Review: 76969 Dinosaur Fossils: Triceratops Skull
Posted by CapnRex101,The reception for 76964 Dinosaur Fossils: T. rex Skull was overwhelmingly positive, immediately showing the potential of this format. Discussion quickly moved to other potential fossils and the Triceratops is a good choice, in 76969 Dinosaur Fossils: Triceratops Skull.
The model seems very detailed, although there are challenges in translating a Triceratops' skull to LEGO form, given its enormous bony plates, which are obviously not shared by the T. rex.
Summary
76969 Dinosaur Fossils: Triceratops Skull, 468 pieces.
£39.99 / $44.99 / €44.99 | 8.5p/9.6c/9.6c per piece.
Buy at LEGO.com »
I like the Triceratops skull, but it suffers in comparisons with its T. rex counterpart
- Great attention to detail
- Excellent display stand
- Attractive on display beside 76964
- Inferior to the T. rex skull
- A little too expensive
The set was provided for review by LEGO. All opinions expressed are those of the author.
Minifigure
Unlike 76964 Dinosaur Fossils: T. rex Skull, this set comes with a minifigure. I am not entirely convinced this is necessary, particularly since this is a generic character, but the unique torso looks excellent, featuring the classic Jurassic Park logo. I have no doubt this element will be a popular choice for custom minifigures.
Moreover, this head has only appeared once before, in 76439 Ollivanders & Madam Malkin's Robes. Its sienna colour is highly unusual and the hair piece is appealing too, featuring lovely sculpted texture.
The minifigure comes with a tan tooth, presumably representing a small Triceratops bone, or perhaps making reference to Dr. Alan Grant's cherished Velociraptor claw. Other accessories are attached to the actual model.
The Completed Model
I was pleased with the composition of 76964 Dinosaur Fossils: T. rex Skull, featuring the titular skull at an angle beside a T. rex footprint. This model follows much the same format and looks superb too, although it lacks the variety of colour because the foliage is gone and the cast of a footprint has been swapped for a minifigure-scale Triceratops skeleton under excavation.
Despite these differences, the pair are similar enough to be displayed together. Their colours match quite well and the stickered plaques are close in style, though not identical. However, I find it strange that the Triceratops skull is attached at an angle and on a shorter stanchion than the T. rex skull.
I find the angled position quite appealing, although it slightly spoils the consistency with 76964 Dinosaur Fossils: T. rex Skull. The angle is not required for stability either, as the display stand slots into a hole on the underside of the skull, akin to Ultimate Collector Series models. You can thus display the skull separately should you wish, though it looks much better on its stand.
The detailed T-rex footprint was one of my favourite aspects of the previous model, so I would have liked a corresponding Triceratops footprint here. Admittedly, many dinosaur prints appear quite similar when simplified, but the four-toed Triceratops could look distinctive. Even so, I also appreciate the minifigure-scale Triceratops skeleton, which compares well with the minifigure.
Only one sticker is included, forming the plaque in front of the Triceratops excavation. The gold finish mirrors the plaque from 76964 Dinosaur Fossils: T. rex Skull, although this sticker adorns a dark bluish grey ramp element instead of a 4x8 inverted tile. Either looks nice, but I wish they matched completely.
Regardless of these differences, I like the presentation stand for the Triceratops skull and the printed piece of amber at the back is a fun detail, again shared with the earlier Tyrannosaurus rex skull. Additionally, the sand green accents around the base are attractive, resembling moss growing on rocks.
The skull itself is paramount, of course. I think this design is more challenging that the T. rex in certain respects, as the Triceratops' skull features much larger bony plates and recreating their complex curvature is inherently difficult. With that in mind, I think the designer has managed the overall shape quite well, albeit with some compromises.
The structure immediately behind the jaw, for instance, looks rather chunky. I can see why the 1x3 inverted curved slopes are included, forming the Triceratops' pronounced quadrate bones, but the structure supporting them is essentially non-existent, on real skulls. Although the bulky structure was probably unavoidable, it still looks awkward.
