Best dinosaur figures ? Sauropodomorphs and other dinos considerations... And Black rhinos too

...Thank you very much, Ana, for pics and site! As you has saw - dinos are my special enthusiasm!

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

There are two types of dinosaurs here,
THE SOFT MODELS which are toys like we used to collect

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

And the DESKTOP MODELS which are more expensive, made in resin and more fragile.

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

I will only speak about the Soft models. They are both known to be excellent.

I only have the deinonychus but this is only a money problem because I'm first a Wild animal collector and I can't buy everything I want alas. ( I know I'm not the only one... )

You must know they are a bit smaller than the Papo or Schleich.

IMHO, the must have in this line are the ankylosaurus and the stegosaurus.

Why ?

The ankylosaurus is actually not an ankylosaurus ( If you want one, the Safari is the only one to have). BUT the kinto is the more accurate Euoplocephalus tutus model available.

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

I also recommend the stegosaurus, which is 1/40 scale   . This model is the only one which show the armoured throat of the specie.

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

ana wrote:

Thank You for valuable lessons Christophe and for lot of good pictures too.
Sergey Thank You too for pictures of very interesting things and dioramas. I think all this topic is very interesting. I don't have knowledge of dinosaurs and maybe that's why I never thought about collecting them. Although I think many of them are incredible, especially Papo versions.
I found very interesting site with customized dinosaurs: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I think You may find there something nice too  

It is indeed a very good site Ana.
Papo models are very awesome but they are alas very inaccurate... So I can't recommend them for a "scientific" collection  

By the way I've got this Maiasaura model below. It is a big KAIYODO model, beautiful but hollow so very fragile. It is at the same size than the SCHLEICH edmontosaurus. I forget to take my own shot...

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

wow..........

First i want to gratulate you on your great dino collection my friend!
It is huge in several ways!

We could discuss about some things about dino's here, but it is not my field or special interest, as it is more for you, so for me you are an expert on this!

I love those sauropods, because they were the biggest land-animals that ever lived.
You couldn't understand how the moved around with those elongated necks...
You would like to think, that they were semi-aquatic or so, and it is thought they lived on the edge of aquatic-inviroments...

I saw many programms about dino's and their pre-ancestors, and i am reading a thick book about them at the moment.
But they can think what they want, all they know, is that when they see the skeleton, and programm that on modern moving animals, nature always has the strangest solutions for some things...
What seems logical, isn't true very often, because there are always exeptions...
It is nice that the scientists keep thinking, and are getting iside-information about those animals from time to time, but it will always be a guess...
So which dino model is accurate, and which one isn't?
Untill we don't invent a time-machine, we will never know exactly...

WILLYBACOMAN wrote:

First i want to gratulate you on your great dino collection my friend!
It is huge in several ways!  

We could discuss about some things about dino's here, but it is not my field or special interest, as it is more for you, so for me you are an expert on this!

I love those sauropods, because they were the biggest land-animals that ever lived.
You couldn't understand how the moved around with those elongated necks...
You would like to think, that they were semi-aquatic or so, and it is thought they lived on the edge of aquatic-inviroments...

I saw many programms about dino's and their pre-ancestors, and i am reading a thick book about them at the moment.
But they can think what they want, all they know, is that when they see the skeleton, and programm that on modern moving animals, nature always has the strangest solutions for some things...
What seems logical, isn't true very often, because there are always exeptions...
It is nice that the scientists keep thinking, and are getting iside-information about those animals from time to time, but it will always be a guess...
So which dino model is accurate, and which one isn't?
Untill we don't invent a time-machine, we will never know exactly...  

Thank you Willy   You are very indulgent with my so tiny collection... I'm serious.

It's true that paleontology is a science where things and ideas changes a lot because the new discovery shakes up older ideas...
But what we are sure about is : A model who doesn't respect the skeletal can't be accurate !  
If someone found a cheetah skeletal and a toys company makes a model with the corpse of the cheetah, the head of a dog and the tail of a deer, and if this compagny decides that the model would be bipedal. I'm sure you would agree it is bullshit...  .

