PNSO: New For 2021

[Bread]

@Bread I too want to see what @Halichoeres has to say about this.

But I will say it does have a fluked tail (although at first glance it does bare similarity to CollectA's 2018 take, but looking at the 2017 paper, the shape is similar in the reconstruction provided there as well), skin covering its armor, and the shclerotic rings are inside the eye, and not exposed. The fins are also shark-like, as with the 2014 Favorite figure, possibly CollectA's 2018 figure too. I'm also not so sure about the shape and placement of the dorsal fin, and the long body, or the number of fins (which is similar to CollectA's 2018 figure as well). I'm guessing its smaller relative Coccosteus was once again referenced here? I'm also wondering if the meckel's cartilage is present, something many Dunkleosteus figures apparently lack. I'll have to revisit that thread in particular and reviews he's done to gather a better assessment.

I will say I rather like the coloration. It reminds me of a trout, although I'm guessing a bit more counter shading would have been more accurate to its niche?

I would also be curious to see if PNSO has mentioned anything about why they've chosen to depict it this way, and/or what their references were, such as for the longer body. I honestly don't think I've seen any reconstructions like this before.

I've been looking to purchase a Dunkleosteus and so far its been pushed back further and further, but now with this release my hunt for one is back. However, I do want the most accurate or best depiction of the animal.

Disappointed about the similarities to Collecta's as I did not favor that one much. Although the colors on this one are striking but subtle. Like you said, reminds you of a modern day fish.

I do really like the pose of the animal. Accurate or not, it really does make it seem more life-like. Comparing it to Safari's which was in a vertical pose, same with CollectA's.

Overall I am interested in the explanations from PNSO, and analysis from Halichoeres.

[Dinoxels]

Why should we stop comparing to modern animals? We don't have evidence for resting poses for these animals, so why not use the closest living relatives as a reference for speculation? The best thing we can do is speculate unless conclusive evidence in fossil form is found. Without that you cannot claim it's "wrong", it's just a speculative interpretation that hasn't been presented as factual. There is no need for "defense". You are speculating and interpreting in the same way that the people from the AMNH and PNSO did. You not liking their interpretation doesn't make it wrong and your's valid. Neither is right or wrong without sufficient evidence. Sorry to be so blunt but these kinds of arguments that try to shut down other people's ideas really irk me.

I never said we SHOULDN'T take ANY modern day interpretations into account. Like a lot of basic things we know about dinosaurs comes from inferring from modern day animals. There are some however we should be more cautious about when comparing, that's all I was trying to get across. I didn't want to shove someone's opposing opinion down the toilet or something. I feel like I can never have a good discussion with someone with different views on here....

[Psittacoraptor]

What a nice surprise. I'm always happy to see more non-dinosaurs and Paleozoic animals from them. Seems like they're covering the basics now by tackling the most popular species/genera. T-rex, Stegosaurus, Dunkleosteus, Spinosaurus, and the rumored Dimetrodon and Triceratops (and perhaps Brachiosaurus?).

I never said we SHOULDN'T take ANY modern day interpretations into account. Like a lot of basic things we know about dinosaurs comes from inferring from modern day animals. There are some however we should be more cautious about when comparing, that's all I was trying to get across. I didn't want to shove someone's opposing opinion down the toilet or something. I feel like I can never have a good discussion with someone with different views on here....

Your post certainly came across as trying to shut down opposing ideas and calling them flat-out wrong. Sorry if I misunderstood.

[SRF]

This being #47, there is now no numbering gaps. Maybe they are finally done with the mid size range..

It wouldn't surprise me if PNSO is going to focus more on releasing larger and well known species the Museum Line in the coming months. Of course they already have released/revealed Biber, Andrea and Er-ma this year and if they are going to release another Spinosaurus it will definitely be in the Museum Line. I'm quite sure the same will apply to a new Triceratops as well and who knows what else they have in store for us.

Edit: perhaps that Brachiosaurus will be a figure too. And if it is, it will definitely be a Museum Line figure as well.

[sauroid]

to those who are complaining that Andrea does not match Wilson aesthetically, why not just consider Andrea an updated version of Wilson albeit in resting form?

@sauroid, I think the idea is that people want to display them together, PNSO intended for them to be displayed together, and yet they still don't really display together well. Of course you can consider it whatever you want, just get one, get both and display them separately, whatever.

i hope youre not angry.

[Gwangi]

On the one hand, I'm happy it's a fish, on the other hand, did it have to be Dunkleosteus? I genuinely like it though, and for me this is the most exciting release since the Tarbosaurus.

@sauroid, no, I'm not angry and didn't mean to come off that way. I don't even have or intent to get either of them. 

[Eocarcharia]

Like a lot of the recent releases from PNSO, I would be more interested if it wasn't a species that already had plenty of figures to its name. It does look nice though.

[Flaffy]

I share the sentiment of fellow forum members here that yet another Dunkleosteus isn't really necessary.

But then again, I don't think we have a "definitive" version of that genus despite the many attempts from countless different companies. To my knowledge, either the Kaiyodo or Favorite Co. version comes the closest to a perfect rendition of our favourite armoured fish; but minor faults hold them back from being THE Dunkleosteus figure, namely size (and potentially colouration) for the former, and the undersized fins for the latter.

