PNSO: New For 2021

[TaranUlas]

If I'm not mistaken, the Allosaurus could qualify as a 1:35 A. Fragilis? I know the exact species is heavily debated, but since PNSO has confirmed at least to some degree that it is A. Fragilis, it could be that Paul and Bieber are meant to be in scale with each other.

Unless it's a record size specimen, no. DINO2560, which is an 8 meters animal, gives 1.26, so...

From what I've read the total length of the figure around the curves is 26,5 cm. Based on an 8 meter specimen, that would make the scale 1:30. I always figured an Allosaurus could well be around 9 to 9,5 meters in length, making this model 1:34-1:36 scale.

My Allosaurus should arrive here today. I was planning on doing some measurements myself to figure out the scale, mainly of the skull.

Measuring from the curve is not that reliable. Try measuring it from the skull or from the femur.

Measuring from the curve is not that reliable on animals where we don't have many complete remains (AKA please don't do curve measurements on Thanos the dinosaur. Please don't.) Curve measurements on animals that we have plenty of nearly complete specimens such as Tyrannosaurus rex is perfectly acceptable since generally speaking unless a company has majorly messed up on recreating it, it will match the proportions for a complete specimen.

Also this is just my view on scale, but generally speaking, if the curve measurement and the femur/skull (or whatever part you can get for some species really) is roughly within about 5-10 range of each other (so like 1:25 and 1:30 or 1:30 and 1:40) then either scale is good. Most prehistoric animals are not known from a high sample size of remains so it just feels foolish to me to try and bind ourselves so firmly to a small sample size as if that's solely what represents the size range of a species. Unless the animal is supposed to be specifically of a particular fossil (Wilson's recent release being directly based on the AMNH Tyrannosaurus for example), you should be willing to accept the idea that it might be different than expected. One of the big troublemakers for this is ceratopsians since most of them are just skulls. So while you can just measure the skulls to determine scale, one should be aware that it could also likely throw off tail and body measurements since we have no knowledge of most of their proportions. To be clear though, scale is roughly whatever you want to make of it. As long as you know the real size of your figure and have a consistent method for determining the scale within your collection (Should be more advanced than "Because I like that number" or eyeballing it. Please break out a ruler and/or measuring tape) then go nuts with it. It is your collection and you should feel free to label it however you wish. If you want specific scales in it that you determine by rigorously measuring the parts that match up to the remains currently found then do so. If you want a smorgasbord collection with scale being determined purely by curve measurements (like myself) then do so. It is your collection.

I don't have the Allosaurus in person yet and likely won't get it for another month. Same with the Helicoprion and the Pachycephalosaurus. Stegosaurus will likely be picked up after I get the Yutyrannus and Carcharodontosaurus. I personally am going to regard the Allosaurus as my Big Al stand in since while PNSO has said he's an Allosaurus fragilis, I personally think his skull looks much closer to Allosaurus jimmadseni. So I'll be judging the scale on a curve measure comparing him to Big Al specifically. Seems the most entertaining option to me.

[Leyster]

If I'm not mistaken, the Allosaurus could qualify as a 1:35 A. Fragilis? I know the exact species is heavily debated, but since PNSO has confirmed at least to some degree that it is A. Fragilis, it could be that Paul and Bieber are meant to be in scale with each other.

Unless it's a record size specimen, no. DINO2560, which is an 8 meters animal, gives 1.26, so...

From what I've read the total length of the figure around the curves is 26,5 cm. Based on an 8 meter specimen, that would make the scale 1:30. I always figured an Allosaurus could well be around 9 to 9,5 meters in length, making this model 1:34-1:36 scale.

My Allosaurus should arrive here today. I was planning on doing some measurements myself to figure out the scale, mainly of the skull.

Measuring from the curve is not that reliable. Try measuring it from the skull or from the femur.

Measuring from the curve is not that reliable on animals where we don't have many complete remains (AKA please don't do curve measurements on Thanos the dinosaur. Please don't.) Curve measurements on animals that we have plenty of nearly complete specimens such as Tyrannosaurus rex is perfectly acceptable since generally speaking unless a company has majorly messed up on recreating it, it will match the proportions for a complete specimen.

