ??

This is it:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Thank you for posting that picture for me. I am having issues getting pictures posted on this site.

SUSANNE wrote:

You are right ! I am no expert at all, but this model has the true , almost bear-like appearance

I agree with you Susanne. That Smilodon is not to bad, especially for being a 44 year old figure.

You can also find these and other smilodon figures on TAI.
Just [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Roger wrote:

You can also find these and other smilodon figures on TAI.
Just [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks Roger

Where does the Imperial 1989 Smilodon stands in your list?

Bowhead Whale wrote:

Where does the Imperial 1989 Smilodon stands in your list?

I would say that its better than all the 5 worst list figures, but rated below all the 5 best figures .  This figure would fall somewhere in the middle of the figures I have listed when it comes to scientific accuracy.

I believe it's strike two for Papo when it comes to Smilodonts.  Their 2017 version is Papo's second Smilodon, and to myself they are both very bad scientifically,  but the 2017 version is just ridiculous looking.  It looks like some kind of fantasy creature.
Like I referenced earlier in this topic, new Smilodon figurines seem to be getting worse, not better.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This is the Paleocraft Smilodon Fatalis sculpting from 2009.  I have this kit and it is absolutely beautiful.  This sculpting has a lot of scientific accuracy. Not perfect, but quite good compared to most.