PNSO - New for 2024

[Shane]

PNSO has shown they like making megalosauroids in general, and when was the last time PNSO made a theropod that isn't a megalosauroid, tyrannosauroid or allosauroid?  The answer is in 2022 when they made Deinocheirus and Therizinosaurus. 

I may be missing something, but wasn't their most recent Spinosaurus in 2023 or 2024?

[Sim]

I may be missing something, but wasn't their most recent Spinosaurus in 2023 or 2024?

The Spinosaurus is from 2023, but it's a megalosauroid.

[Shane]

I may be missing something, but wasn't their most recent Spinosaurus in 2023 or 2024?

The Spinosaurus is from 2023, but it's a megalosauroid.

Ah okay, I misread.

Personally I'd like to see them get back into Ceratosauria. When was their Carnotaurus? Would be nice to see them try out some more Abelisaurids.

[Gwangi]

I may be missing something, but wasn't their most recent Spinosaurus in 2023 or 2024?

The Spinosaurus is from 2023, but it's a megalosauroid.

Ah okay, I misread.

Personally I'd like to see them get back into Ceratosauria. When was their Carnotaurus? Would be nice to see them try out some more Abelisaurids.

I would like to see them do Ceratosaurus!

[Concavenator]

What is exactly wrong with the manus of the Wuerhosaurus?

It can be easily seen in this post's images.

Based on what I've seen, to me appears as if HLG's Stegosaurus ungulatus and PNSO's ML Stegosaurus stenops, while having accurate manus structure, fail in their orientation, they appear to be pronated, when they shouldn't (I'm open to any correction). Off the top of my head, a stegosaur figure with on-point manus depiction is Safari's 2019 Stegosaurus (IMO, still the best Stegosaurus figure around, and a figure I feel is underrated).

@CARN0TAURUS Yeah, but I don't think Tyrannosaurus and those taxa I mentioned are quite equivalent. What happens with Tyrannosaurus is that it receives a disproportionate amount of attention, and has been made to death. But it is very well-known (scientifically). Add to that its historical relevance, and I think, barring how much attention it gets, that the creature itself is a very good choice of animal to make into a figure. Even then, I am both tired of additional Tyrannosaurus figures and tired of figures of carnivorous megatheropods known from scraps. But I definitely think a Tyrannosaurus figure makes more sense than a Tyrannotitan figure, even if the former is yet another T. rex.

The other taxa are pretty much complete fantasy as far as their appearances go (essentially completely borrowed from other alleged relatives) and do not hold any particular scientific relevance. The only reason I can see why they are being made is simply because they belong to groups of animals people like, and also because they're big enough to be comfortably made in 1:35. Other than that, I don't understand why they should have preference over the likes of Dilophosaurus or Gallimimus, for example. Would these two latter species really be poor sellers? If so, then that's something I dislike about the current collecting panorama. I feel like the presence of companies like Safari and CollectA is more crucial than ever, as they offer us the possibility of getting great figures of animals PNSO, Haolonggood or Eofauna would apparently never consider.

@Sim I agree Irritator would be a better choice than Ichthyovenator, even if the former's postcrania is largely unknown.

On the other hand, I'm not sure PNSO is particularly focused on megalosauroids. I get the impression that "megalosauroids" is essentially just spinosaurids with Torvosaurus and Megalosaurus throwed in (and the latter presumably just because of the historical relevance it holds). I doubt they will be offering additional megalosaurids, even if some of them would make for much more interesting choices for figures than the vast majority of theropods they've been releasing. Or abelisaurids too, as S @Shane mentioned (their Carnotaurus was their 1st release of 2021).

[Flaffy]

On the contrary, I would very much welcome an Icthyovenator. Dino Hazard already produced a very nice Irritator, and I'd very much like to replace my old wide-hipped CollectA Icthyovenator for something more updated. Less said about the Mattel versions of those two, the better.

[Sim]

Based on what I've seen, to me appears as if HLG's Stegosaurus ungulatus and PNSO's ML Stegosaurus stenops, while having accurate manus structure, fail in their orientation, they appear to be pronated, when they shouldn't (I'm open to any correction). Off the top of my head, a stegosaur figure with on-point manus depiction is Safari's 2019 Stegosaurus (IMO, still the best Stegosaurus figure around, and a figure I feel is underrated).

The Haolonggood Stegosaurus has hands like in the image you linked to.  They aren't pronated, and neither are those of the PNSO museum line Stegosaurus.  The PNSO does have five visible fingers though.  But, so does the Safari 2019 Stegosaurus!  I agree the Safari is an underrated figure.

