The Dinosaur Toy Blog

January 6, 2008

Acrocanthosaurus (Carnegie Collection by Safari)

Filed under: Carnegie, theropod — Tags: — tomhetleere @ 7:37 pm

I bought this Acro gladly because it’s actually my favourite dinosaur and Carnegie has a great reputation. To my surprise, all this wasn’t enough, it displays great, it’s a durable, non-expensive toy but not exactly what one would expect from a famous company. Many pieces of the Carnegie line are not precisely about the details, they’re rough, but many are accurate in their simplicity. Nonetheless in this case they didn’t concentrate on interpreting the fossil evidence correctly, which is inexcusable; if Battat was able to make an exceptional Acrocanthosaurus more than 10 years ago, why not Carnegie?

The head is the first thing I find problematic. The real Acrocanthosaurus had long jaws, but this replica’s are just too short. On top of that, there’s an inexplicable lump on the snout. The result is a bland, generic looking theropod head.

There is another bothersome problem. Symmetry is absent in several parts: nostrils, legs, eyes, even belly.

They didn’t interpret the vertebral spines according to the most accepted theory (a hump covered with muscle instead of a sail) but the sail is not raised enough. The spines may not have been as high as the Spinosaurus, but they were quite pronounced, starting just where the skull ends. None of this is reflected on the end product. Even if it does stand on its own (I know at least mine does) the tail is just too close to the ground.

Carnegie dinosaurs often have strange limbs that aren’t naturally attached to the torso. This is no exception. The extremities are not massive enough; the hips are flattened (even sunken). This is specially frustrating, because there should be plenty of muscle. Mind you, this lack of muscle detail is generalized, except for the tail.

Nonetheless, it’s an eye-pleaser, I won’t deny that. Teeth and tongue look great, the fingers are finely sculpted, there’s a huge amount of skin detail, the colours and blending are nice as always (in this case, mostly grey and black, while the mouth is pink), the paint itself is quite resistent. I just hope in the future these guys will be more careful.

4 Comments »

  1. hey nice work guys! I admit I agree with most of the reviews. But I’d like to see the measures of the figures. BTW this is one lousy IMHO.

    Comment by Richard — January 7, 2008 @ 12:30 am

  2. Good idea – maybe we could include a coin or scale bar in the photos? Sometimes photos can be misleading, I know I have been surprised on a number of occasions after seeing the real thing.

    Comment by dinosaurcollector — January 7, 2008 @ 11:36 am

  3. I brought this Acro one month ago and i can say that i like it a lot,even if,anatomically speaking,it has some faults.

    One particular thing that slightly bothers me is the snout:our good ‘ol Acro should have been a long,almost arrow-like head,instead we have,as you said,a nice but generic carnosaur “face”.

    Comment by Alessio — January 12, 2008 @ 4:45 pm

  4. They could have certainly made a better one that actually looked like an Acrocanthosaurus.
    The scale appears to be wrong, too.

    Comment by EmperorDinobot — January 20, 2008 @ 9:37 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.