Similarly, the jaw could be improved. Its thickness does change along the bone, but not nearly as abruptly as this model suggests. The 1x2 slopes with cutouts look completely wrong, in my opinion. On the other hand, I am happy the jaw is articulated and the shape of the Triceratops' characteristic beak is authentic.
I love the fenestrae where the Triceratops' nostrils and sinuses would once have been, as well as the nasal horn. Moreover, the shape of the skull between the nasal bone and the round eye sockets is generally realistic, but the actual eye sockets leave much to be desired. They should be hollow, so using 4x4 round plates with 2x2 curved corner tiles does not yield nearly enough depth.
The horns are not ideal either, as they look unrealistically thin. However, I am more forgiving of this because there are very few options for building horns and recreating their curvature, which is probably of greater importance than their width. The distinctive frill certainly looks good, even though its curvature is necessarily simplified.
There are no major gaps between sections of the frill and I love how 2x2 curved wedge slopes have been used for the points, known as epoccipitals. Unsurprisingly, the view from the rear is less appealing because much of the structure is exposed and the grey elements appear out of place, surrounded by shades of tan. However, the Triceratops' specialised ball and socket neck joint looks absolutely perfect.
Overall
The budding Dinosaur Fossils series began with an exceptional model and achieving the same standard with subsequent sets was likely to prove difficult. 76969 Dinosaur Fossils: Triceratops Skull suffers accordingly. The designer has definitely captured plenty of detail, but this model is simply not as suited to display as 76964 Dinosaur Fossils: T. rex Skull, unfortunately.
Similarly, while I like the small-scale Triceratops skeleton, I prefer the footprint cast displayed beside the T. rex skull. Even the price compares poorly with the previous model because they are close in size and the Triceratops skull contains fewer pieces, but its price of £39.99, $44.99 or €44.99 is higher. Despite these issues, I do think this is a reasonable set as a whole, albeit one inferior to its precursor.
86 likes
35 comments on this article
This pairs up with the T-Rex one so damn fantastic.
Would be really cool if it didn’t have so many studs showing.
I've had the T Rex skull waiting to be built since it was released. Now I gotta find the time to actually build it.
I really don't like this set for some reason. Pass.
Eye socket representation is lacklustre, particularly as this is the first thing that draws atttention when you see the image. Shame in an otherwise nice depection. The minifgure is juts unusual and could have been skipped at the expense of a name plate matching that of the T-Rex if this is to be an ongoing series.
I like the skull, but the minifigure and mini build are unnecessary for this kind of display set and he plaque is sitting almost flat on the ground instead of being positioned up like with the t. rex.
Why there is a figure here and that Digging site? It adds nothing and skull itself could use that budget. The lack of holes in the eyes really damages the look of this otherwise great looking build
No "reference" photo this time? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triceratops or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Big_John_triceratops_sold_at_auction_in_Paris.jpg would help the non-paleontologists amongst us ;)
A bit of a mess to be honest. I'll stick with 21320!
Round skull with little supporting structure IRL difficult to turn into mostly stable blocky Lego set. More news at 10.
Seriously though, it looks pretty good, but the very nature of Lego and set design in general means the rounder and thinner the real thing is, at reasonable scales/price the product isn't going to look as good as the real thing. Still matches great with the T.rex one though, a worthy addition to the Dino Skull Selection.
Super excited for this! Probably a Day One pickup for me.
What is going on with the minifig's alt face? It looks like a paint error or the head is cracked.
@Loerwyn said:
"What is going on with the minifig's alt face? It looks like a paint error or the head is cracked."
Reflection of the piece it holds in its claw?
Looks cool but it’s too dissimilar to the trex one that I won’t be buying it, I was hoping they’d be more consistent
I like it! Might buy this, and the T-Rex as well.
I like the little added excavation site and i like the minifig too. The minifig feels a bit out of place, but i can use the hair and torso for other builds, so yay.
Now let’s see what the lego team can add as side-build for a flying dino and a water dino.
Is it possible that the side build is an easter egg for use with the Natural History museum? If so, then this improves both this set and that set for me.
@Moviuro said:
" @Loerwyn said:
"What is going on with the minifig's alt face? It looks like a paint error or the head is cracked."
