Safari Ltd. - New for 2023

[Gwangi]

And how are others wrong for seeing what they see? ie that not being a good enough representative of the GGO. The pictures you post just further solidifies my opinion that it's not substantial. I understand you wanting to defend it because SafariLtd sponsors you (or whatever the case is) but to me it just shows that there's a clear bias.

Bullyland's figure has its flaws as well. But you put these two figures side by side and you tell me to pick out the GGO; I'm pointing at Bullyland.

Safari sending me review samples has NOTHING to do with it. I have been getting review samples from Safari for 1 year, I have been buying and reviewing their products for 12. Between the two blogs I have over 350 reviews, less than a dozen of them are samples. I would defend this figure just as adamantly if I hadn't gotten a sample of it. I don't get samples from Mattel and I fervently defend them too. So, you can respectfully put the notion of any bias to bed. Thank you! I'm not a sell out.

I'm not telling you that you're wrong for seeing what you see @EpicRaptorMan, I am ASKING you to explain what you're seeing. But you're not, so I guess it's a good thing you're not the one reviewing these things. Your review would amount to "it's wrong because it's wrong". I'm sharing comparison pictures and species descriptions and highlighting the features (correct or incorrect) that I see on the figure. You're just saying that one is better than the other. I don't care about your preferences but don't expect people to take your opinion seriously if you cannot back up what you're saying. And as a reviewer, believe it or not, I WANT people to point out inaccurate features that I might miss so that I can better assess the figure, but you don't want to do that, or can't.

[EpicRaptorMan]

And there you go getting emotionally charged again.  
It is a fine "owl" for generic purposes, but as far as overall sizing, coloration, and facial markings are concerned it is not a sufficient GGO to me.

I will say, the final picture you posted the coloration does appear overall more gray, but perhaps that's just the lighting because everything else I've seen simply is not convincing enough.

[EpicRaptorMan]

I'm back!
I showed the comparison photos that you yourself posted between irl GGO, Bullyland, and SafariLtd to three people in real life. Guess what? These people aren't zoologists, ornithologists, nor toy collectors and all of them agreed that the SafariLtd figure doesn't look like the real thing; one unfortunately chuckled.

I understand all of the specific anatomical highlights you keep posting to justify the  toy, but if a figure can't score on the general side of things then it likely won't have an overall positive consensus.

[Gwangi]

I'm not emotionally charged but since you're calling out my integrity as a reviewer I think I might be right to be. I'm mostly just squashing the notion that I have a bias here before it can proceed any further. And yes, I am somewhat frustrated and I already admitted that the discussion about this owl is driving me crazy.

Maybe you should try showing the owl to actual zoologists, and ornithologists and then see what they think. The opinion of a lay person uninterested in birds is hardly of value. They're not going to see what is important, like diagnostic facial markings and incorrect feet. The same things you apparently cannot see. Following Safari on Instagram and Facebook I can tell you that the only place I've seen ANY negative reaction to this figure is here.

Anyway, you still haven't said what is actually wrong with it. Why the facial markings are incorrect vs. Bullyland's. Why the feet are incorrect, etc. You just keep saying "it's wrong" and "this other one is better". The review goes up tomorrow, feel free to vote on it how you see fit @EpicRaptorMan.

EDIT: Oh, and looking at Bullyland's again, I don't see ANY streaking on the breast, another knock against it. The more I examine it the worse it looks. Why does it look like each eye is in its own facial disk?

[EpicRaptorMan]

The majority of buyers of SafariLtd products are common people or children; not zoologists or ornithologists. And if a common person can immediately see the differences that's good enough for me. From what I've seen on Instagram and Facebook it's mainly children, their parents, and a small portion are serious about this hobby; most of which I see here on the forum. This lines up with your perspective of a harsher criticism on the forum.

Yet again, as I mentioned, I have noted the specific anatomical advantages of the SafariLtd figure, but the overall color scheme shouts "not-so-great brown and white owl". Which perhaps this should be called?
Nor did I ever say the zygodactyl feet were inaccurate they just are less detailed compared to other SafariLtd bird feet.

[Gwangi]

The majority of buyers of SafariLtd products are common people or children; not zoologists or ornithologists. And if a common person can immediately see the differences that's good enough for me. From what I've seen on Instagram and Facebook it's mainly children, their parents, and a small portion are serious about this hobby; most of which I see here on the forum. This lines up with your perspective of a harsher criticism on the forum.

Yet again, as I mentioned, I have noted the specific anatomical advantages of the SafariLtd figure, but the overall color scheme shouts "not-so-great brown and white owl". Which perhaps this should be called?
Nor did I ever say the zygodactyl feet were inaccurate they just are less detailed compared to other SafariLtd bird feet.

