Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[Concavenator]

I see why some of you may consider 2020/2021 as their best time. But I think PNSO is at their best right now. Yes, they release fewer figures now, but in exchange, we're getting higher quality figures.

When it comes to their 2021 figures (and thereby 2020 too) I find at least 1 problem with most of the figures, as in accuracy wise (that's not to say they're bad, just imperfect). Even in 2021, when they switched to a subtle scaling work, I have at least 1 problem with all of their theropods (lips aside), except, surprisingly, the juvenile Tyrannosaurus! I don't see that with their theropods from last year, I think they were all great (except the Sinraptor, whose skull was modelled after a deformed one, plus showing off the tooth replacement process and having a too scrawny tail). Same for this year, I might be interested or not in a new figure from them based on the taxon and the price, but they're doing a really good job. My only complaints are the lack of lips and the prices, though the latter aspect might be influenced by me living in a western country. If I was chinese, I would be getting PNSO figures for cheaper. But then again Haolonggood is also chinese if I'm not mistaken and their recent figures are noticeably more affordable than PNSO's (Apatosaurus aside), so I wonder if that increase in price we've seen from PNSO is due to inflation and such.

When it comes to Haolonggood, I agree with the notion that they're in a similar motion to PNSO back in 2020. Hopefully they'll keep that up, and if they refine accuracy a little that would be welcome too. But how long have we been hoping for good new figures of Ouranosaurus, Pentaceratops and Apatosaurus? We've just gotten them in a pretty short amount of time, and they've claimed not to be over for this year still!

[Bread]

I much rather have the diverse lineup with oversized scales than the constant release of therapods which have fixed scales.

Excluding the Deinocheirus and Therizinosaurus, which I would argue are considered different from your standard therapods.

[Eatmycar]

I simply can't agree that PNSO's best time is now. The teeth on the new T. rex and the claws look terrible in the promo photos, frankly. Mapu and Meraxes look fabulous, but this is a downgrade.

I'll be one of the first to say I think Winter Wilson was a gross figure when it came to scalation, but come on. Look at the teeth in the promo photos of this.



And compare them to the new Rex's promo shots. It's a night and day difference. Of course, what matters is the in-hand animal, but this is a disappointing figure to see following some exciting new colors (Mapu, Meraxes), and species (Irritator, Deinocheirus, Theri).

[SRF]

While I do agree that Wilson's teeth are better done (sculpted and painted) than what we've seen on later releases (including the Zhuchengtyrannus and their new T. Rex) I also don't think it's fair to compare a prototype to a production model, which PNSO tend to use nowadays in their promotional images.

If I'm not mistaken PNSO switched factories around the time the Parasaurolophus was released. So now we're getting finer details in sculpt, but a downgrade in paint quality of some parts of the figures. This was apparant for a long time, especially when comparing the heads of Wilson and Andrea.

All in all, I do agree 2021 was their most exciting year. Only some of their very best releases came after it. To me Cameron is one of those.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I simply can't agree that PNSO's best time is now. The teeth on the new T. rex and the claws look terrible in the promo photos, frankly. Mapu and Meraxes look fabulous, but this is a downgrade.

I'll be one of the first to say I think Winter Wilson was a gross figure when it came to scalation, but come on. Look at the teeth in the promo photos of this.



And compare them to the new Rex's promo shots. It's a night and day difference. Of course, what matters is the in-hand animal, but this is a disappointing figure to see following some exciting new colors (Mapu, Meraxes), and species (Irritator, Deinocheirus, Theri).

I never had a problem with the scales on Wilson. It's just a different interpretation to me.  The teeth are a LOT better for sure as well. I recall when this came out everyone was dying to find one.

[Sim]

The Eofauna Tyrannosaurus's dewclaw is not in the same position as Scott Hartman's.  The two are compared below.





Notice how in Hartman's the dewclaw extends past the initial metatarsal, while in Eofauna's it doesn't.  The result is very similar, but it has a practical difference: In Hartman's the dewclaw would make contact with the ground sometimes and this would keep the claw from growing too long.  In Eofauna's the dewclaw wouldn't make contact with the ground.  It's a very minor detail, but one that bothers me.


As for the PNSO Sinraptor, I don't see anything wrong with it.  The skull it's based on was said to be "slightly compressed".  I think people have made a bigger deal of it than is appropriate.  There's nothing wrong with its teeth as far as I'm aware, the fossil skull itself shows teeth of different lengths.  And the tail of Sinraptor hepingensis has been restored like on the figure.  The figure's tail is also curved to the side which makes it look shorter than it is when viewing it from the side.

