PNSO : New for 2023

[sage2k]

Rebor Diplo is 13cm at the hip (including back spikes)

[Bread]

My apologies to post a custom, but I figure this is probably one of those "How to make a figure more perfect" kind of scenarios.

Seriously though, I'd argue this is the best PNSO therapod.











Edit: Totally forgot! This is a repaint done by dinosaur_models_artworks

[TheImmortalEye]

My apologies to post a custom, but I figure this is probably one of those "How to make a figure more perfect" kind of scenarios.

Seriously though, I'd argue this is the best PNSO therapod.











Edit: Totally forgot! This is a repaint done by dinosaur_models_artworks

I think were on an amazing track in terms of accuracy , paint etc with pnso when i can honestly argue the original is better to me personally, since at that point its 100 percent personal taste, to me this one negates the real animal vibe too much for a gaming pc good looking vibe and i honestly can imagine allosaurus( saurophaganax )lookin exactly like it. But both are absolutely fantastic

[ceratopsian]

I think that is an absolutely stunning repaint @Bread. But then I'm partial to black/grey tones. It's very subtly done.

[Faelrin]

@Bread I like it better then the original, but that's because it reminds me of my childhood favorite Ballad of Big Al.

[mgaguilar]

Just in time for PNSO to end their theropod streak, the PNSO coupon on Amazon in the US is back! Now it's 17% off instead of 15%. It looks to be applicable to all their listings.

[dragon53]

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Picked up the Alamosaurus, Saurophaganax , Albertosaurus and Megalosaurus from Lana.

[Quiversaurus]

Picked up the Alamosaurus, Saurophaganax , Albertosaurus and Megalosaurus from Lana.

Looking forward to pictures and/or reviews!

[acro-man]

Just watched a video by Zhao Chuang on "The Making of Alamosaurus" (they have been releasing mulitple videos for each of their models. One of which is "making-of", the others are "how to paint").
It covered a lot of the details, including our concerns.
The inclusion of the beak is a popular speculation for a late Cretaceous titan whose head was never found. Didn't say why the teeth are protruding though.
The inclusion of thumb nails is supported by a complete forelimb fossil of a titan found in Australia a couple of years ago (didn't specify which). For a long time, the thumb nails were believed to be non-existent until this finding.
He also addressed the hollow, muscular, stiff neck, the 2 possible arrangements of the spikes, the size estimate based on lengths of ribs, different types of scales, etc.
And that's not just one video.
As I mentioned, there is a video detailing all the science evidence behind the decisions they made for ALL of their dinosaurs, which taught me a lot.
Sure their paint is sometimes sloppy, their details muddy, their reconstruction controversial, there is no denying that their dinosaurs were casually made without profound study of any fossil evidence.
That makes me feel much safer to put my money in a PNSO figure and hoping to call it accurate in the next few years.



Which brings to the next topic - lips vs lipless.
People say there's a "trend" for lips nowadays.  "The lipless era finally ends!"    "All Hail to Lips!"
Well, that's not the case. Sorry to disappoint.
The videos explained it all, which I within my limited knowledge can't articulate.
In short, some were lipless and some had lips, just like other animals.
Most mammals have fur. Elephant and man are naked. Mammoth and apes had fur. It's called diversity.
Dinosaurs also had diversity, it's decided by their diet, teeth size, jaw proportions etc.
PNSO got that into consideration and made what they are.
There's no trend. Only science (based on their understanding of course. I am for the lips!)

[Carnoking]

If it was simply a question of different animals sporting different features, I fail to see why they would leave their Allosaurus lipless but put lips on their Saurophaganax when some argue the latter is just a sizable Allosaurus.

[Tracewyrm!]

If it was simply a question of different animals sporting different features, I fail to see why they would leave their Allosaurus lipless but put lips on their Saurophaganax when some argue the latter is just a sizable Allosaurus.

I could see PNSO skipping out on lips for something like Spinosaurus (and maybe closely related animals), where there is an argument to be made for liplessness depending on lifestyle, but other than that I'm positive that lips are here to stay for most theropods moving forward.

[Joel1905]

If it was simply a question of different animals sporting different features, I fail to see why they would leave their Allosaurus lipless but put lips on their Saurophaganax when some argue the latter is just a sizable Allosaurus.

Yeah I think this is just PNSO protecting their older models so people don't stop buying them.

The Allosaurus & Sinraptor were lipless, and now their Saurophaganax and Yangchuanosaurus are now lipped. Doesn't line up with that comment does it?

I just hope we get lipped versions of their previous theropods over the next year or so, especially the likes of Tyrannosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Carnotaurus etc.

[dinofelid]

The Allosaurus & Sinraptor were lipless, and now their Saurophaganax and Yangchuanosaurus are now lipless. Doesn't line up with that comment does it?

The new Saurophaganax and Yangchuanosaurus seem to have lips judging by images on the amazon page. My guess is that PNSO just changed their policy on theropod lips because of the new March 2023 paper at https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo7877 which was discussed at https://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=10765

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Picked up the Alamosaurus, Saurophaganax , Albertosaurus and Megalosaurus from Lana.

