Safari Ltd. - New for 2023

[Gwangi]

website indicate 2.5 inches long, 1.75 inches tall.
https://www.safariltd.com/products/great-grey-owl-figurine?_pos=6&_sid=8e8fab1b1&_ss=r

Shame, this owl is too ginormous then. I would buy it if smaller,but that's a titanic owl.

You reading those measurements right? Any smaller and this owl would be a good luck mini.

[Gwangi]

This owl is not good...

And the best grey owl is the Naturalism

I don't know what that is and cannot find it in a Google search. Care to share @SerAndrew?

[bmathison1972]

This owl is not good...

And the best grey owl is the Naturalism

I don't know what that is and cannot find it in a Google search. Care to share @SerAndrew?

@Gwangi - Naturalism is an obscure Chinese company. They made the Naturally Adorkable collection I have highlighted on this forum. They also have, among other things, sets of nice eagles and owls. I don't remember the owl, but Naturalism birds are very nice quality usually. I think they are even smaller, however, more inline with Japanese gashapon figures. I too would like to see this owl to refresh my memory.

BTW, I put this Safari owl on my tentative buy list; the botched feet of the Bullyland figure swayed me (especially since the feet are so prominently displayed they way the figure is positioned, it's basically saying 'hey, look at my messed up talons' LOL)

[Gwangi]

This owl is not good...

And the best grey owl is the Naturalism

I don't know what that is and cannot find it in a Google search. Care to share @SerAndrew?

@Gwangi - Naturalism is an obscure Chinese company. They made the Naturally Adorkable collection I have highlighted on this forum. They also have, among other things, sets of nice eagles and owls. I don't remember the owl, but Naturalism birds are very nice quality usually. I think they are even smaller, however, more inline with Japanese gashapon figures. I too would like to see this owl to refresh my memory.

BTW, I put this Safari owl on my tentative buy list; the botched feet of the Bullyland figure swayed me (especially since the feet are so prominently displayed they way the figure is positioned, it's basically saying 'hey, look at my messed up talons' LOL)

Ok. I'm aware of the Naturally Adorkable figures. But it sounds like this owl is probably elusive and expensive which is what I figured. I think I'll remain content with the new Safari figure, which regardless of whatever issue someone may have with it is still a few steps above "not good".

I really didn't think I would have to defend this owl so hard, lol. And it's not because I got a review sample of it that I'm defending it either. I genuinely like it and feel like it's a figure of a species that most people probably need. It must be disheartening for company reps (like @Shane) and sculptors (like Doug Watson) who are probably excited to see the reactions to the figures they've worked hard on only to be met with grief. But we've talked about this at length on the Dinosaur Toy Forum too. Bless their hearts for sticking around these places.

[bmathison1972]

Different figures are going to be met with different reactions for different reasons. Not everything is going to be broadly welcomed by all. Everyone's tastes and criteria for collection differ.

I've highly praised every other Safari announcement this year, even those I am not planning on getting. My only initial comment on the owl is I felt the paint on the face seemed a bit overly bold and exaggerated. Otherwise the sculpt is nice and the more I look at your comparative pic, the size is good for me too.

[Gwangi]

Different figures are going to be met with different reactions for different reasons. Not everything is going to be broadly welcomed by all. Everyone's tastes and criteria for collection differ.

I get that, and that's fine. For some people it might be too large, or too small, and that's all fair. But to say it's "not good" without explanation and refer to some figure who's existence doesn't even have an online presence is unfair. And every figure needs to be taken into context, this is a minuscule toy that will cost $7.99. Honestly, its probably better than it ought to be and people are spoiled. I just see so much focus on the negative in all of these threads on both forums. But focusing on the negative is what people like to do and online is the place to do it. And people read my reviews, it's not like I just heap praise while ignoring faults.

I'm feeling like some commenters don't even know what a great grey owl is or how to identify one. People need to look up the species before passing judgement. This figure looks as much like its target species as you realistically can expect it to. I don't see how that is a matter of opinion. Even if the paint on the face is thick or whatever the fact that they got the markings so spot on is impressive.  And no one has to buy it or anything, I don't care, just be reasonable.

[bmathison1972]

I would never say this figure is 'not good' (and I thought that earlier comment was a bit harsh). And your in-hand pics look much better than the promo pic, thanks!

It's funny how different people react to different figures. Safari's North American porcupine was widely slammed, and I was one of the few who praised the figure, especially given the challenge to translate that morphology into plastic.

