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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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 :)

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Where does the Imperial 1989 Smilodon stands in your list?

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.