PNSO New for 2025

[thomasw100]

I very much like this one and it will be a first day purchase. The sculpt is just great, the species is interesting and I actually like the simple green pattern. It is sufficiently different from all the striped ones. It reminds me of their Spinops just with much more refined surface texture.

One explanation for the fact that they made now 4 ceratopsians in a row could be as follows: When they created the Lokiceratops in a collaborative project with the scientists which discovered and described the species they must have lived up to an exceptionally high expectation to make a scientifically very accurate model. So they had to invest a lot of resources of their team into researching the current state of knowledge about anatomy and paleontology of ceratopsians. They are now taking advantage to all the knowledge and experience they have accumulated by producing a few more ceratopsians.

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

I suppose now us theropod enjoyers know how everyone else felt lol, regardless this is definitely a nice model and I'll probably pick it up

[DefinitelyNOTDilo]

I like the mouth details. Paint application is different to previous 3 releases and first time there are no specific paint patterns on frill. Some details in that area remind me a bit of their pachyrhinosaurus release. Pose is dynamic enough and I believe it will be good fit with other 3 newest ceratopsians.

Coronasaurus is very nice, although we are yet to have super exciting model released this year. As for ceratopsians, I would not mind re-do of Torosaurus or Triceratops.

I'm struggling to think of reasons why Torosaurus & Triceratops need redoing? Both have PNSO's current manufacturing quality and finer detailing, both are anatomically sound and there's been no subsequent discoveries or papers that have rendered either inaccurate (yes, I'm aware that AMNH 5116 has a problematic frill, but still)

I will say that while i think the Torosaurus is incredible and quite possibly their best figure to date, the triceratops admittedly does have issues, both with the skull being based off of a specimen now thought to be a Torosaurus that was plastered over to look like triceratops, and the frill being covered in Keratin when impressions show it would have scales. I would not be opposed to a new one, but at the same time I'm happy with my repainted eofauna, and will likely get HLG's to go with it soon enough.

[Trenchcoated Rebbachisaur]

Allegedly the "Shrunk Dunk" paper is being heavily criticized by Devonian fish specialists, and a rebuttal might be on the way; so if that's the issue, the Dunkleosteus should be fine? But I also heard all of that second hand so idk how reliable that info is.

I suppose now us theropod enjoyers know how everyone else felt lol, regardless this is definitely a nice model and I'll probably pick it up

Give it a couple more months before making statements like that

[Chasmosaurus]

• Figures that have a combination of more than one of those faults (Ankylosaurus, Parasaurolophus, Carnotaurus)

Oh. I didn't know their parasaurolophus and Ankylosaurus had such flaws. What are they exactly?

[suspsy]

• Figures that have a combination of more than one of those faults (Ankylosaurus, Parasaurolophus, Carnotaurus)

Oh. I didn't know their parasaurolophus and Ankylosaurus had such flaws. What are they exactly?

The Ankylosaurus has a sharp bend in its tail near the club that makes it look like it's broken.

[stargatedalek]

Allegedly the "Shrunk Dunk" paper is being heavily criticized by Devonian fish specialists, and a rebuttal might be on the way; so if that's the issue, the Dunkleosteus should be fine? But I also heard all of that second hand so idk how reliable that info is.

It's not so much that "old Dunkleosteus is accurate" so much as the reconstructions included in that paper were likely an over-correction.

https://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=9367.120

[Sim]

The newest PNSO Triceratops doesn't have a keratin-covered frill, the scales on it are just very small.  Is the specimen it's based on considered to be a Torosaurus now?  It's still considered a Triceratops on Wikipedia..  If it is a Torosaurus I would have to replace the PNSO figure with the 2018 Safari Triceratops.

[SidB]

I very much like this one and it will be a first day purchase. The sculpt is just great, the species is interesting and I actually like the simple green pattern. It is sufficiently different from all the striped ones. It reminds me of their Spinops just with much more refined surface texture.