Also this is just my view on scale, but generally speaking, if the curve measurement and the femur/skull (or whatever part you can get for some species really) is roughly within about 5-10 range of each other (so like 1:25 and 1:30 or 1:30 and 1:40) then either scale is good. Most prehistoric animals are not known from a high sample size of remains so it just feels foolish to me to try and bind ourselves so firmly to a small sample size as if that's solely what represents the size range of a species. Unless the animal is supposed to be specifically of a particular fossil (Wilson's recent release being directly based on the AMNH Tyrannosaurus for example), you should be willing to accept the idea that it might be different than expected. One of the big troublemakers for this is ceratopsians since most of them are just skulls. So while you can just measure the skulls to determine scale, one should be aware that it could also likely throw off tail and body measurements since we have no knowledge of most of their proportions. To be clear though, scale is roughly whatever you want to make of it. As long as you know the real size of your figure and have a consistent method for determining the scale within your collection (Should be more advanced than "Because I like that number" or eyeballing it. Please break out a ruler and/or measuring tape) then go nuts with it. It is your collection and you should feel free to label it however you wish. If you want specific scales in it that you determine by rigorously measuring the parts that match up to the remains currently found then do so. If you want a smorgasbord collection with scale being determined purely by curve measurements (like myself) then do so. It is your collection.

I don't have the Allosaurus in person yet and likely won't get it for another month. Same with the Helicoprion and the Pachycephalosaurus. Stegosaurus will likely be picked up after I get the Yutyrannus and Carcharodontosaurus. I personally am going to regard the Allosaurus as my Big Al stand in since while PNSO has said he's an Allosaurus fragilis, I personally think his skull looks much closer to Allosaurus jimmadseni. So I'll be judging the scale on a curve measure comparing him to Big Al specifically. Seems the most entertaining option to me.

What I mean is that is simplier (and so, less prone to errors) to measure the skull that to measure along the curvature (many restorations are measured along the centra, which for a figure is not really easy to get). Also if an animal has an anatomy that do not presents a straight back (ie. Hypacrosaurus) getting the measurement is even tricker, and good luck finding measurements along the curve. Using the skull or the femur is both safer and easier, since not many papers offer the measurement along the curve, anyway. Instead if the fossil preserves the femur or the skull (or the humerus, or other bones useful for measurements) almost certainly the paper will report them (along with the other bones, obliviously.)

Thus for measurements along the curve someone is forced to use the popular litterature, which is no near accurate (ie: how many Hadrosaurs are lumped in the "9 m" lenght, while if you check the femur lenght this is quite absurd). Also keep in mind that the idea that models can represent a wide range of animal sizes is not really correct, because animals are not ismetrical copies one of the other and so a 10 meters Allosaurus cannot be simply a scaled up 6 meters one, but it need a thicker, stouter build because of the square/cube law.

*Please note that
a) I do not intend to start a discussion on the matter, is your collection and you can measure how you like... I pointed the above text just for the sake of completness
b) English is not my mother language, so that may sould harshier than I intended.

[SRF]

Well besides the whole debate on which scale the Allosaurus is: I'm happy I've purchased it after all. It's a very good theropod figure which I like much better than I expected.

Can't wait for the releases that are scheduled for June.

[SidB]

Well, I'm looking forward to receiving my Allosaurus too, whichever species it is, and I also found this discussion above to be most illuminating. I'm now convinced that measuring the skull or femur or humerus is the way to go for utmost precision, in as far as this is possible, though for "quick and easy" / "good enough", measuring along the curve is okay. Very helpful and thank you.

[Concavenator]

The Carcharodontosaurus is now available on Amazon.

[Pachyventer]

Yep, it is now)))
https://www.amazon.com/PNSO-Prehistoric-Dinosaur-Models-Lambeosaurus/dp/B095MT89HN/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=pnso%2Bdinosaurs&qid=1621780694&sr=8-1&th=1

$43 + $9. Can't wait to see it on Aliexpress to place an order. Here's what Model Toy Center says: 这个就这几天会上架 (This will be on the shelves in the next few days). Still, don't know a thing about their price.

[Shadowknight1]

That Carcharodontosaurus looks fantastic and gives me confidence that if PNSO tackles Acrocanthosaurus, it will be one of the best ones made.  Just so long as they don't go the CollectA route and put a sail on the back of the Carcharodontosaurus figure.

[SidB]

This is good news. My order through Dan's should be on its way soon too,

[Jose S.M.]

It looks great, I'm thinking this will be the first time I'll spend more than usual in a Theropod but given it's size and details it seems like a fair pricing. Big carcharodontosaurids are underrepresented in my shelves, Safari's nice but small Acrocanthosaurus being the only one there!

[Faelrin]

I'm glad to see this is going up for order now but I want to wait and see how much it will be on Aliexpress. Granted I am also hoping this means the Yutyrannus and new Stegosaurus are not far behind now from when they will be released or at least available to order. I think I will wait for the Yutyrannus to become available, and have that and the Spinosaurus (and if I can afford it then, I would like to sneak in the Allosaurus with them) as the next two to tackle off my rather large (and continuously growing) PNSO wishlist. In any case I am hoping I can get this one before the year is over. I have plenty of time at least.