Other than that, I don't understand why they should have preference over the likes of Dilophosaurus or Gallimimus, for example. Would these two latter species really be poor sellers? If so, then that's something I dislike about the current collecting panorama. I feel like the presence of companies like Safari and CollectA is more crucial than ever, as they offer us the possibility of getting great figures of animals PNSO, Haolonggood or Eofauna would apparently never consider.

I think Dilophosaurus and Gallimimus are large enough to be made in 1:35 scale by PNSO, they would be around the same size as PNSO's Megalosaurus and Pachycephalosaurus.  What I dislike about the current collecting situation is when companies don't make smaller animals because they want to stick to a scale.  I do care about species being to scale to an exent, but I also want smaller animals.  In the modern animal figure hobby there aren't animals that are too small and lines don't stick to one scale...  I agree that it's important to have Safari and CollectA produce figures of small animals.

I agree Irritator would be a better choice than Ichthyovenator, even if the former's postcrania is largely unknown.

I was reading about Irritator the other night and read that there's disagreement over how many spinosaurids are known from the formation it was found in.  If it's only one, then quite a lot of the postcrania of Irritator is known is my understanding.  It's not an ideal situation...  Ichthyovenator in contrast is known only from postcrania, but the postcrania is unique..  Undescribed Ichthyovenator remains show it has a partial tail sail too.  It could make a unique figure, for those who want it.  I don't think just because Dino Hazard made Irritator, then another shouldn't be made, the DH version is huge, way too big for me.  So I'd be interested in a smaller version by another company.

On the other hand, I'm not sure PNSO is particularly focused on megalosauroids. I get the impression that "megalosauroids" is essentially just spinosaurids with Torvosaurus and Megalosaurus throwed in (and the latter presumably just because of the historical relevance it holds). I doubt they will be offering additional megalosaurids, even if some of them would make for much more interesting choices for figures than the vast majority of theropods they've been releasing.

Well then one could say PNSO hasn't been particularly focused on tyrannosauroids, as if I'm remembering right, they have just been tyrannosaurids with Yutyrannus thrown in.  I think it's accurate to say PNSO has focused on megalosauroids and tyrannosauroids, as that is what they have made and making two megalosaurids + lots of spinosaurids is good megalosauroid representation if you ask me.  Since PNSO seems keen to stick to 1:35 scale I think eventually they'll reach a point where they have to start branching out to less frequently made species, including large dromaeosaurids, abelisaurids and other megalosaurids.  I'm optimistic that we've actually reached that point, hence why PNSO will be making Ichthyovenator.  It fortunately doesn't seem like PNSO wants to replace all their lipless theropods soon, so aside from a lipped Tyrannosaurus and maybe Tarbosaurus (which incorporates the new data about how its skull was very wide), I think we'll keep seeing new species from PNSO for a while still.

[Skorpio V.]

Nice Bary, but I am more than content with the most recent Safari version, so this will be an easy pass. Nice model, though!

Judging by the images and reviews I've seen, the Safari one is almost perfect IMO; the only issue is the teeth being too few and sloppily painted.

Last thing I worry about it tooth count on a 7-inch piece of plastic representing a 33 foot long animal 

Even still, PNSO is able to take this minute detail into account, as per the Suchomimus:

Obviously the hinderances of digital sculpting versus hand sculpting and price differences get in the way of this argument, but it having teeth and other structures of this detail (e.g. Safari and PNSO's Carnotaurus arms) is still something viable in mass-produced models.

Edit: the bottom row of teeth on the Safari Baryonyx is perfectly acceptable?? Why is the top row sculpted so big lmaoo

[Sim]

These choices of animals are making me lose interest in the company altogether, though at least I can save money and space on those figures and instead invest them in figures they produced of actually well-known and important animals like Zuul, Edmontosaurus, Deinocheirus, Suchomimus, etc, I have still to catch up on...

I can understand the feeling of losing interest, I had that before the explosion of diversity we're currently still mostly experiencing in prehistoric animal figures.  It's back when there was an endless stream of ceratopsids, allosauroids, tyrannosauroids and Spinosaurus.  I grew sick of these animals because of how often they were being made and basically nothing else was getting due attention.  I don't feel that resentment anymore and I've become interested in these animals again, because of the good selection of animals now available.
The figures you said you'd like to get are all excellent, I think you'll be very happy with them!

While we're talking about megalosauroids, I would like to say that group name ended up being fitting, the group contains generally large dinosaurs, including some of the largest meat-eaters and the largest meat-eating dinosaur of all!