I feel paint is often what eventually let's people down with Safari figures. Three great Safari sculpts that I didn't pick because of the paint, and thus bought CollectA's versions, that come to mind are the pygmy hippo, musk ox, and babirusa.

[Gwangi]

I would never say this figure is 'not good' (and I thought that earlier comment was a bit harsh). And your in-hand pics look much better than the promo pic, thanks!

It's funny how different people react to different figures. Safari's North American porcupine was widely slammed, and I was one of the few who praised the figure, especially given the challenge to translate that morphology into plastic.

I feel paint is often what eventually let's people down with Safari figures. Three great Safari sculpts that I didn't pick because of the paint, and thus bought CollectA's versions, that come to mind are the pygmy hippo, musk ox, and babirusa.

I'm not a fan of Safari's porcupine myself but it was a bold endeavor and challenging animal to make, and I can appreciate it for that. And I think that's a fair judgement of something I don't like.

And I understand the criticism over Safari's paint. It bothers me less with prehistoric animals because we don't have living reference points and dinosaurs toys looking like toys adds a degree of charm and nostalgia to them for me. I generally like Safari's colors better than CollectA's on the prehistoric front. But I'm in the same boat as you when it comes to extant animals and have often picked another company over Safari based on paint alone. I picked the Papo bull shark over Safari's for that reason. And sometimes I choose Safari over other companies. I would never want CollectA's anaconda or leopard seal vs. the Safari versions.

[Shane]

I'm here first and foremost for the same reason as most of you - enthusiasm for animal figurines.

Everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion, and I understand if Safari's are not to everyone's taste.

If I feel someone has factually incorrect info, I try to clarify if I can, but I would never want to stop someone from expressing their opinion.

I try not to take criticism personally, though it can be difficult. I appreciate valid criticism and realize you're never going to please everyone.

[Isidro]

@Gwangi - Naturalism is an obscure Chinese company. They made the Naturally Adorkable collection I have highlighted on this forum.

Seriously??? I always tought the Naturally Adorable (or maybe Adorkable as it's spell in the forum everytime??) line comes from a Chinese nature magazine translated as Natural History, and I keep my Tibetan sand fox as "Natural History" brand in my database. I always tought Naturalism owls and eagles were a completely different brand. I would love to learn if I must correct that.

[endogenylove]

@Gwangi - Naturalism is an obscure Chinese company. They made the Naturally Adorkable collection I have highlighted on this forum.

Seriously??? I always tought the Naturally Adorable (or maybe Adorkable as it's spell in the forum everytime??) line comes from a Chinese nature magazine translated as Natural History, and I keep my Tibetan sand fox as "Natural History" brand in my database. I always tought Naturalism owls and eagles were a completely different brand. I would love to learn if I must correct that.

The Natural History line was a line produced in tandem with a certain magazine by Naturalism, from what I understand.

[endogenylove]

This owl is not good...

And the best grey owl is the Naturalism

I don't know what that is and cannot find it in a Google search. Care to share @SerAndrew?

@Gwangi - Naturalism is an obscure Chinese company. They made the Naturally Adorkable collection I have highlighted on this forum. They also have, among other things, sets of nice eagles and owls. I don't remember the owl, but Naturalism birds are very nice quality usually. I think they are even smaller, however, more inline with Japanese gashapon figures. I too would like to see this owl to refresh my memory.

BTW, I put this Safari owl on my tentative buy list; the botched feet of the Bullyland figure swayed me (especially since the feet are so prominently displayed they way the figure is positioned, it's basically saying 'hey, look at my messed up talons' LOL)

Ok. I'm aware of the Naturally Adorkable figures. But it sounds like this owl is probably elusive and expensive which is what I figured. I think I'll remain content with the new Safari figure, which regardless of whatever issue someone may have with it is still a few steps above "not good".

I really didn't think I would have to defend this owl so hard, lol. And it's not because I got a review sample of it that I'm defending it either. I genuinely like it and feel like it's a figure of a species that most people probably need. It must be disheartening for company reps (like @Shane) and sculptors (like Doug Watson) who are probably excited to see the reactions to the figures they've worked hard on only to be met with grief. But we've talked about this at length on the Dinosaur Toy Forum too. Bless their hearts for sticking around these places.