What it sounds like to me is that people (including you) just like the Bullyland figure better because of the dynamic pose. And because of things like a realistic blending of colors or feather details. the Bullyland figure gives off the illusion of being more accurate and lifelike. Kind of like how Papo dinosaurs look more like real dinosaurs than Safari's, despite the latter being more accurate. And I don't hold your preference against you. Some people also prefer Papo over Safari, that's fine too. But in exhibiting the features of a great grey owl the Bullyland fails on many fronts and if I want a great grey owl on my shelf (and I do) I want it to exhibit the features of that species. The feet, the facial markings, the streaks of color...they're more important to me than the pose or even the paint execution.

No, you did not say the zygodactyl feet were inaccurate but you did say...

But since we're nitpicking owl feet the Safari's GGO also has some very generic and bland feet/talons as well.

What exactly do you want from the Safari owl's feet other than accuracy? The feet on the Safari owl measure half an inch! And they're not prominently displayed like the exceptionally inaccurate feet of the Bullyland figure.

You also said...

The colors and facial markings are the main concerns. I understand that there is a spectrum of GGO colorations, but this is not it. Despite the feet flaws of the Bullyland figure the colorations are more aligned with what most people think when they think of this species.

Now you're saying...

Yet again, as I mentioned, I have noted the specific anatomical advantages of the Safari Ltd figure

So you start with concerns over the facial markings and coloration and are now admitting that Safari's has anatomical advantages. Looks to me like maybe you're backtracking a little. Which I guess means my work is done.

[EpicRaptorMan]

They're accurate in the sense that they have the correct digit layout, but other than that they're just pegs. But with other figures SafariLtd had more sculpted detail it's honestly a shame.

And the anatomical advantages that I was referring to were the pale arcs between the eyes. Which SafariLtd included but I find are simply too distinguished and bold. Edit: These arcs are also present in Bullyland's but are more subtle and better executed overall. As for the rest of the face (beak, coloration, and thick stripes) it is still a flop.

[Gwangi]

Come on man, the image you posted is a promotional image. It is not the final product. The final product does not have white arcs, the entire eye orbit is white. And it has no concentric markings. I said all this already and I shared these pictures already. Do you even own the Bullyland owl?

This is the actual figure.

[EpicRaptorMan]

I do, perhaps there's some quality control issue (as there is with all brands) but as far as I'm aware my individual example has well enough arcs.

SafariLtd's looks like some glued two toilet seats to his face. Poor bird.

Being said, I don't believe this "not-so-great brown/white owl" isn't worth most people's time and isn't recommended.

[bmathison1972]

Time to step in with my administrator hat and suggest it's time to put this conversation aside. No one has broken any forum rules yet but a couple comments are getting close to violating #1 (No intentional personal attacks, rudeness, or personal provocation).

People have made their opinions clear where they stand with this owl and it doesn't look like anyone is swaying the other. In the end we can purchase (or not) which ever owl we want based on our criteria.

Critiques and criticisms of figures are welcomed, but should always be done in a respectful manner and should be backed with specific examples.

Thank you
@animaltoyforum

[A.Garcia]

I'm surprised and pleased to see this owl. I'll certainly plan on getting it since it looks well done, and I don't have a figure of the species. The paint looks good (as good or better than other Safari owls)— I'll wait to see it in hand before deciding if the white is worth toning down a bit. Those markings are of course something that varies when looking at live individuals. Regarding size, while I can see why someone might prefer it to be larger, I think I like this size. It can work alongside the Safari great horned and snowy owls, some of the Kaiyodo owls, and also fit well in a scene with larger woodland animals. With a bird like this it will always be a compromise of whether you want it to scale better with smaller owls/birds or larger animals.

On the topic of Wings of the World, while I'm happy to see the new owl, I also think it would be great to see a re-release of the California condor sometime.

The gecko and tuatara also look nice. Scaled down versions of these reptile sculpts would make a great toob, too.

[Fembrogon]

Now THAT is a very strong similarity; I'm much more used to seeing great greys colored like the other photos you shared, with a purer, darker grey overall.
It looks like the small size is really the only "major" flaw; another very solid release from Safari this year.

[Saarlooswolfhound]

I think it looks great, better and better every time I see it. Perhaps the small size is to save a smidge on production costs? Less plastic, less overall cost?

I would argue that indeed there are very obvious differences between the Bullyland and Safari. As there will be with any other brand who makes an attempt, and with any other species comparison one can draw on.

