The Dinosaur Toy Blog

What’s this – the Carnegie Dilong again? Haven’t we seen it around these parts before? Well, yes, we have. Unfortunately, the original reviewer left the blog some time ago and, for whatever reason, deleted all his posts upon departure. As such, what you are reading now is a replacement – written by me, I’m afraid. So, without further delay, let’s take a good gander at the Carnegie Dilong from 2005. Again.

Dilong paradoxus lived in China in the Early Cretaceous, as did Caudipteryx and Beipiaosaurus (although perhaps not at exactly the same time), both of which have also subsequently made it into the Carnegie Collection. While it’s definitely a plus that this Dilong and the Beipiaosaurus are sculpted at roughly the same scale, Dilong was a somewhat more diminutive creature than Beipiaosaurus (or at least, the type specimen was). As such, fine details are a little more fudged than on the therizinosaur, particularly around the head; the teeth are indistinct while the eyes, apart from probably being a little too large, have asymmetrical splodgy pupils.

Of course, Dilong is most famous for having been preserved with evidence of a fuzzy ‘protofeather’ covering, and fortunately this is far more attractively rendered. The details remain very crisp up close, giving a pleasing impression of a ‘furry’ fluffiness. While the colours could be considered a little conservative, in this case it’s probably actually a good thing – a bright blue (for example) Dilong would actually have been incredibly unlikely, as the nature of ‘protofeathers’ all but prevents this colouration from being physically possible.

Anatomically, this model is very good even if it’s not perfect, and certainly excellent given its very cheap price tag. Perhaps most obviously, the hands do not match up especially well, the real Dilong having quite long hands and fingers of more differing lengths. The tail is also rather thin where it joins the body (not allowing room for muscles), although this was common in palaeoart until fairly recently. Other than that, the proportions are good – the legs are nice and long and the head is deep and narrow, with the characteristic low Y-shaped crest evident.

The Carnegie Collection has, since 2005, been so far ahead of the pack as regards feathered (nonavian) dinosaurs that it’s been a little embarrassing  (although that naked Velociraptor is a very unfortunate black mark), with Collecta only now catching up. Although certain aspects of the sculpt could use a little more finesse, this Dilong is certainly a worthy addition to a lineup that now also includes Microraptor, Oviraptor and of course the aforementioned Beipiaosaurus and Caudipteryx. Hopefully we’ll be seeing a lot more of them – starting with a Velociraptor resculpt!

Review and photos by forum member Gwangi, edited by DinoLord

Everyone familiar with dinosaurs knows the name Apatosaurus, and those not familiar with dinosaurs probably are familiar with it but still call it Brontosaurus despite a name change over 100 years ago. I won’t bother getting into any of that as anyone reading this review most likely already knows the story. Let’s just say that whenever I talk about dinosaurs with the average person I’m forced to describe any sauropod as “you know… like Brontosaurus.” I’ll admit, I prefer the former name over the current but it is what it is and ultimately has little to do with the figure I’m reviewing.

It was the year 1988: I was four years old, the “Dinosaur Renaissance” was about two decades in and the book “Jurassic Park” was two years away from publication. Dinosaurs were still frequently depicted as they were in days past. Only a year previously Invicta released it’s rendition of the famous Apatosaurus, tail dragger and all but a new brand of dinosaur figures was about to be released, one that would reflect the knowledge of the time and ultimately out compete Invicta. Though outdated by today’s standards, the original Carnegie Collection was unlike any other toy dinosaurs at the time and their Apatosaurus was one of those toys.

The Carnegie Apatosaurus is a big one and depending on which version you own would measure 5” in height and 21-23” in length if not for the bend in the neck and tail, this
length puts the figure at about 1/40 in scale. It is also quite heavy weighing in between 1-2 lbs again depending on the version you own. Mine is the smaller 1996 version but was pre-dated by another in 1994 and as said the original in 1988. The colors also vary depending on which year the model came from. The two later versions are the Carnegie
standard greens with a darker pattern dorsally. The original was grey and tan and where color is concerned honestly better looking in my opinion. The figure is well textured with
many wrinkles and scales with more of the former as seems to be the Carnegie tradition.

The original 1988 version of the Carnegie Apatosaurus (with the baby Carnegie Apatosaurus figure). Note the different color scheme, more "humped" back, and different tail. Photo by forum member webdragon.

The overall stance of the figure is quite dynamic. The newer model strides forward with a low slung tail that curves up. It is important to note that the tail does not drag on the
newer models but in the older the tip does touch the ground. The neck curves up and back down with the head veering towards the left. It gives the appearance that the animal is
looking for food or at some unseen predator or perhaps its offspring; a baby Apatosaurus was also released with this model but will not be reviewed here.

The model has a lot of bulk to it, though small compared to the real thing you get a sense of size with this figure. The proportions are fairly good, but I think the figure could stand
a bit taller. The front legs are shorter than the back as should be but the feet are huge and inaccurate, but given the release date it is forgivable. The current consensus is that with
sauropod feet only the thumb claw could be seen on the front and the first three in the back. These large inaccurate feet are common with the older Carnegie sauropods; I can
understand the number of toe nails but why the large feet I can only guess. All the toe nails are painted grey.

The head is appropriately small but could probably be smaller; the neck is beefy but could probably be beefier and a bit longer. The head is the right shape. No Camarasaurus
skull on this guy. However, the paint job leaves a lot to be desired. The mouth is a sloppy pink line and the teeth merely white spots painted on randomly. The nostrils are high up on
the head as was the mindset of the time. Currently it is thought that they were closer to the front of the snout. The eyes are yellow with black pupils. Along the back and tail
a prominent ridge has been sculpted which accurately reflects the tall spines the actual Apatosaurus had. The tail comes close to the ground or touches it in older models when
it should be held higher but the figure still looks good regardless. The tail is a bit on the short side and lacks the long thin tip but being a toy this should come as no surprise.