One living example : The last SCHLEICH black rhino :

Some of us can think it is a very good black rhino models and some it is the best available now.
I think it's a good toy, very well made BUT it is a poor black rhino model. Here is a real black rhino :

In real life, the head of the black rhino isn't at the same size than the abdomen, it is smaller. Not on the Schleich.
I remember discussion about the CollectA white rhino, is it a white rhino ? because the lipps are not as flat as a real white rhino.
If we can discuss about this, we can also say : Is that Schleich black rhino is a rhino ? With such a big head  
I remember a topic about the Papo jaguar, the conclusion was "it is an awesome big cat but it can't be a jaguar". It's true ! Why ? The head is too small, the tail is too long and the body is not enough bulky.

So ?

The Schleich Saichania with six toes on the hind feet can't be an accurate saichania.
The Schleich apatosaurus or brachiosaurus with totally wrong forefeet can't be accurate models.
The Schleich sauropelta with so much differences with the skeletal can't be accurate.
The Papo pteranodon with teeh inside his mouth can't be an accurate pteranodon. Pteranodon means "toothlesswing" ! No teeth in the mouth indeed
The Schleich and Papo spinosaurus can't be accurate spinosaurus because the heads have only a few things in common with the spinosaurus skull.

And ?

The Kinto ankylosaurus is an accurate euoplocephalus because it is conform with the skeletal.
The same for the Kinto stegosaurus, apatosaurus, brachiosaurus...
The same for the Safari ltd spinosaurus, apatosaurus, brachiosaurus and all the Safari ltd models since 2008.
The same for the Schleich shonisaurus, edmontonia, parasaurolophus or plateosaurus.

The paleontology is not only a matter of guess, it is a true science and the hypothesis are serious. Those guys are not speaking about faeries and dragons, they are studying extinct animals which lived under the same biological rules than us.

WILLYBACOMAN wrote:

I love those sauropods, because they were the biggest land-animals that ever lived.
You couldn't understand how the moved around with those elongated necks...
You would like to think, that they were semi-aquatic or so, and it is thought they lived on the edge of aquatic-inviroments...

It's a good example Willy  

So let's talk about it. Modern zoology and biology are young science with only a little bit more than 3 century of existence. Paleontology is even younger.
Modern technology is also a young knowledge.
When the first sauropods were discovered, the people of that time can't imagine how such big animals could stand on their legs. the scientist of that time imagined that they were semi-aquatic animals and water helped them to support their phenomenal corpse.
At that time Gustav Eiffel constructed thing like a well known tower and he used a lot of metal to do such structure.
Nowadays ingeneers would use far less metal to build an Eiffel tower because the knowledge increase and we are able to calculate lighter solutions which are even more solid.
It's the same with the paleontology, this science progress at giant step since his birth. at the beggining, the problem was collecting bones as fast as possible and sometimes they even used dynamite to do so  
Now, when scientist find something, there is far more work and far more precautions than in that earlier days.
For the sauropod, we now think that they are absolutely not swamp animals.
Why ? Despite their size, the feet of the animals are not like "swamp animals" feet. Physics science explain that this feet would not support a big animal in a swamp, it would sank in the mud... It's not a guess, it's a knowledge. Nowadays we are able to know if an antelope is living on dry land or on swamp when we only look at the hoofs. A waterbuck or sitatunga toes are very different and larger than an eland toe. It's the same for animals which lived in the desert sand or snowy land.
So they are not able to live in swamp... Are they able to live on dry land ? Yes, physics models show that the bone structure is solid enough to quarry such animals on drier land.
One more proof ? Footprint, we found footprint of those animals and they were dryland footprints.
About footprints, scientist don't find prints of the tail and it confirms that the tail of dinosaurs are not llying on the ground like in the early reconstructions
What do they eat ? The first paleontologist were searching about bones and skeletal, they believe that such big ones lived in a swamp and they concluded that they eat swamp plants...
Modern paleontologist used all the modern science knowledge, studying the environemment of the fosills etc, etc... And we know now that those animals were not swamp plant eaters, but conifer and ferns eaters.
All of those things are not simple guess.  