Reflection of the piece it holds in its claw?"
Yes, I think that’s correct.
I think they tilted the head so the height was the same as the t-rex...?
@CapnRex101 I'm guessing the difference in height is because the footprint is taller than the dig site and they didn't want it blocking the skull. However, next to the new set the T-Rex stand looks too tall (to me).
The skull is OK but as before, it is a shame they went with the movie branding for these. The figure is totally unnecessary as is the excavation site. And now the eye sockets have been pointed out, it does detract from the rest of the design.
@MandoEli37 said:
"Would be really cool if it didn’t have so many studs showing."
Eh, I like that it looks like actual Lego.
Inferior? Hard disagree there. This is on par with the T-Rex!
I wonder if subbing in black or brown 4x4 plates would improve the eye sockets by appearing to add depth? But in any case I love this set, although I will probably MOC a footprint to match T Rex and move the other elements into the NHM when I get that later on (nice suggestion, yellowcastle!).
My only nitpick is the eye socket, otherwise I really like this.
The minifigure and dig section is nice. A footprint for the T-Rex is iconic from the JP movies, but a Triceratops footprint, not so much, so I think the alternative is fine. Plus the minifigure could pass as Kelly from TLW. Love that torso print too!
@chrisaw said:
"My only nitpick is the eye socket, otherwise I really like this.
The minifigure and dig section is nice. A footprint for the T-Rex is iconic from the JP movies, but a Triceratops footprint, not so much, so I think the alternative is fine. Plus the minifigure could pass as Kelly from TLW. Love that torso print too!"
Kelly from The L Word? I don't think that resembles Elizabeth Berkley. The eyes are the same color, and Berkley has heterochromia.
@Brickodillo said:
"Now let’s see what the lego team can add as side-build for a flying dino and a water dino. "
Yeah, I started wondering, partway through the review, what the side builds for further sets in this series might be.
Unfortunately, the proper part for the eyes 11830/28620/29337 does not exist in the proper colour (brick yellow/tan) but even if it does appear in the future, that only solve one small layer. It has to be seen if the skull can be properly hollowed without removing all the structural integrity.
To me the main problem with this set is the pedestal for the skull. Lego should have made the 'rock' part much bigger to completely hide the lower diagonal black Technic parts (should be easily done with a few extra parts - but that truly should have been done by Lego in the first place imo).
I feel like including a side build leads to an inherent issue down the line. Not every dinosaur will have a distinct footprint, nor will they all have a distinct trace fossil / imprint to include... though I do think with more careful choices it could've been achieved. We could've gotten coprolite for the Triceratops, but I feel like the Triceratops maybe wasn't the best choice for the second addition... but I suppose it IS one of the more famous kid-favourite dinos out there.
Personally I'd love to see Ammonites (using Opal Black pieces for the shell), Trilobites, and the famous Archaeopteryx fossil recreated embedded in stone. For skulls there's still many to choose from: Spinosaurus, Ichthyosaur, Pteranodons, and Hadrosaurids would all make for distinct builds (especially a crested Hadrosaurid).
Looks a bit messy compared to T-Rex...
that is definately not a minifigure-scale Triceratops skeleton
I thought this was a creature from Lego Horizon as didn't recognize as a Triceratops, possibly as missing 3rd central nose horn and the frills need to be exaggerated more. Although this may lead to a smaller head, which already suffers from far less detail possible than the T-Rex. Overall, good reminder to buy 76964 .
@BelgianBricker said:
"that is definately not a minifigure-scale Triceratops skeleton"
That's exactly what I was thinking, unless it's a juvenile.
I understand why the frill is so study, making something that thin while also trying to capture the exact shape in addition to maintaining stability is difficult.
I can’t excuse the eye sockets though. They really needed to move the display stand column forward or back, or put in black tiles to at least fake that depth.
I know it's not intentional but something's a little funny about calling a darker skintone "unusual." :P
I see that they now try desperately to pump up sales with an exclusive minifigure and justify the price increase over the last model even though it has 100 parts less. And why is the plaque laying flat like that and not at the same angle as before, so these would actually look like they belong to the same collection?