2023 Safari Arctic Fox Walkaround With Comparisons

Kikimalou wrote:

A family portrait at 1/12 scale
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Now it's the Canadian lynx that looks so tiny to me , even though I know it is inferior in size to the Eurasian lynx

I tried to look for videos showing an arctic fox chasing a mountain hare, and I found this.
But it's difficult to get a real estimation of the size judging from this footage

I am also surprised how small the arctic fox and Canada lynx are, but I think you are right, they are both small. What size do you assume for a Canada lynx and polar bear?

Interresting movie Aeglil but it is indeed impossible to measure size with moving target, especially since they aren't at the same distance from us.

About the Canada lynx, it is indeed a small one.
About measurement, I use Hunter and Barret for H&B lenght plus wikipedia for Shoulder height.
This model is 4,7cm at shoulders and 7cm Head & body lenght.
For a lenght between 73 and 107cm, our friend scale is between 1/10,4 and 1/15,3
For a height at shoulders between 48 and 56cm, the scale is more 1/10,2 and 1/11,91.
Since I display on 1/10, 1/12 and 1/15 for those kind of toys, 1/12 was the best choice IMHO.

For Hunter and Barret, the Polar bear lenght is between 200 and 285cm. The height at shoulders is between 120 and 170cm.
For Wikipedia, Males are generally 200–250 cm and can stand 130–160 cm at the shoulder.
For Alaska departement of fish and game, a male can reach 3m in H&B lenght.
For the National wildlife federation a male could even reach 330cm long.
For a 1/12 scale the Safari Ltd is a 276cm long animal, I think it's a reasonable choice.

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

love those photos! I sometimes forget just how massive polar bears are. I used to have the WW polar bear in my collection but it got ruined from being outside. I need to get another one someday

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

Here are the photos. Let me know if you'd like any other comparisons

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

Joliezac wrote:

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

love those photos! I sometimes forget just how massive polar bears are. I used to have the WW polar bear in my collection but it got ruined from being outside. I need to get another one someday  

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

Here are the photos. Let me know if you'd like any other comparisons  

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

Thanks Jolie. Nice photos ! A great Far North team. Can't wait to welcome them on my shelf, next to my books.  

I also realized that the fox I ordered is a Schleich and not a Safari, contrary to what I thought. But whether Schleich or Safari or Papo, they are all fine figurines, I appreciate the fact that they didn't paint too bright yellow eyes on the Schleich model, just like the one I saw in the wild. And that it remains smaller than the wolverine. The huge WW is the model with the most interesting posture.

Joliezac wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
love those photos! I sometimes forget just how massive polar bears are. I used to have the WW polar bear in my collection but it got ruined from being outside. I need to get another one someday  

Huge, massive and magnificent I wish you to find another one soon.

276 cm in total length is possible for a very large polar bear. There is quite a bit of research literature that reports polar bear lengths. The largest with reasonable evidence I found was 285 cm in total length (with tail), mentioned by Amstrup (2003). In Rode et al. (2020), the largest polar bear was 275 cm in total length, and Derocher and Stirling (1998) reported that asymptotic length of polar bears in the Foxe basin (a particularly large population) was 237 cm ± 26 SD. Usually, polar bears are much smaller. For example, Derocher and Wiig (2002) found that the total length of female polar bears in Svalbard (a very small population), was only 175-210 cm (males 200-245 cm). I am sceptical about reported lengths of 3 m or more, unless we have more information about the source of the measurements and how they were done. Shoulder height isn't usually measured, so the numbers on websites and in books may be estimates. Given how small Svalbard polar bears are, 120 cm for the minimum shoulder height is almost certainly too low (and 170 cm probably too high).

rogerpgvg wrote:

276 cm in total length is possible for a very large polar bear. There is quite a bit of research literature that reports polar bear lengths. The largest with reasonable evidence I found was 285 cm in total length (with tail), mentioned by Amstrup (2003). In Rode et al. (2020), the largest polar bear was 275 cm in total length, and Derocher and Stirling (1998) reported that asymptotic length of polar bears in the Foxe basin (a particularly large population) was 237 cm ± 26 SD. Usually, polar bears are much smaller. For example, Derocher and Wiig (2002) found that the total length of female polar bears in Svalbard (a very small population), was only 175-210 cm (males 200-245 cm). I am sceptical about reported lengths of 3 m or more, unless we have more information about the source of the measurements and how they were done. Shoulder height isn't usually measured, so the numbers on websites and in books may be estimates. Given how small Svalbard polar bears are, 120 cm for the minimum shoulder height is almost certainly too low (and 170 cm probably too high).

Thats' why I haven't use the height at shoulders measurement. I agree with what you are saying about H&B lenght but I had two choice: 1/10 and 1/12.
At 1/10 our Safari Ltd would be a bulky 230cm long Polar bear, at 1/12 the guy would be a 276cm long very bulky Polar bear. Displaying by scales means you need to display several animals together. I have no one from northern Canada or Arctic at 1/10, so I chose to display it at 1/12with a few friends. Even at 276cm, it is big but still possible.