yes, you are right, paleontological working methods and analysis have changed a lot in the last years. just think about the new possibilities, that the analysis of the slightest bit of organic substance gives the scientists: DNA-analysis, age-determination or climatic conditions... things that the early paleontologist couldn't even dream of
some weeks ago I've read an interesting article about the gigantism of sauropods, in a german magazine (GEOkompakt, no. 23 "evolution"). it says that sauropods had very light bones as they were partially filled with air-chambers, similar to the bones of birds. they also had very effecive lungs to supply all their organs with enough oxygene. to get enough energy to feed this giant systems, sauropods did not chew. so they were able to eat very much food in a short time and also their heads could remain small sized, as they didn't need a lot of chewing-muscles. so all in all there were lots of different small factors that allowed these dinosaurs to grow to a size of nearly 40 metres (argentinosaurus). though this enormous size, most scientists estimate that they didn't weight that very much (e.g. diplodocus: just 10 tons weight at a length of 28 metres!).

paleo-biology rules

diversity wrote:

yes, you are right, paleontological working methods and analysis have changed a lot in the last years. just think about the new possibilities, that the analysis of the slightest bit of organic substance gives the scientists: DNA-analysis, age-determination or climatic conditions... things that the early paleontologist couldn't even dream of
some weeks ago I've read an interesting article about the gigantism of sauropods, in a german magazine (GEOkompakt, no. 23 "evolution"). it says that sauropods had very light bones as they were partially filled with air-chambers, similar to the bones of birds. they also had very effecive lungs to supply all their organs with enough oxygene. to get enough energy to feed this giant systems, sauropods did not chew. so they were able to eat very much food in a short time and also their heads could remain small sized, as they didn't need a lot of chewing-muscles. so all in all there were lots of different small factors that allowed these dinosaurs to grow to a size of nearly 40 metres (argentinosaurus). though this enormous size, most scientists estimate that they didn't weight that very much (e.g. diplodocus: just 10 tons weight at a length of 28 metres!).

paleo-biology rules

...It,s very interesting information, diversity! Thanks! (The sauropods is my lovely dino,s species)...    

...And by the way - thank, Christoph again for new information!    

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

Christophe, diversity and Sergey-thank You very much for lot of information Fantastic to hear something new everyday. Dinosaurs can be fascinating indeed!
And You know what? I consider to buy first dinosaur model I'm not sure, maybe just for my son, don't know yet. But what was always annoying for me in collecting dinosaurs-even if there is many companies making the same species You are unable to make good looking herd because each triceratops(for example) has different skin color The real colors of dinosaurs will always be a secret and field for fantasy of the artists. But they were not Easter eggs so too colorful herd doesn't look fine
I found another site about dinosaurs: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I think the artist who make all these figures is very talented and I like many of these models. (Although prices are high...) What do You think about this one:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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

for me this one has something wrong in the middle part of the body, don't You think it looks too weak? Experts what is Your opinion?

ana wrote:

I found another site about dinosaurs: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I think the artist who make all these figures is very talented and I like many of these models. (Although prices are high...) What do You think about this one:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This brachylophosaurus is really a fine model Ania and expensive too    But again it is one of the cheaper  

Raters studio makes really impressive models indeed but they are big na dexpensive: I haven't got enough place and money for them.  

ana wrote:

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

for me this one has something wrong in the middle part of the body, don't You think it looks too weak? Experts what is Your opinion?

Ana, I'm not an expert, i'm an amateur who love wild animals, doesn't matter for me if they are extinct or not. I also love natural history and jurassic or congo jungle are the craddles of my dreams...  