Overall what we’re left with is a well made but dated Apatosaurus that seems to walk the line between the old school and new school way of thinking in terms of what dinosaurs
were like. It is still a handsome figure essential to any sauropod collection unless you’re the type who only wants the most accurate figures, but keep in mind that what is accurate
now may not be in a matter of years or even days. If you’re a Carnegie collector this one will have to do as they have yet to release an updated version.

As an illustration of how far the Carnegie line has advanced in 20 years, you can’t do much better than the original Tyrannosaurus. Many people in their early 20s will remember owning one of these as a child. They’ll probably also remember it gathering dust in a dark corner of the cupboard under the stairs when the Jurassic Park toyline came along and made everything else seem a bit rubbish. It’s crude, it’s chunky, it’s a little bit adorable.

I have a pet theory related to the Carnegie line – that it started off as a line aimed squarely at kids, but matured alongside its consumer base. I’ll cite this toy and its ‘Tenth Anniversary’ descendant as evidence. What we have here is Tyrannosaurus with the edges taken off – no breakable teeth, a rather rotund body and blunted claws on the feet (although admittedly the fingers could still give you a nasty poke). It’s clearly designed to endure a bit of rough-and-tumble play the likes of which would probably knock the finely-sculpted teeth out of the jaws of the ‘Tenth Anniversary’ model.

Anatomically this old beast veers away from reality and into the realms of old fashioned dino-toy overweight chunkiness (see also UKRD). There’s barely a hint of  Tyrannosaurus‘ huge pelvis, while the legs merge into the body with the scarcest indication of the enormo-muscles that were surely present on the living creature. The head is essentially reduced to two rectangular blocks, with the admittedly very finely painted eyes facing defiantly sideways.

The classic showdown, circa 1988!

However – and bearing in mind the date of this figure’s genesis (ie. 1988) – there are some definite plus points. The overall proportions, unduly long tail aside, aren’t too far off. The rearing pose remains largely passable and has been reused for many theropod figures since – the raised tail (bent down only at the tip for support) put it ahead of many other figures at the time. The hanging tag, if you’re lucky enough to acquire one with it intact, is good for a giggle too – apparently Tyrannosaurus reached 15 metres in length (versus 14 metres stamped on the toy) and lived in “Western North America, Argentina (???), Mongolia (fine if you consider Tarbosaurus bataar to be a species of Tyrannosaurus, but the toy’s stamped “Tyrannosaurus rex“), India (????) and China”. Riiight. Seems T. rex went globetrotting in the 1980s.

This ‘blockhead’ version of the Carnegie Tyrannosaurus may be long gone, but amazingly its legacy lives on. It’s been the recipient of a couple of new heads and other improved details over the years, but the rather out-of-shape creature you see here has ultimately survived to this day alongside its ‘Tenth Anniversary’ counterpart, presumably in the name of providing a durable combat toy for the kids. Definitely not recommended for collectors (apart from sad old nostalgics like me/completists), except those with dinosaur mad children – throw them a version of this thing to keep them away from your Anniversary Tyrannosaurus! Oh, and finally if you want this version specifically, it’s pretty common on eBay.

The Late Cretaceous hadrosaur Maiasaura has become famous for being the first large dinosaur to be discovered alongside direct evidence that it cared for its young. Fossil nests associated with this dinosaur show that young dinosaurs stayed in the nest well after hatching. First discovered in Montana and described by Jack Horner, its name means “good mother lizard”. As such, a lot of scale models of this dinosaur usually depict it associated with a nest. This particular model may have gone a little too far…

Size comparison of Maiasaura with a six foot man.

This Maiasaura was the original Carnegie sculpt of this dinosaur, being released in 1989. The scale is 1:40, and it’s about 7.5 inches long and 3 inches high, including the base, which is as you can see supposed to be a nest. This nest makes it a VERY hefty figure. The paint job isn’t too interesting, with the animal having a rusty orange base coat with dark brown spots and stripes. The underside of the neck is a creamy color and the nest and visible eggs are colored tan. The paint job is a bit sloppy, particularly around where dino meets nest, as the color of the animal has run onto the nest in places. There aren’t too many fine details but there are some scales and wrinkles around joints. Its nails are not painted a different color, but the eyes are yellow with black pupils.

The main thing that stands out about this Maiasaura is that it’s sitting on its nest, presumably to incubate the eggs. However, this is pretty absurd when you think of a 30 foot, multi-ton animal doing such a thing, because the eggs would have been hopelessly obliterated. More likely the nest would have been incubated with brush and other vegetation brought by the parents. No evidence has ever suggested that these animals sat on their nests, but hey, Safari was just being creative at the time I guess. However, they rectified their Maiasaura in the late 90s by releasing a separate parent and nest with babies and retiring this model.

I can just hear those eggs breaking...

Nest aside, the sculpt of the animal itself isn’t too awful, but it’s not very good either. For starters, this is a VERY fat Maiasaura. It’s just chunky all around. The skull is also just too broad and short. The hind limbs are very fat and crude, and they look pretty goofy in that squatting position. The forelimbs aren’t any better, and the digits on its hands should be fused together into hooves for walking. The tail is also a bit too short and should look stiff, not slightly snaky as it is here. One thing I do like about this Maiasaura is that the sculptor managed to reproduce the fleshy keel along its back.

In short, this is a pretty ambitious but outdated sculpt of Maiasaura. If you are into collecting the older Carnegies I’d get it if you can find it for a decent price because it is a pretty unique piece, and I can’t think of any dinosaur figure that would make a better paperweight!