@Shadowknight1 I truly do hope they tackle Acrocanthosaurus, partially because I've missed out on the Rebor one, but also because I would really love to see what they do would do with it. It would no doubt display very nicely alongside this Carcharodontosaurus, if not their recent Sauropelta (or Safari Ltd's as well).

[Kapitaenosavrvs]

Oh great. Can't wait for AliExpress. Looks like, the Carcharodontosaurus will be a Figure like Essien 2.0. Smaller and more expensive, but highly detailed and better painted. I can't wait to see the first Inhand photos and hopefully Videos.

This makes it hard to decide, when to order. If there is no or low shipping, i think i will order it early and hope, the Yutyrannus comes the next week or two, so it hopefully gets here before 31st of June. But in the End it does not matter that much i guess, because this won't be the last Order from outside the EU

[sauroid]

this is great news. cant wait to get it

[Bread]

That's good news, especially since it was initially planned to be released in June. Like others have said, hopefully the Stegosaurus and Yutyrannus are released soon. I wonder if this also means PNSO are skipping out on a reveal this week as the Carcharodontosaurus is being released.

[TaranUlas]

L @Leyster

No worries. You didn't come off too harsh to me and your English looked quite good. English is my mother tongue, but I honestly didn't realize that it wasn't yours until you said something.


I probably should have clarified that my view of the "Within 5 is good" was absolutely not meant for the smaller scales. 1:10 and 1:5 are very different scales (Let's say we have a figure that is 10 inches long for the sake of demonstration. A 1:10 scale puts this at 100 inches and 1:5 puts it at 50. In feet, this would be 8 feet vs 4 feet. You have outright halved or doubled the animal's size between scales which is not a healthy nor reasonable thing. By contrast 1:35 would put it at 350 inches or 29 feet and 1:40 would put it at 400 inches or 33.3 feet. While it is a four foot difference, a four foot difference is very different at larger scales than at smaller scales.)

Important thing to note is that for someone like me, I don't have access to most scientific papers. I probably should have taken advantage of my college granting me access to them, but ah well. As a result, getting the exact measurements of femurs and skulls can be done for some animals (Tyrannosaurus rex in particular is very easy to do this with. Same with Gastornis. Although Gastornis is easy because I own a replica skull of one.) For others, not so easily. As a result, I generally stick to the curve measurement since I dislike the scavenger hunt for whether or not I have access to the paper listing it. I would prefer to do femur or skull measurements if I had easy access to them, but since I don't, curve measurement it is (Also for those trying to do curve measurements, try to be as straight as possible on curved backs. I know the temptation is to follow the curve, but that will not work. I would recommend a string or ribbon to use since it allows for more control on avoiding following the curve too hard.)

As for PNSO figures, I got Wyatt the Parasaurolophus recently. I like how the Parasaurolophus looks (The coloration and detail are very well done and I like the texture of the scales quite a bit) and the Pathology on this specimen looks quite good. I do like that visually it's made a bit clear that it is a pathology although I would have preferred it to be even more blatant. Does anyone know which specimen it's supposed to be specifically based on/measurements for the skull and such on that specimen?

[JohannesB]

That hinge on the Carcharodontosaurus jaw is quite visible. It is a different technique than the one used on the Tyrannosaurus, for example, and I think it looks a bit off-putting. Why would they do this?

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

I really hope PNSO do not do an Acrocanthosaurus. They have already done 2 Allosauroids, which in my opinion are the least interesting of all dinosaurs, only 4 of them make my top 300+ favourite dinosaurs (Allosaurus, Neovenator, Carcharodontosaurus & Concavenator), and they already look so similar. I would rather anything else really. Even with the humped back, Acrocanthosaurus is only slightly more interesting than others.

[suspsy]

I'd like to see PNSO tackle a megaraptoran.

[Faelrin]

@TaranUlas The Parasaurolophus is based on the holotype specimen ROM 768.

[Syndicate Bias]

Hey guys it says Gamba the Carcha is in stock at Amazon. I am a bit sad now because I ordered mine through Lana.


https://www.amazon.com/dp/B095MT89HN/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_glt_fabc_1FAEDH42RH6T7FJWTECH?psc=1

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Hey guys it says Gamba the Carcha is in stock at Amazon. I am a bit sad now because I ordered mine through Lana.


https://www.amazon.com/dp/B095MT89HN/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_glt_fabc_1FAEDH42RH6T7FJWTECH?psc=1

your better off with Lana.