For me, I think the main differences besides the feet conformation is the application of color. Bullys is indeed much more subtle and gray/dark, while safari's takes advantage of a much paler colorform. I like the contrast of these 2 figures colorations. For me it reflects the variation of individuals in nature (I suppose that is my artistic background appreciating the sublte changes in pigment). The application is indeed also different between the two. Bullys is softer and more blended, the grays are roughly on the same shading scale rather than using contrasting pigments like Safari's does, as it also utilizes a bolder demarcation between the flecks of brown and pale gray etc. Lastly, I would argue that besides the feet the facial disc-ing is what demarcates the two. The Bully is pulled off by two full sculpted rounds around the eyes, while Safari's utilizes the actual paint pattern to pull off the rounded appearance of the barring.

At any rate, for me, I can appreciate the artistic differences and license between the two. I will be glad to have another example in my collection!

[Gwangi]

When I was posting the review it occurred to me that in most pictures there is a good deal of light reflected off figure, both on the white facial markings and the silvery-grey plumage. I think this makes it appear paler than it is or at the very least doesn't do it any favors. For example, there is good feather detail under the white facial markings, it's not just painted on like it might appear. I just cannot capture that detail with my iPhone.

You can see some of the sculpted detail under the white markings best in these couple pictures. The literal in-hand picture also shows how the light is reflected off of the wing region while the underside gives a truer idea of what color the figure actually is.

[SerAndrew]

Well, it seems there's been such a discussion after my "it's not good" comment...

First of all, I agree, by saying "It's not good" one should give some arguments. But I honestly see it clearly that this one is NOT good and I didn't expected so strong support by anyone, despite most people would like it (even more being Safari...).

Apart from the cartoonish looking (which is something Safari had always had and is totally acceptable, that's their artistic approach) this figure, and this is something I'm surprised no one has stated, has totally weird proportions.
And when showing comparison pictures with the real animal that's something that one suddendly notices.

Then, being the face the most charismatic feature of this creature, I will ask any figure to have it done properly. And I know that's not easy, but I have said "it's not good", not "how easy it was to make it good".

Also, feet are so disturbing, with such blunt claws. It totally takes me out of the figure. And, yes, it is me giving such importance to such a feature, but it is objectively "not good". I know these are made for children, but my concern si the same.

But what really "bothers" me is the praise to Safari and the despise to other brands. This is something we have discussed maaaaaaaaaaaaaaany times, but it's still a reality. For me this figure is same quality than the Schleich harpy eagle, which is also "not good". And that one is definitely not defended by anyone here.
Besides, I'm not a dino expert but, accepting that Safari is highly accurate (which I don't know), their dinos are completely weird in colours, vague in patterns, orthopedic in the poses and lazy in feet and hands (I know, they are made for children...). But I know the reactions this may bring and this is only my opinion.

Ah, I don't like the Bullyland either and I don't think I should post the Naturalism owl when making reference to it here, but still:

https://www.yoybuy.com/p/iChaGXkBx8KbCfwodtxh.html

 

[Isidro]

It looks like the small size is really the only "major" flaw; another very solid release from Safari this year.

For me, the only "major" flaw is the excessively big size

[Gwangi]

Well it seems to be a popular figure. It has amassed 12 votes on the blog, which I believe might be the most for any review on the blog. Most reviews average 4-7 votes. Hopefully no one is spamming the votes. Two 1 star votes within a half hour of posting the review seemed kind of suspicious to me. But I know that no one here would do something like that.

[Shane]

I'm not going to comment on a lot of stuff that honestly feels pretty subjective but I will say on the issue of blunt claws - you're not going to find thin or sharp claws on a small child's toy. Make them too thin and they will break off too easily, make them too sharp and they're a hazard.

[SerAndrew]

T

I'm not going to comment on a lot of stuff that honestly feels pretty subjective but I will say on the issue of blunt claws - you're not going to find thin or sharp claws on a small child's toy. Make them too thin and they will break off too easily, make them too sharp and they're a hazard.

As I said, I know. but that doesn't prevent that feature to be "not good".

[EpicRaptorMan]

I don't think anyone expects these claws to be razor sharp but there's a clear quality difference between this and the more detailed feet of the SafariLtd's 291129 Bald Eagle. Which I also own and in fact replaced my old Schleich one.

@SerAndrew thanks for posting the Naturalism one. It does look good. As for Schleich's Harpy Eagle — I actually 'like' it. I find it, particularly the face from a head-on perspective, to be overall better than SafariLtd's attempt at the same species. Although the promo pics of the Schleich Harpy did make it look better...

Going back to SafariLtd's GGO attempt. It doesn't, nor shouldn't, take an ornithologist to see that this figure doesn't like up with typical wild GGO. Unfortunate for such an iconic and instantly recognizable species.

If the toy were substantially larger then I might would consider performing a total repaint on it.