One explanation for the fact that they made now 4 ceratopsians in a row could be as follows: When they created the Lokiceratops in a collaborative project with the scientists which discovered and described the species they must have lived up to an exceptionally high expectation to make a scientifically very accurate model. So they had to invest a lot of resources of their team into researching the current state of knowledge about anatomy and paleontology of ceratopsians. They are now taking advantage to all the knowledge and experience they have accumulated by producing a few more ceratopsians.

As an affectionado of ceratopsians and an admirer of PNSO's work on them in general, for me this is all to the good. But something quite different would be best for the next release.

[MLMjp]

The newest PNSO Triceratops doesn't have a keratin-covered frill, the scales on it are just very small.  Is the specimen it's based on considered to be a Torosaurus now?  It's still considered a Triceratops on Wikipedia..  If it is a Torosaurus I would have to replace the PNSO figure with the 2018 Safari Triceratops.

Considering how different AMNH 5116 looks from your typical Triceratops skull, the fact that most of the frill is reconstructed with plaster, and if you compare it with other skulls from Torosaurus you definitely see some similarities... it wouldn't surprise me.

AMNH 5116 "Triceratops" is top row third collum:

[GojiraGuy1954]

I like the mouth details. Paint application is different to previous 3 releases and first time there are no specific paint patterns on frill. Some details in that area remind me a bit of their pachyrhinosaurus release. Pose is dynamic enough and I believe it will be good fit with other 3 newest ceratopsians.

Coronasaurus is very nice, although we are yet to have super exciting model released this year. As for ceratopsians, I would not mind re-do of Torosaurus or Triceratops.

I'm struggling to think of reasons why Torosaurus & Triceratops need redoing? Both have PNSO's current manufacturing quality and finer detailing, both are anatomically sound and there's been no subsequent discoveries or papers that have rendered either inaccurate (yes, I'm aware that AMNH 5116 has a problematic frill, but still)

The figures that are actually in need of redoing are the ones that have:

• Less finer textures and details (Pachyrhinosaurus, Sauropelta)

• Their earlier, less anatomically correct and/or out of scale figures (Corythosaurus)

• Animals that have had big changes to their reconstructions thanks to new studies (Dunkleosteus)

• The lipless theropods (Tyrannosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus, Megalosaurus)

• Figures that have a combination of more than one of those faults (Ankylosaurus, Parasaurolophus, Carnotaurus)

Neither of them have an exoparia

[oscars_dinos]

if there's ever enough evidence to prove the pnso tric is actually a toro then I'll just repaint it to match pnso's toro and have a little family lol

[oscars_dinos]

Oh also the new figure is great and in its simplicity is actually ver refreshing. I wonder if it will be darker or brighter in hand

[MLMjp]

if there's ever enough evidence to prove the pnso tric is actually a toro then I'll just repaint it to match pnso's toro and have a little family lol

It would need more than that if that's the case because the frill of the animal would be reconstructed wrong. You will need to modify and make it longer.

[oscars_dinos]

if there's ever enough evidence to prove the pnso tric is actually a toro then I'll just repaint it to match pnso's toro and have a little family lol

It would need more than that if that's the case beacause then the frill of the animal would be reconstructed wrong. You will need to modify and make it longer.

nothing a lil clay can't do lol

[Joel1905]

• Figures that have a combination of more than one of those faults (Ankylosaurus, Parasaurolophus, Carnotaurus)

Oh. I didn't know their parasaurolophus and Ankylosaurus had such flaws. What are they exactly?

The Parasaurolophus is too big and its neck and forelimbs are too skinny.

The Ankylosaurus is too big, it doesn't have PNSO's modern texturing and its tail is inaccurate as we know now that it couldn't bend like that.

[Joel1905]

I like the mouth details. Paint application is different to previous 3 releases and first time there are no specific paint patterns on frill. Some details in that area remind me a bit of their pachyrhinosaurus release. Pose is dynamic enough and I believe it will be good fit with other 3 newest ceratopsians.

Coronasaurus is very nice, although we are yet to have super exciting model released this year. As for ceratopsians, I would not mind re-do of Torosaurus or Triceratops.