Looking forward to pictures and/or reviews!

Pics yes, reviews..maybe some minor thoughts? I think others do a better job of it

[Quiversaurus]

Pics yes, reviews..maybe some minor thoughts? I think others do a better job of it

Any thoughts are welcome, as are any pics (:

[Prehistory Resurrection]

[TheCambrianCrusader]

Just watched a video by Zhao Chuang on "The Making of Alamosaurus" (they have been releasing mulitple videos for each of their models. One of which is "making-of", the others are "how to paint").
It covered a lot of the details, including our concerns.
The inclusion of the beak is a popular speculation for a late Cretaceous titan whose head was never found. Didn't say why the teeth are protruding though.
The inclusion of thumb nails is supported by a complete forelimb fossil of a titan found in Australia a couple of years ago (didn't specify which). For a long time, the thumb nails were believed to be non-existent until this finding.
He also addressed the hollow, muscular, stiff neck, the 2 possible arrangements of the spikes, the size estimate based on lengths of ribs, different types of scales, etc.
And that's not just one video.
As I mentioned, there is a video detailing all the science evidence behind the decisions they made for ALL of their dinosaurs, which taught me a lot.
Sure their paint is sometimes sloppy, their details muddy, their reconstruction controversial, there is no denying that their dinosaurs were casually made without profound study of any fossil evidence.
That makes me feel much safer to put my money in a PNSO figure and hoping to call it accurate in the next few years.



Which brings to the next topic - lips vs lipless.
People say there's a "trend" for lips nowadays.  "The lipless era finally ends!"    "All Hail to Lips!"
Well, that's not the case. Sorry to disappoint.
The videos explained it all, which I within my limited knowledge can't articulate.
In short, some were lipless and some had lips, just like other animals.
Most mammals have fur. Elephant and man are naked. Mammoth and apes had fur. It's called diversity.
Dinosaurs also had diversity, it's decided by their diet, teeth size, jaw proportions etc.
PNSO got that into consideration and made what they are.
There's no trend. Only science (based on their understanding of course. I am for the lips!)

I believe the Australian titanosaur is probably Diamantinasaurus.

[Flaffy]

Just watched a video by Zhao Chuang on "The Making of Alamosaurus" (they have been releasing mulitple videos for each of their models. One of which is "making-of", the others are "how to paint").
It covered a lot of the details, including our concerns.
The inclusion of the beak is a popular speculation for a late Cretaceous titan whose head was never found. Didn't say why the teeth are protruding though.
The inclusion of thumb nails is supported by a complete forelimb fossil of a titan found in Australia a couple of years ago (didn't specify which). For a long time, the thumb nails were believed to be non-existent until this finding.
He also addressed the hollow, muscular, stiff neck, the 2 possible arrangements of the spikes, the size estimate based on lengths of ribs, different types of scales, etc.
And that's not just one video.
As I mentioned, there is a video detailing all the science evidence behind the decisions they made for ALL of their dinosaurs, which taught me a lot.
Sure their paint is sometimes sloppy, their details muddy, their reconstruction controversial, there is no denying that their dinosaurs were casually made without profound study of any fossil evidence.
That makes me feel much safer to put my money in a PNSO figure and hoping to call it accurate in the next few years.

I believe the Australian titanosaur is probably Diamantinasaurus.

Note on Diamantinasaurus:

While it's well known by now that titanosaur phylogeny is one big mess (pun intended), Carballido et al. 2022 along with other papers have consistently found Diamantinasaurus to lie outside of the "derived Titanosaurs". (Now as to how "derived Titanosaur" is defined is a whole other can of worms) Point is, Diamantinasaurus is generally considered a more basal member of Titanosauria, and as such retains more primitive features that may very well have been lost in later members of the family.

Other sauropod paleontologists/enthusiasts have also expressed that Australian titanosaurs might just be doing their own thing, separate to the other titanosaur groups around the world. This isn't an implausible hypothesis IMO as the Australian landmass was gradually getting more isolated around the Late Cretaceous, to the point where an entirely separate clade called Diamantinasauria has been proposed (and have been found to be relatively stable). Not sure if there's been any work done on testing this officially though.

Quote from Savannasaurus's wikipedia page, a basal Australian titanosaur in the clade Diamantinasauria:
"The presence of phalanges is unusual; all titanosaurs but Savannasaurus and Diamantinasaurus had hands formed only by metacarpals."

Phylogeny of select Titanosaurs from Patagotitan's wikipedia page:


I am presently not convinced that the lithostrotian Alamosaurus would have retained it's phalanges. An equivalent error(?) would be reconstructing say a Tyrannosaurus with 3 fingers because the basal tyrannosauroid Yutyrannus also had 3. See how this line of thinking doesn't really make sense when current evidence points to the contrary?

[TheCambrianCrusader]

Ah ok, I was reading that Diamantinasaurus was more basal but had no idea where it belonged on the tree. I know next to nothing about titanosaur phylogenetics. Thanks for the clear up!