The owl (and both bird sets in general) are relatively easy to find and relatively inexpensive, I got the hawk-eagle for $9, shipping not included.

[EpicRaptorMan]

Yeah when I first saw this reveal my brain didn't even register it as a GGO. 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. Even the unique and dynamic posture is more appealing.
But since we're nitpicking owl feet the Safari's GGO also has some very generic and bland feet/talons as well. Similar to how Safari handled the bland feet of the Eurasian Eagle Owl figure. I've seen Safari sculpt some nice feet/talons from birds of prey and this is not an acceptable compromise.

[bmathison1972]

@Gwangi - Naturalism is an obscure Chinese company. They made the Naturally Adorkable collection I have highlighted on this forum.

Seriously??? I always tought the Naturally Adorable (or maybe Adorkable as it's spell in the forum everytime??) line comes from a Chinese nature magazine translated as Natural History, and I keep my Tibetan sand fox as "Natural History" brand in my database. I always tought Naturalism owls and eagles were a completely different brand. I would love to learn if I must correct that.

The Natural History line was a line produced in tandem with a certain magazine by Naturalism, from what I understand.

Yes, at the time we were unaware the company's formal name was Naturalism.

And the set is called 'Adorkable' (not Adorable), an English term referring to things that are awkward-looking to the point of being cute.

[Gwangi]

Yeah when I first saw this reveal my brain didn't even register it as a GGO. 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. Even the unique and dynamic posture is more appealing.
But since we're nitpicking owl feet the Safari's GGO also has some very generic and bland feet/talons as well. Similar to how Safari handled the bland feet of the Eurasian Eagle Owl figure. I've seen Safari sculpt some nice feet/talons from birds of prey and this is not an acceptable compromise.

I'm so confused by this @EpicRaptorMan .

From All About Birds...

"Great Gray Owls are silvery gray overall—patterned with fine white, gray, and brown streaking and faint barring. Their yellow eyes shine through the fine gray-and-brown concentric circles of the facial disk. Two pale arcs form an "X" between the eyes. Across the neck sits a white "bow tie" marking with a black center. Their bill, if visible, is yellow. Males and females look similar."

The only issue I can see with Safari's is that the beak is more orange than yellow. Otherwise, it has the concentric circles on the facial disc, the pale arcs forming an "X", the yellow eyes, and the "bow tie". Bullyland's does not have white arcs, it has white encircling the entire eye. It has no concentric rings. As for the feet, it's really difficult finding a good picture of a GGO's feet but they are feathered and zygodactyl which makes them leagues more accurate than Bullyland's. The only issue with them that I can see is that the underside of the feet should be scaly and yellow instead of feathered and grey.

I feel like I'm going insane over this owl. I'm looking at pictures of great grey owls, the Safari figure right in front of me, and pictures of Bullyland's and the Safari looks more like the real animal than Bullyland's. Can people at least explain what EXACTLY is wrong with the figure instead of just saying it is wrong. Because that's what I've been trying to do. Support your argument with something so I can see what you're seeing. The review for this thing goes up tomorrow, and guess what, it's gonna be a positive one.

And once again, I'm sharing pictures. How am I wrong about what I'm seeing?







EDIT: Bullyland's also botches the barring on the wings. I wish I could see the back of it so I could see the streaking but there's no pictures of that. Maybe someone that owns it can help? Also, the face on Bullyland's does not appear flat enough.

[Gwangi]

@bmathison1972 here is an image of the GGO with Safari's other owls. It was posted on Safari's Facebook page. Disappointingly it is smaller than all the figures it is pictured with when it should obviously be the largest.

[Shane]

I have to admit I'm a little confused myself @Gwangi about some of the vaguer negative sentiments. As I mentioned I always support people expressing legitimate criticisms and concerns, but people just saying "it's bad" or "it doesn't look like a great grey owl"... at this point I'm a little at a loss for what to say about it.

If someone isn't a fan, that's perfectly okay, I'm just failing to understand some of the more extreme comments.

[suspsy]

Again, I think it's a fine great grey owl.

And yes, there is some size discrepancy going on there. Great grey owls are slightly longer than eagle owls, albeit less than half the weight. Great horned owls appear slightly smaller than great greys, but actually weigh a bit more than them.

[bmathison1972]

Thank you @Gwangi for the comparison pic. Not being strict with scales, the size is fine.

The Safari GGO will be replacing the Bullyland version in my collection!

[EpicRaptorMan]

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.