[bmathison1972]

Nice Bary, but I am more than content with the most recent Safari version, so this will be an easy pass. Nice model, though!

Judging by the images and reviews I've seen, the Safari one is almost perfect IMO; the only issue is the teeth being too few and sloppily painted.

Last thing I worry about it tooth count on a 7-inch piece of plastic representing a 33 foot long animal 

Edit: the bottom row of teeth on the Safari Baryonyx is perfectly acceptable?? Why is the top row sculpted so big lmaoo

The only person who can decide what is perfectly acceptable for my collection is me. You worry about your collection, let me worry about mine.

[Concavenator]

I think Dilophosaurus and Gallimimus are large enough to be made in 1:35 scale by PNSO, they would be around the same size as PNSO's Megalosaurus and Pachycephalosaurus.  What I dislike about the current collecting situation is when companies don't make smaller animals because they want to stick to a scale.  I do care about species being to scale to an exent, but I also want smaller animals.  In the modern animal figure hobby there aren't animals that are too small and lines don't stick to one scale...  I agree that it's important to have Safari and CollectA produce figures of small animals.

I also think Dilophosaurus and Gallimimus are both big enough for 1:35, but they would be smallish figures, around the size of those two you mentioned. And as @Halichoeres suggested, I think when people say they are interested in 1:35 figures in some cases it means they just want big figures, as evidenced both by the fact that the species PNSO is tackling as of late are usually (even if not always) bigger animals than Dilophosaurus or Gallimimus, and also that PNSO's figures are usually a tad bigger than 1:35. But perhaps those two species are eventually coming out from them, I would be very interested (and I'm confident I wouldn't be the only one).

I share exactly the same sentiment about the lack of options for small dinosaurs nowadays in comparison to larger ones. For example, not that I'm interested in a Velociraptor from PNSO or HLG, but I'm quite baffled that they haven't made one yet, nor even a single eudromaeosaur! 

I understand why you'd want an Irritator from PNSO. The Dino Hazard is magnificent, but it is massive. Likewise, the BotM Dilophosaurus is amazing but it's pretty big. I would also appreciate a smaller option from PNSO (or alternatively, a Sinosaurus).

LOL, I hadn't thought about it, but I would agree that PNSO has mostly been focused on tyrannosaurids specifically. After all, and as you mentioned, the only non-tyrannosaurid tyrannosauroid they've released (AFAIK) is just the Yutyrannus. Maybe they will branch out to other non-tyrannosaurid tyrannosauroids like Bistahieversor, but others like Dilong or Guanlong are unlikely to get made IMO, for the same reason as Velociraptor and other small dinosaurs.

I'm also hopeful a point is reached when PNSO is left with no option but to start offering more diversity. I guess we are slowly getting there...

Oh and Spinosaurus is technically not the biggest theropod, that would be Tyrannosaurus. Spinosaurus may be longer, but in biology we consider size by mass. So Tyrannosaurus, being heavier than Spinosaurus, would be bigger.

[Sim]

I don't know why the Wild Safari Baryonyx's upper jaw teeth are so big compared to the accurate lower jaw teeth.  It is peculiar.  Looking at it again, its snout looks too short to me too, more reminiscent of how Baryonyx was reconstructed in the 90s.  This situation reminds me of CollectA revising their Ceratosuchops to have inaccurate dentition.  It's just weird...

[SenSx]

I don't know why the Wild Safari Baryonyx's upper jaw teeth are so big compared to the accurate lower jaw teeth.  It is peculiar.  Looking at it again, its snout looks too short to me too, more reminiscent of how Baryonyx was reconstructed in the 90s.  This situation reminds me of CollectA revising their Ceratosuchops to have inaccurate dentition.  It's just weird...

Yes sad the teeth are right on the lower part but not the upper one.
I also find the snout shorter than other representations of the Baryonyx.
But I have no idea who is right, and if it did have that shorter head, or if its actually just a possibility.

[Sim]

Looking at the Baryonyx skeletals of Jaime Headden and Scott Hartman, the lower jaw which is almost completely preserved in the Baryonyx holotype looks proportionally longer to me than the Wild Safari Baryonyx's.  So I think the Safari Baryonyx does have a head that's too short.

Going back to the CollectA Ceratosuchops, I just don't know why they changed it to be less accurate when they literally produced two Baryonyx figures prior with fine dentition.

[Skorpio V.]

Nice Bary, but I am more than content with the most recent Safari version, so this will be an easy pass. Nice model, though!