That makes a lot of sense, there are many factors to weigh up. And of course, it's perfectly fine to display a very large specimen (but it is useful to know when we do this). I often find it interesting to have both a very small and a very large specimen to get an idea of the size range of a species. Polar bears have a particularly large size range because males and females are very different in size and there are also large variations between regions. I don't know whether you have a polar bear less than 200 cm in 1/12 scale. It would be interesting to see how it compares with the fox, lynx and hare.

I don't have any 16cm Polar Bears and I'm not sure one exists. What's more, that's not the only problem, our animals are all representations and the two bears should be believable together, they would have to look roughly the same scale. Unfortunately, this is not a given.

We're a long way from Arctic foxes, sorry Jolie

Well, we learnt that Arctic foxes are very small, no larger than the Arctic hare that they try to catch.

rogerpgvg wrote:

Well, we learnt that Arctic foxes are very small, no larger than the Arctic hare that they try to catch.

I know I'm stubborn , but according to these fact sheets from National Geographic, both are roughly of equal size and weight.

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

Arctic hare:
Size: Head and body: 19 to 26 inches; tail: 1 to 3 inches
Weight: 6 to 15 pounds

Arctic fox:
Size: Head and body: 18 to 26.75 inches; tail: up to 13.75 inches
Weight: 6.5 to 17 pounds

The fox is even longer if you take its tail into consideration.

I admit I never saw an arctic hare in the wild, only a mountain hare which are significantly smaller.

Yes you're stubborn
National geographic is the only one to say that the head and body length of the Arctic fox can be slightly longer than that of the Arctic hare.
I don't have the utmost confidence in Sensational geographic.
But it does show one thing, and that is that the Arctic fox is no bigger in body and head than the hare.
This implies that Safari Ltd is too big, but Papo and Schleich seem to be good choices (for Papo I'm sure).

Kikimalou wrote:

 Yes you're stubborn      
National geographic is the only one to say that the head and body length of the Arctic fox can be slightly longer than that of the Arctic hare.
I don't have the utmost confidence in Sensational geographic.
But it does show one thing, and that is that the Arctic fox is no bigger in body and head than the hare.
This implies that Safari Ltd is too big, but Papo and Schleich seem to be good choices (for Papo I'm sure).

Anyway, stubborn or not, I'm glad I realized that I purchased the Schleich model and not the Safari, after all. Because Safari's arctic fox is as massive as the wolverine, which would be terribly wrong.

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

I'm not obsessed with scales, for example I can exhibit 1:10 and 1:20 figurines together on a shelf, as long as the differences are, as I wrote before, "within acceptable range".
Nonetheless, when the mouse is bigger than the cat, then it's somewhat of a problem.  

But I trust your experience based on measurements.

It's good to be stubborn. If we really want to be sure about a species' size, we need to look at original measurements. Websites and handbooks copy from each other, often without verifying or even mentioning the source of the measurements; bad practice. When you can trace back the measurements, they often contain errors.

Unfortunately, it is a lot of work to find all the original measurements. I usually spend several hours researching the size of a species. I have become rather obsessed by size, but understandably not everyone is and we have no choice but to use the imperfect summary information in websites and handbooks. The websites and handbooks are often right (Wikipedia and Animal Diversity Web among the better ones, National Geographic isn't), but they cannot be fully trusted. When you read them, it is easy to get the impression that we know a lot about animal sizes, but I have to say that once I started looking into it, I was quite shocked at the many errors and at how little we know about animal sizes.

I haven't properly researched arctic foxes and arctic hare (no time and I don't have these species in my 1/32 scale collection). However, a search on Google Scholar brings up an overview article by Audet et al. (2002) that says that male arctic foxes have a head and body length of 53 cm and females are 51 cm (tail length resp. 28 and 27 cm). These are not original measurements, but we can find them in Prestrud and Nilssen (1995). They only tested one population; it is of course possible that the size in other populations is different.

There is also an overview article about arctic hare, by Best and Hendry (1994), who report measurements of several subspecies. Subtracting tail length from total length, the average head+body length of the various populations is 51.3-59.1 cm (tail length 4.5-10.0 cm). I haven't taken the time to check the references to the original articles, but Best and Hendry's report is very specific and consistent, so I feel we can trust it (typos are not uncommon though).

Sorry, I probably bore everyone to death. The conclusion of this incomplete search is that artic hare and arctic foxes have indeed quite a similar head+body length (on average, the hare are slightly longer), but the foxes have of course a longer tail. This is a great size comparison:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

rogerpgvg wrote:

It's good to be stubborn. If we really want to be sure about a species' size, we need to look at original measurements. Websites and handbooks copy from each other, often without verifying or even mentioning the source of the measurements; bad practice. When you can trace back the measurements, they often contain errors.