Some people on DTF are far more expert than me, one is actually specialist of marine reptiles.
But ok I like to share the few things I know and my opinions as all of us may know now   .

There is nothing wrong in this model. I mean it is true to the skeletal reconstruction.
Now is it too weak or not is really a matter of point of view.
First we are often intoxicate by models like Schleich (I agree they are not the only one...) which are very fat indeed.
As Diversity explained, the sauropodes bones were lighter than we thought and the global weight of such giants is also lesser.
Look at african elephants, the bigger are very BIG but not FAT. There is no reasons to think the sauropods were different on that point.
A chubbier model could be also a good model if it doesn't contradict the skeleton.

the main problem with this model is the price is not weak at all  

...It,s very impressive realistic dinosaurs! And very expensive, yeah? Nice models without questions, by the way - sauropod model is diplodocus or seismosaurus? There are most large sauropods on this pics...

(top-down) (lagest length - 60 m)
1. Amphicoelias fragillimus
2. Argentinosaurus huinculensis
3. Supersaurus vivianae
4. Diplodocus hallorum
5. Sauroposeidon proteles


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

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

Not a diplodocus or seismosaurus... It is an apatosaurus !

Kikimalou wrote:

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

Not a diplodocus or seismosaurus... It is an apatosaurus !

...Hm... for apatosaurus it,s very graceful... And what you say, Christoph, about long and supple tail like diplodocus tail? But yet who knows (as we,ve saw) it,s all possible on each brands!

Sergey wrote:

...Hm... for apatosaurus it,s very graceful... And what you say, Christoph, about long and supple tail like diplodocus tail? But yet who knows (as we,ve saw) it,s all possible on each brands!

Seriously Sergey, why do you think diplodocus are graceful and apatosaurus aren't ? Why ?
Because, like all the people older than 40, we saw books with fat brontosaurus and slender diplodocus when we were young... That's the only reason.
Why do you think apatosaurus have a short tail ? The old book !
We are intoxicated with false datas...
that's maybe the only reason why the last Schleich looks like a fat brontosaurus with a fat tail, to be sure that the parents who would buy it won't be shocked by a slim apatosaurus with a long tail.

Now, look at the skeletal reconstructions : Here is a Diplodocus one

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

And here is one of the apatosaurus reconstruction !

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

And here is the Raderstudio model :

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

Now repeat after me : Apatosaurus are not fat ! Apatosaurus have a long tail like a whip !
Believe me, you will recover I will try to give you good medicine

Thank You teacher Kiki For me You are expert because You have MUCH better knowledge then me and I can learn from You

Of course I remember some pictures of dinosaurs from the past and maybe that's why I imagine them stockier. But thanks to doctor Kiki my imagination will be updated

For me or my son I would rather buy Schleich or Papo version of course. I can't buy such expensive models like from Rater Studio site but I wanted to show it because it's interesting.

ana wrote:

Thank You teacher Kiki For me You are expert because You have MUCH better knowledge then me and I can learn from You

Of course I remember some pictures of dinosaurs from the past and maybe that's why I imagine them stockier. But thanks to doctor Kiki my imagination will be updated

For me or my son I would rather buy Schleich or Papo version of course. I can't buy such expensive models like from Rater Studio site but I wanted to show it because it's interesting.

Oh no.... Poor and sad Kiki

Please Ana, if there is one thing I will like to teach is how to buy a decent and accurate model.

If you want to buy a dino, go for arecent Safari and not a papo or Schleich.

Believe me, the artist you are will fall in love with them and you will give your son the great chance to play with dino toys which look like the real ones and not beautiful but false models.

It's time to stop the curse of fat apatosaurus

Kikimalou wrote:

Oh no.... Poor and sad Kiki

Please Ana, if there is one thing I will like to teach is how to buy a decent and accurate model.

If you want to buy a dino, go for arecent Safari and not a papo or Schleich.

Believe me, the artist you are will fall in love with them and you will give your son the great chance to play with dino toys which look like the real ones and not beautiful but false models.