Judging by the images and reviews I've seen, the Safari one is almost perfect IMO; the only issue is the teeth being too few and sloppily painted.

Last thing I worry about it tooth count on a 7-inch piece of plastic representing a 33 foot long animal 

Edit: the bottom row of teeth on the Safari Baryonyx is perfectly acceptable?? Why is the top row sculpted so big lmaoo

The only person who can decide what is perfectly acceptable for my collection is me. You worry about your collection, let me worry about mine.

The "perfectly acceptable" portion of my message was talking about how the teeth on the bottom row of the Safari sculpt are an acceptable size for those who do want the accurate tooth count. I should have worded that better, I never intended to impose anything.

[thomasw100]

I also think Dilophosaurus and Gallimimus are both big enough for 1:35, but they would be smallish figures, around the size of those two you mentioned. And as @Halichoeres suggested, I think when people say they are interested in 1:35 figures in some cases it means they just want big figures, as evidenced both by the fact that the species PNSO is tackling as of late are usually (even if not always) bigger animals than Dilophosaurus or Gallimimus, and also that PNSO's figures are usually a tad bigger than 1:35. But perhaps those two species are eventually coming out from them, I would be very interested (and I'm confident I wouldn't be the only one).

In my opinion, the 1:35 scale seems a reasonably good compromise for making a relatively diverse selection of dinosaurs covering the main groups theropoda, sauropodomorpha and ornithischia. This scale is permissive for moderately small genera like Kentrosaurus, Pachycephalosaurus and some of the smaller ceratopsia. At the same time, it is possible to make even the largest sauropods in that scale like Alamosaurus and Argentinosaurus. It also works for quite a number of genera of marine reptiles and large pterosaurs. This wide range would not work in 1:20 scale. OK I have seen some resin models of Mamenchisaurus in 1:20 which are 1.5 meters long, but only few would have the space for and could afford them. The drawback is of course that smaller genera are not produced at all by PNSO and Haolonggood. A good approach could be if they would establish a separate line for smaller genera in something like 1:15 or so. Then there would be one line for the large to medium or even moderately small genera and another one for the small ones but possibly also some medium sized genera.

[SidB]

Nice Bary, but I am more than content with the most recent Safari version, so this will be an easy pass. Nice model, though!

Probably the same here, as I have both the Safari and Favorite versions.

[Flaffy]

I don't know why the Wild Safari Baryonyx's upper jaw teeth are so big compared to the accurate lower jaw teeth.  It is peculiar.  Looking at it again, its snout looks too short to me too, more reminiscent of how Baryonyx was reconstructed in the 90s.  This situation reminds me of CollectA revising their Ceratosuchops to have inaccurate dentition.  It's just weird...

Yes sad the teeth are right on the lower part but not the upper one.
I also find the snout shorter than other representations of the Baryonyx.
But I have no idea who is right, and if it did have that shorter head, or if its actually just a possibility.

I think Doug has explained that the "shortness" is due to the good amount of soft tissue on the head. I recall similar concerns with the 2019 Allosaurus, which were put to rest when compared to a skeletal.

IMO there isn't really a good explaination for the oversized and undercounted teeth on the maxilla though. As it was pretty obvious that Baryonyx's skull was incomplete, and would've otherwise preserved more than 8 teeth on the maxilla. Hence why I'll be retiring my Safari Bary for the new PNSO one.

[Sim]

I don't remember that being raised for the Safari Allosaurus, it looked fine to me from the start.  I don't remember Doug saying anything about the length of the Baryonyx's skull.  In any case I've compared the Safari Baryonyx to Scott Hartman's below.  The head looks too short to me and note that the visible part of the eye of the Safari figure fits in the entire eye socket, which is considered unlikely as the part of the eye containing the sclerotic ring is believed to most likely have been covered with skin.

[Flaffy]

I don't remember that being raised for the Safari Allosaurus, it looked fine to me from the start.  I don't remember Doug saying anything about the length of the Baryonyx's skull.  In any case I've compared the Safari Baryonyx to Scott Hartman's below.  The head looks too short to me and note that the visible part of the eye of the Safari figure fits in the entire eye socket, which is considered unlikely as the part of the eye containing the sclerotic ring is believed to most likely have been covered with skin.

I recall Doug saying that he based the sculpt off of the skull reconstruction from the original paper? (Please correct me if I'm wrong) Rather than Hartman's skeletal. Hence the differing proportions. I have not compared the figure with any skeletal in detail however, so please feel free to do so.