Smilodon figurine accuracy

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 is good, I am only referring to its body morphology / build.  There are numerous more current Smilodont figures 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 it’s 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.   I will say however,  when viewed directly from above this figure is to blocky and narrow. It’s side profile outline however is excellent.

[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. I think the Carnegie Smilodon has much more scientific accuracy than the new CollectA figure. I am not a fan at all of the CollectA Smilodon.

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. It looks like Smilodon Populator, the South American Sabertooth.

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 click here!

Roger wrote:

You can also find these and other smilodon figures on TAI.
Just click here!

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.