[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
BATTAT VS. SAFARI
> My questions are about the Carnegie models. How do they compare
> with the new Battat/Museum of Science series? Are they accurate in
> form and poses, well painted and durable?
Ha ha! Another toy thread.. I know you'll all love this one guys. Here's a soft-
copy review/general info article on them, by me.
> The Battat models kick the butts of the Safari ones. As models go, Safari are
> great, and the 30 prehistoric animals they do show quite a range of accuracy,
> corresponding (interestingly enough) with their temporal placement. For that
> reason, some of the models are very very poor - hardly comparable with any of
> the Battat - while others are good enough to be better than the worst of the
> Battat (which, incidentally, is the _Dilophosaurus_). Some of the early >
Safari, then, the first of their two _Tyrannosaurus_, all of the sauropods >
(_Diplodocus_, _Apatosaurus_, _A_ juv, _Brachiosaurus_) and the stegosaur, to
> name a few, are chunky, poorly detailed (the skin is not finely textured as
> it in some of the later ones, but very bumpy) and childish in demeanour. >
Compare the Safari _Diplodocus_ with the Battat, for example. The former seems
> designed with sturdiness and 'playability' in mind, compared to the authentic,
> highly detailed, rangy Battat version.
> Late in the series, after the first 22 (up to _Mosasaurus_ and _Elasmosaurus_)
> had found themselves on the shelves of all respectable dino-collectors, Safari
> decided to get far more authentic. Their _Corythosaurus_, made in 1989, has
> finely textured skin, a very detailed and intricate colour scheme, and a >
carefully researched posture (compare it with the _Parasaurolophus_, which >
leans back on it tail) - it's body is still far too wide and not tall enough >
however. The plateosaur and two dilophosaurs are equally good, and pretty much
> of the Battat quality. With their three, boxed Kish-sculpted 'Chinosaurs', >
Safari have got as authentic as they can - these models are tops, and any >
problems are due to Kish's restorational work. Their _Therizinosaurus_ has got
> to be among the most innovative and interesting of all commercial dinosaur >
> Battat, from the very outset, have been super-realistic and more detailed than
> the best of the Safari models. Again, they've got better over time - the >
second set are absolutely stunning in colour scheme, authenticity and detail.
> One character, the 'jazz piano player' (a Howgateism) _Dilophosaurus_, lets
> the whole set down: it has silly bumpy skin, unlike the smooth contours of the
> others (bar the _Stegosaurus_, but that's bumpy for a reason) and some >
technical errors which are an unfortunate by-product of the model's scale (too
> few teeth, crests too short).
> But, that model besides, the Battat ones are definitely the best dino-models
> on the market. It's a shame that they're not widely available - Battat have
> arranged only a couple of special shipments to this country (UK), and only a
> handful of collectors have them. Safari, on the other hand, are widely >
available and becoming more so (they're coming down in price too). If you're >
interested in models of this quality, the Schleich set are a must too. They >
are of early Safari grade, the very inaccurate 'carnosaurian' quadrupedal >
_Spinosaurus_ being the best looking, but, sadly, are very hard to get hold >
of - you'd probably need to go to Germany to get them all (the DCC has sold >
out of _Ceratosaurus_, and I haven't got it). French Starlux are well worth >
the trouble too, IMHO. All the makes mentioned in this article are obtainable
> from the Dinosaur Collectors Club (plug plug) - email firstname.lastname@example.org for
> further details.
"Careful Dad, he might gore you"
"Heeeeey, you're right. He _does_ look like Al Gore"
DARREN NAISH, acting as official plug of DCC.