I'm struggling to think of reasons why Torosaurus & Triceratops need redoing? Both have PNSO's current manufacturing quality and finer detailing, both are anatomically sound and there's been no subsequent discoveries or papers that have rendered either inaccurate (yes, I'm aware that AMNH 5116 has a problematic frill, but still)

The figures that are actually in need of redoing are the ones that have:

• Less finer textures and details (Pachyrhinosaurus, Sauropelta)

• Their earlier, less anatomically correct and/or out of scale figures (Corythosaurus)

• Animals that have had big changes to their reconstructions thanks to new studies (Dunkleosteus)

• The lipless theropods (Tyrannosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus, Megalosaurus)

• Figures that have a combination of more than one of those faults (Ankylosaurus, Parasaurolophus, Carnotaurus)

Neither of them have an exoparia

Not a big enough reason. Bear in mind the authors of the paper still say they could be wrong, so time will tell.

In the meantime, giving their rictus a repaint will give the impression of an exoparia.

[Joel1905]

I like the mouth details. Paint application is different to previous 3 releases and first time there are no specific paint patterns on frill. Some details in that area remind me a bit of their pachyrhinosaurus release. Pose is dynamic enough and I believe it will be good fit with other 3 newest ceratopsians.

Coronasaurus is very nice, although we are yet to have super exciting model released this year. As for ceratopsians, I would not mind re-do of Torosaurus or Triceratops.

I'm struggling to think of reasons why Torosaurus & Triceratops need redoing? Both have PNSO's current manufacturing quality and finer detailing, both are anatomically sound and there's been no subsequent discoveries or papers that have rendered either inaccurate (yes, I'm aware that AMNH 5116 has a problematic frill, but still)

I will say that while i think the Torosaurus is incredible and quite possibly their best figure to date, the triceratops admittedly does have issues, both with the skull being based off of a specimen now thought to be a Torosaurus that was plastered over to look like triceratops, and the frill being covered in Keratin when impressions show it would have scales. I would not be opposed to a new one, but at the same time I'm happy with my repainted eofauna, and will likely get HLG's to go with it soon enough.

AMNH 5116 is not "now thought to be a Torosaurus". There's been no such paper published, nor statement made by any palaeontologists that I know of. Also the frill does have scales, they're just very fine.

[Pliosaurking]

Definitely the year of ceratopsians from them, and I can't complain. They are my favourite group of dinosaurs, so I'm happy to add a new one to the collection. Figure looks great, I'm gonna order it and a few other figures soon.

[Dino_W]

I like the mouth details. Paint application is different to previous 3 releases and first time there are no specific paint patterns on frill. Some details in that area remind me a bit of their pachyrhinosaurus release. Pose is dynamic enough and I believe it will be good fit with other 3 newest ceratopsians.

Coronasaurus is very nice, although we are yet to have super exciting model released this year. As for ceratopsians, I would not mind re-do of Torosaurus or Triceratops.

I'm struggling to think of reasons why Torosaurus & Triceratops need redoing? Both have PNSO's current manufacturing quality and finer detailing, both are anatomically sound and there's been no subsequent discoveries or papers that have rendered either inaccurate (yes, I'm aware that AMNH 5116 has a problematic frill, but still)

I will say that while i think the Torosaurus is incredible and quite possibly their best figure to date, the triceratops admittedly does have issues, both with the skull being based off of a specimen now thought to be a Torosaurus that was plastered over to look like triceratops, and the frill being covered in Keratin when impressions show it would have scales. I would not be opposed to a new one, but at the same time I'm happy with my repainted eofauna, and will likely get HLG's to go with it soon enough.

AMNH 5116 is not "now thought to be a Torosaurus". There's been no such paper published, nor statement made by any palaeontologists that I know of. Also the frill does have scales, they're just very fine.

5116 is not definitively a Torosaurus, but its classification as a Triceratops specimen is equally questionable. Plus, regardless of whether or not the specimen is Torosaurus, the reconstructed frill has some very unusual proportions for Triceratops and is perhaps not a good representative of the genus.