Up-to-date Miragaia Skeletal?

[Concavenator]

I've been wondering whether or not I should replace my Carnegie Miragaia (I'm a collector who cares abou accuracy).

I'm aware of "The Miragaia Project". Last year, they posted the following skeletal on their Facebook, which I'm assuming represents the result of said project (?  ):



To me, it looks like the Carnegie figure:



Resembles that skeleton more closely than PNSO's version:



Which was based on Ashley Patch's skeletal, which was a WIP of the "Miragaia Project" reconstruction:



Is it me or does that skeletal which I'm assuming is the finished one look different from Ashley Patch's? At least, the plates on the anterior part of the body are comparatively smaller than on Ashley Patch's.

Could any stegosaur experts shed light on this? At least, I'm aware of the Carnegie Miragaia having inaccurate manus. But it would be more important for me if it's closer to what we believe it may have looked like (going off by the up-to-date skeletal), and if it really is closer to it than PNSO's version I'll probably keep it.

[Stegotyranno420]

Brother don't ever replace the Carnegie, the price in good condition will inflate to extremely high amounts for resell value.

Or you can give it to me 

[Skorpio V.]

The Miragaia Project started work on that reconstruction in 2019, with the finalized skeletal they stated they would base it on was finalized in late 2019. Ashley Patch stated in late 2020 that hers was the most updated reconstruction which was made with unpublished material through the source of one of the people working on the Miragaia Project.

As far as published material goes, we only have the plates along the neck and one fragment of a spike along the tail, so the middle plates and spikes that cause the most contention are anyone's guess.

[Concavenator]

@Skorpio V. Thank you! It seems the PNSO figure has some sort of edge over the Carnegie when scientific accuracy is concerned after all.

@Stegotyranno420 For now I think I'll keep the Carnegie, at least until more material is properly described. I still prefer Carnegie's version to PNSO's, after all, so if I'm letting it go is because I'm sure it's blatantly wrong.