[Remko]

As for the PNSO Sinraptor, I don't see anything wrong with it.  The skull it's based on was said to be "slightly compressed".  I think people have made a bigger deal of it than is appropriate.  There's nothing wrong with its teeth as far as I'm aware, the fossil skull itself shows teeth of different lengths.  And the tail of Sinraptor hepingensis has been restored like on the figure.  The figure's tail is also curved to the side which makes it look shorter than it is when viewing it from the side.

Are you sure you have the right figure in mind?

Don't get me wrong,I love PNSO's figures and have virtually all of them, but their Sinraptor is terrible, well, the head is terrible. The figure itself is pretty good.
And that's even worse because the much earlier Yangchuanosaurus looks much better. The art of the Sinraptor is amazing as well.

But the animal literally has Godzilla/crocodile like teeth, almost outside of the jaws instead of inside. It looks like a monster from a bad sci-fi movie.

I don't know what went wrong here, because every theropod before or after looks better with more realistic teeth.

Perhaps a sloppy sculptor, inferior quality control, or just a rush job to produce figures as fast as possible.

[Flaffy]

As for the PNSO Sinraptor, I don't see anything wrong with it.  The skull it's based on was said to be "slightly compressed".  I think people have made a bigger deal of it than is appropriate.  There's nothing wrong with its teeth as far as I'm aware, the fossil skull itself shows teeth of different lengths.  And the tail of Sinraptor hepingensis has been restored like on the figure.  The figure's tail is also curved to the side which makes it look shorter than it is when viewing it from the side.

Are you sure you have the right figure in mind?

Don't get me wrong,I love PNSO's figures and have virtually all of them, but their Sinraptor is terrible, well, the head is terrible. The figure itself is pretty good.
And that's even worse because the much earlier Yangchuanosaurus looks much better. The art of the Sinraptor is amazing as well.

But the animal literally has Godzilla/crocodile like teeth, almost outside of the jaws instead of inside. It looks like a monster from a bad sci-fi movie.

I don't know what went wrong here, because every theropod before or after looks better with more realistic teeth.

Perhaps a sloppy sculptor, inferior quality control, or just a rush job to produce figures as fast as possible.

@Sim Paleonerd's article is very informative on the issues the PNSO Sinraptor posesses. I highly reccomend checking it out.

Link: https://www.paleo-nerd.com/reviews/sinraptor-pnso-2022-en/

Dan's uncrushed skull vs the crushed skull. Very different and noticeably more consistent with other metriacanthosaurid material than if it remained crushed.

[Gwangi]

The PNSO Sinraptor looks like it has mouth rot. I was going to get it but it kind of turns my stomach to look at it, I don't need that in my collection.

And yeah, the teeth look like they're on the outside of the mouth. Definitely looks inspired by 2005's King Kong.

[stargatedalek]

I think the weird crocodile teeth that extend from the outer edges of the mouth look bad on all of the PNSO theropods, to the point I'd probably remove them if I had any others like I did for the baby rex.

Now for an actually controversial take; I vastly prefer articulated figures, and aside from very small species or 1:1 figures, I'm only buying articulated options at this point. They just look and display so much better alongside the other toys I collect.

[Sim]

I don't think PNSO's teeth look bad, but I understand the reason others might.  I can't tell whether it's controversial to like or dislike PNSO's teeth.

Going back to the Sinraptor, I guess it's a controversial opinion that I like it.  A lot.  First impressions were wrong, when I got this figure I was very impressed by its complex and pleasing colouration.  The rotting on teeth look in the first images are not present on my copy of the figure.

I've now read the Paleo Nerd review of the PNSO Sinraptor and I find myself not agreeing with a few of the points in it.  First, it's not necessary for S. hepingensis to be S. dongi's closest relative for the PNSO figure to be called Sinraptor and for Sinraptor hepingensis to be valid.  As is said previously in the review, it's sufficient for Siamotyrannus and perhaps Metriacanthosaurus to be classified as Sinraptor species.  I understand whether to split or lump is controversial, but I do have an opinion and that is that lumping is usually better than splitting, and that dinosaurs are oversplit.  Sinraptor hepingensis is very similar to S. dongi, I really don't see a need to have them in separate genera.  Siamotyrannus and Metriacanthosaurus barely matter because of how fragmentary they are.  And I'm aware Metriacanthosaurus is an older name than Sinraptor, but with doubts on where it belongs in the family tree I think it shouldn't impact the well-represented Sinraptor species.