Unfortunately, it is a lot of work to find all the original measurements. I usually spend several hours researching the size of a species. I have become rather obsessed by size, but understandably not everyone is and we have no choice but to use the imperfect summary information in websites and handbooks. The websites and handbooks are often right (Wikipedia and Animal Diversity Web among the better ones, National Geographic isn't), but they cannot be fully trusted. When you read them, it is easy to get the impression that we know a lot about animal sizes, but I have to say that once I started looking into it, I was quite shocked at the many errors and at how little we know about animal sizes.

I haven't properly researched arctic foxes and arctic hare (no time and I don't have these species in my 1/32 scale collection). However, a search on Google Scholar brings up an overview article by Audet et al. (2002) that says that male arctic foxes have a head and body length of 53 cm and females are 51 cm (tail length resp. 28 and 27 cm). These are not original measurements, but we can find them in Prestrud and Nilssen (1995). They only tested one population; it is of course possible that the size in other populations is different.

There is also an overview article about arctic hare, by Best and Hendry (1994), who report measurements of several subspecies. Subtracting tail length from total length, the average head+body length of the various populations is 51.3-59.1 cm (tail length 4.5-10.0 cm). I haven't taken the time to check the references to the original articles, but Best and Hendry's report is very specific and consistent, so I feel we can trust it (typos are not uncommon though).

Sorry, I probably bore everyone to death. The conclusion of this incomplete search is that artic hare and arctic foxes have indeed quite a similar head+body length (on average, the hare are slightly longer), but the foxes have of course a longer tail. This is a great size comparison:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Thank you very much rogerpgvg, for these detailed information and this thorough evaluation. That's very instructive.

The Papo figure is nicely sculpted and painted and well-proportioned. The only reproach I have is that the eyes were painted too yellow. They should have been amber-colored. But I'm nitpicking.

Aeglil wrote:

Anyway, stubborn or not, I'm glad I realized that I purchased the Schleich model and not the Safari, after all. Because Safari's arctic fox is as massive as the wolverine, which would be terribly wrong.

I'm not obsessed with scales, for example I can exhibit 1:10 and 1:20 figurines together on a shelf, as long as the differences are, as I wrote before, "within acceptable range".
Nonetheless, when the mouse is bigger than the cat, then it's somewhat of a problem.  

But I trust your experience based on measurements.

I understand perfectly, I'm not obsessed with scales either, even if it is not obvious. I collect the miniatures I like, whatever the size. It's only when I want to put them in a display that the choice of scale comes into play.
The important thing is to be happy with your collection.
Roger and I have a passion for tape measures and we can't help but go all out as soon as we're invited.    Even if we're a bit of a nuisance , I think everyone learns something in the end.  

What I like about Papo is its very Arctic fox look (except for the eyes) but I like the last schleich too and I think they're about the same size.

rogerpgvg wrote:

It's good to be stubborn. If we really want to be sure about a species' size, we need to look at original measurements. Websites and handbooks copy from each other, often without verifying or even mentioning the source of the measurements; bad practice. When you can trace back the measurements, they often contain errors.

Unfortunately, it is a lot of work to find all the original measurements. I usually spend several hours researching the size of a species. I have become rather obsessed by size, but understandably not everyone is and we have no choice but to use the imperfect summary information in websites and handbooks. The websites and handbooks are often right (Wikipedia and Animal Diversity Web among the better ones, National Geographic isn't), but they cannot be fully trusted. When you read them, it is easy to get the impression that we know a lot about animal sizes, but I have to say that once I started looking into it, I was quite shocked at the many errors and at how little we know about animal sizes.

I haven't properly researched arctic foxes and arctic hare (no time and I don't have these species in my 1/32 scale collection). However, a search on Google Scholar brings up an overview article by Audet et al. (2002) that says that male arctic foxes have a head and body length of 53 cm and females are 51 cm (tail length resp. 28 and 27 cm). These are not original measurements, but we can find them in Prestrud and Nilssen (1995). They only tested one population; it is of course possible that the size in other populations is different.

There is also an overview article about arctic hare, by Best and Hendry (1994), who report measurements of several subspecies. Subtracting tail length from total length, the average head+body length of the various populations is 51.3-59.1 cm (tail length 4.5-10.0 cm). I haven't taken the time to check the references to the original articles, but Best and Hendry's report is very specific and consistent, so I feel we can trust it (typos are not uncommon though).

Sorry, I probably bore everyone to death. The conclusion of this incomplete search is that artic hare and arctic foxes have indeed quite a similar head+body length (on average, the hare are slightly longer), but the foxes have of course a longer tail. This is a great size comparison:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I'm always pleased when Audet et al, Prestrud, Nilssen, Best, Hendry and you confirm my statements.