It's time to stop the curse of fat apatosaurus

Ok, now I understand :) Safari are quite hard to get for me but I will think about it :) So none of Schleich or Papo dinos are accurate? I was thinking about 1 or 2 figures for beginning

Ok I found the answer from You Kiki:shonisaurus, edmontonia, parasaurolophus or plateosaurus by Schleich. Right?

This is a lot for beginning. But maybe I will think how to get Safaris

ana wrote:

Kikimalou wrote:

Oh no.... Poor and sad Kiki

Please Ana, if there is one thing I will like to teach is how to buy a decent and accurate model.

If you want to buy a dino, go for arecent Safari and not a papo or Schleich.

Believe me, the artist you are will fall in love with them and you will give your son the great chance to play with dino toys which look like the real ones and not beautiful but false models.

It's time to stop the curse of fat apatosaurus

Ok, now I understand :) Safari are quite hard to get for me but I will think about it :) So none of Schleich or Papo dinos are accurate? I was thinking about 1 or 2 figures for beginning

Ok I found the answer from You Kiki:shonisaurus, edmontonia, parasaurolophus or plateosaurus by Schleich. Right?

This is a lot for beginning. But maybe I will think how to get Safaris

I feel better now

I used to buy my Safari ltd here : [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Today I saw, a live, for the first time, the sauropodas of Safari! A diplodocus and an apatosaurus!
And I think that Christophe is absolutly right! There is something that gaves him reason... he don't use words like ... very beautiful... so cute... very colourful, etc. He explains logically his points of view!
I like it! The dinos are absolutly well donne!
Of course I'm not saying that he is God! But Bacchus... maybe!!! :)

Roger wrote:

Today I saw, a live, for the first time, the sauropodas of Safari! A diplodocus and an apatosaurus!
And I think that Christophe is absolutly right! There is something that gaves him reason... he don't use words like ... very beautiful... so cute... very colourful, etc. He explains logically his points of view!
I like it! The dinos are absolutly well donne!
Of course I'm not saying that he is God! But Bacchus... maybe!!! :)

... Hm... That is the result of our dialogue with Christoph? I don,t understand about it...

Sergey wrote:

Roger wrote:

Today I saw, a live, for the first time, the sauropodas of Safari! A diplodocus and an apatosaurus!
And I think that Christophe is absolutly right! There is something that gaves him reason... he don't use words like ... very beautiful... so cute... very colourful, etc. He explains logically his points of view!
I like it! The dinos are absolutly well donne!
Of course I'm not saying that he is God! But Bacchus... maybe!!! :)

... Hm... That is the result of our dialogue with Christoph? I don,t understand about it...

Sergey, I love and pay atention to your oppinions too... I did it with almost of the people in this forum!

I hope I'm not turning in a Crazy Portuguese Croc!!!

Roger wrote:

Sergey wrote:

Roger wrote:

Today I saw, a live, for the first time, the sauropodas of Safari! A diplodocus and an apatosaurus!
And I think that Christophe is absolutly right! There is something that gaves him reason... he don't use words like ... very beautiful... so cute... very colourful, etc. He explains logically his points of view!
I like it! The dinos are absolutly well donne!
Of course I'm not saying that he is God! But Bacchus... maybe!!! :)

... Hm... That is the result of our dialogue with Christoph? I don,t understand about it...

Sergey, I love and pay atention to your oppinions too... I did it with almost of the people in this forum!

I hope I'm not turning in a Crazy Portuguese Croc!!!

Ok, and this sounds more better!

P.S. It was maybe my poor joke!

Papo dinosaur figures are amazing but there is so few of them.  There are so many dinosaurs missing from Papo line.  I don't usually stick to one brand but Papo dinosaur figures are just better than every other brand by a mile.  With that said, which brand make the next best looking dinosaurs figures after Papo?

safari, i think

I agree, Safari has the best looking ones.

COLLECTA DELUXE AND SAFARI CARNEGIE.