Now, going onto comments in the Paleo Nerd review about the figure...  As far as I'm aware there is nothing that supports Dan Folkes's "uncrushed" version of the skull as being what the skull of S. hepingensis is actually like.  It's just how he has attempted to restore it and he might be right.  Or he might not, after all the paper where the skull was reported says it was "slightly compressed".  Dan's version is VERY uncompressed, perhaps too much so.  Also of relevance is that Dan made another attempt at uncompressing the skull and it looks different to the referenced skull by him.  I think there isn't an answer on which restoration of the skull is correct, including PNSO's on their figure of the animal.

Regarding the teeth of S. hepingensis, I don't understand how what we see is an artefact of tooth replacement?  The long and short teeth are shown in Dan Folkes's restoration of the animal too.

[Flaffy]

Now, going onto comments in the Paleo Nerd review about the figure...  As far as I'm aware there is nothing that supports Dan Folkes's "uncrushed" version of the skull as being what the skull of S. hepingensis is actually like.  It's just how he has attempted to restore it and he might be right.  Or he might not, after all the paper where the skull was reported says it was "slightly compressed".  Dan's version is VERY uncompressed, perhaps too much so.  Also of relevance is that Dan made another attempt at uncompressing the skull and it looks different to the referenced skull by him.  I think there isn't an answer on which restoration of the skull is correct, including PNSO's on their figure of the animal.

Missing the main point though, the PNSO directly based their reconstruction off a compressed skull with no attempt at accounting for said compression and displacement. So regardless of what you think of Dan's skull, the PNSO one is inherently going to be inaccurate as it would not be representative of what the animal would've looked like in life.

Relevant text from the Gao 1992 paper for those interested + english translation by Jisuo Jin:
"頭骨保存完整。但由於沉積埋藏過程中受擠壓, 頭骨稍側扁, 前上頜骨與右下頜略有移動, 其它骨骼關聯完好, 骨縫清楚。"
"1. Skull. Completely preserved. Slightly compressed due to burial compression, and premaxilla and right mandible show slight displacement. Other bones well articulated with clear sutures. "

A more conservative take by Weibo user @宁静海的菊石君 at decompressing S. hepingensis + in-life reconstruction (i.e. what the PNSO figure should've looked like; or alternatively they could've and should've just used their own artwork for Sinraptor). I don't agree with the extent of soft tissue on the silouette, but the underlying skeletal is sound.

Regarding the teeth of S. hepingensis, I don't understand how what we see is an artefact of tooth replacement?  The long and short teeth are shown in Dan Folkes's restoration of the animal too.

Maybe L @Leyster meant tooth slippage? Clarification needed.

[Concavenator]

E @Eatmycar I also think the 2020 Wilson is clearly more nicely painted than this Cameron. Also, I guess you mean the Suchomimus, not Irritator. My comment about PNSO being at their prime now was regarding scientific accuracy (and by now, I actually meant from 2022 onwards lol). I didn't take paint app into consideration. As I said I think there are previous PNSO figures that are better painted than newer releases, like this Tyrannosaurus or the Centrosaurus.

The result is very similar, but it has a practical difference: In Hartman's the dewclaw would make contact with the ground sometimes and this would keep the claw from growing too long.  In Eofauna's the dewclaw wouldn't make contact with the ground.  It's a very minor detail, but one that bothers me.

I didn't know about that dewclaw thing, that's interesting. When it comes to this new PNSO Tyrannosaurus, its dewclaws are also too high up, then. For what it's worth, I see no noticeable difference with Eofauna's.




Moreover, in hand pics confirm its dewclaw doesn't touch the ground:


Source: Baidu

In any case, I agree it's a pretty trivial detail, and it doesn't bother me on neither Eofauna's or PNSO's versions. The lack of lips, the relatively poor paint app and the high price is enough for me to skip it and wait for Eofauna's instead. I would also get the 1:35 BotM instead of this PNSO.

When it comes to my comments about the PNSO Sinraptor, I based myself only in accuracy aspects after reading L @Leyster 's review. I didn't even comment about the figure from an aesthetic point of view, because that's subjective. I admit the sculptors did put care on it, the details are sharp and from what I see the paint app is very good (better than this new Tyrannosaurus), but inaccuracies aside, I agree with @Gwangi . It really gives off Indominus or Vastatosaurus vibes to me, like a "What if Indominus was an actual theropod?". Similarly, I appreciate Nanmu's sculptors' talent, they for a fact do a brilliant job when it comes to their sculpts. That doesn't mean they're for me, I value scientific accuracy over a good looking display piece.

At the end of the day it's normal for people to have different opinions or to assess inaccuracies differently. We all have our own opinions after all and that's fine.

[Stegotyranno420]

Speaking of the PNSO Centrosaurus, i find it to be amongst the blandest and most boring of their figures. I still applaud the sculpt work and as an artpiece, but it never really appealed to me

[Leyster]

@Sim Siamotyrannus is not that fragmentary at all, it has a nice chunk of the vertebral column plus the hips.

About the skull, @Flaffy already aswered you. I agree that Folkes skull is not necessarily right, but using the deformed skull is wrong... to the point even the illustrator of the artwork accompaining the model doesn't use it. Like, if you need further proof of it not being right 

Please not that we have various Metriacanthosaurid skulls, and no one show traits similar to how the hepingensis one is restored. It's a not too dissimilar case for the various Giganotosaurus restorations: we might not know exactly which one of the various recent restorations is the closest to the correct one, but we know that the bathtub restoration is wrong.

Maybe @Leyster meant tooth slippage? Clarification needed.

What I mean is that the alternating of long and short teeth is not how all Sinraptor hepingensis look, but since we only have one specimen, it was "photographed in death" in a sightly unlucky teeth configuration. Like the "sabretoothed Lithronax". Theropods replace their teeth continously, so what we see in fossils is only the lenght they have when they died, not the "standard configuration" of their teeth... Like there aren't two Tyrannosaurus specimens with the same alternation of long and short teeth, despite being all the same species. Sinraptor hepingensis simply died when it had an appearance we find curious.

Let me know if this does make any sense to you or if I need to explain myself better, English is not my native language.

[Sim]

The skull of the PNSO Sinraptor appears to be based on a restored version of the S. hepingensis skull.  Compare the skull in the photo below to the clearly deformed skull in the photo or illustration in the Paleo Nerd review.

  (Image source)

So as far as I'm aware the PNSO Sinraptor uses a valid reconstruction of the skull.  The skull of Sinraptor dongi is quite similar to it to my eyes...

As for Siamotyrannus, in my opinion it is very fragmentary...  To the point where it's not known what kind of theropod it is.  I've seen comments about it being a coelurosaur too.


I think the PNSO Cameron's dewclaws are correctly placed.  The one on the right foot clearly goes past the underside of the foot.  The dewcalw on its left leg is just pulled up during motion I imagine.

[Leyster]

@Sim it's... basically the same skull of Gao 1992, just rotated


Compare the shape of the orbital and anteorbital fenestra... any difference can be explained as a not perfect perspective of the photo (as a person who took a course of fossil photography, photographing fossils is incredibly tricky).

And just look and how forwardly stretched is hepingensis compared to dongi

[Concavenator]

I think the PNSO Cameron's dewclaws are correctly placed.  The one on the right foot clearly goes past the underside of the foot.  The dewcalw on its left leg is just pulled up during motion I imagine.

We haven't seen what the dewclaw on Eofauna's Tyrannosaurus' foot that's in full contact with the ground looks like. We have only seen 2 images of it and the only dewclaw we've seen is the one belonging to the foot that's pulled up (after seeing both figures together, I noticed how both Tyrannosaurus figures have basically the same pose!). Also, bear in mind the Eofauna Tyrannosaurus is a figure that hasn't been shown finished yet, let alone released. While this new PNSO figure is both finished and released. So I'm not sure this is a fair comparison, especially for a detail that's so difficult to perceive. However, if we're talking about presence/absence of lips, then that's pretty straightforward to see.

[Sim]

The skull in the photo I included has a fixed premaxilla and teeth...  I haven't seen anything that suggests the skull has been "slightly compressed" forward.  It could be the compression refers to how one part of the skull has been moved up and the other side down, as can be seen in a photo of the specimen.

[Leyster]

S @SidB the premaxilla has no difference with the illustration in Gao 1992.

About the distorsion, basically no Allosauroid has an anteorbital, orbitaland infratemporal fenestra so angled forward (it's almost like Irritator's skull in angling). You say it's close in shape to S.dongi, but it's WAY closer to S.dongi when you consider it distorted. Just have a look at this, it's an older artwork by Folkes showing the undistorted skull (upper) compared to dongi (lower).



And then compare this to S.dongi

And then with Yangchuanosaurus