I wait in anticipation for Halichoeres's assessment of the PNSO Dunkleostues. To my untrained eye, the only aspect I can identify that is potentially superior on the Favorite Co. version is the more convincing body shape. A very visible seam on the PNSO's mandible is a bit unfortunate as well.

This is what I consider an ideal Dunkleosteus reconstruction, courtesy of @denis_draws on Twitter.

[stargatedalek]

This certainly looks better than most, with a good tail, and nice fleshy fins (though the dorsal is probably too far back on the body?). It also seems to have partial lips, something the Favorite and Kaiyodo lack, and the armour is blended nicely into the body (the main problem the Favorite one suffers from I find is the overly highlighted armour).

What worries me most is the thin, perhaps overly contorted body, and the large gaps in the mid point of the armour, though the latter might be part of the articulation. This is where I too must defer to our resident fish expert, and also eagerly await a verdict.

[Flaffy]

What worries me most is the thin, perhaps overly contorted body, and the large gaps in the mid point of the armour, though the latter might be part of the articulation. This is where I too must defer to our resident fish expert, and also eagerly await a verdict.

Speaking of articulation... I wonder if it's possible to engineer a Dunkleosteus figure with jaw articulation faithful to it's IRL counterpart; Where both the head and the mandible are pulled in opposite directions to achieve a wide gape. As opposed to every other figure where only the lower jaw articulates while the head stays static.

[Faelrin]

@Flaffy I bet David Silva could pull that off, if he ever intended on doing a line of prehistoric fish. I mean Mattel had done something of the like for their Amber Collection raptors, and Extreme Damage Tyrannosaurus, so articulation like this is possible in some form (or perhaps even Mattel will eventually do one, which has a biting feature along those lines? Shockingly, Mattel and Papo are the only two big companies at this point, I think, that has no Dunkleosteus figure, at least before PNSO took the dive here).

Granted why no one ever bothers is because of the trend of only giving the lower jaw articulation which is something we see most theropods, etc, by several companies as well, when some of them (I think Allosaurus, assuming the hatchet hypothesis is still accepted?) can also move their jaws in a similar fashion. The only (solo) articulated upper jaw I can think of was from the Papo Kaprosuchus. Nonetheless I do agree that once again it is a missed opportunity here for this PNSO one, from the looks of it.

I also like how that reconstruction of Dunkleosteus looks, other then the one included in the 2017 paper. Part of why I'm also still hoping to see Safari Ltd offer an updated one. I also agree Kaiyodo and Favorite's are probably the best options currently, but as you mentioned are also being held back by those issues.

[Eocarcharia]

@Flaffy I bet David Silva could pull that off, if he ever intended on doing a line of prehistoric fish.

Well, he did once say in an interview that he thought a shark line would be a cool idea.

[suspsy]

I have no desire to add another Dunk to my collection, but that one does look pretty nice.

[Faelrin]

@Flaffy I bet David Silva could pull that off, if he ever intended on doing a line of prehistoric fish.

Well, he did once say in an interview that he thought a shark line would be a cool idea.

I do indeed remember that, and that would still be something I'll fully support if it ever came to light.

[suspsy]

@Flaffy I bet David Silva could pull that off, if he ever intended on doing a line of prehistoric fish.

Well, he did once say in an interview that he thought a shark line would be a cool idea.

I do indeed remember that, and that would still be something I'll fully support if it ever came to light.

As would I. Only given that some of the coolest prehistoric sharks predate or postdate the Mesozoic, the line would require a new name.

[stargatedalek]

Prehistoric sharks/fish might be a line I'd just have to get all of. I've content with a few from each up until now, but that could easily be a different story.

[SenSx]

I was thinking of getting Dunkleosteus very recently, what a coincidence !
Looks great, probably my favorite.

[Bread]

@Flaffy I bet David Silva could pull that off, if he ever intended on doing a line of prehistoric fish.

Well, he did once say in an interview that he thought a shark line would be a cool idea.

Woah woah woah..... Never knew this was an idea. Hopefully he still considers it to be a future line as I would fully support it. Sorry to go off topic.

Judging from what everyone is saying, I may consider this to be my first Dunkleosteus pick up. I am still curious to what Halichoeres says.

[Maritimer]

What worries me most is the thin, perhaps overly contorted body, and the large gaps in the mid point of the armour, though the latter might be part of the articulation. This is where I too must defer to our resident fish expert, and also eagerly await a verdict.

Speaking of articulation... I wonder if it's possible to engineer a Dunkleosteus figure with jaw articulation faithful to it's IRL counterpart; Where both the head and the mandible are pulled in opposite directions to achieve a wide gape. As opposed to every other figure where only the lower jaw articulates while the head stays static.

I think that's exactly what PNSO's done here - or at least, attempted to do . . .



I see a point of articulation just in front of the tongue here, and another at the top / back of the skull. The way I read it, the gill-plates move forward as the mouth is opened at both top and bottom, exposing the red gill filaments, and as it closes, the gill plates slide back to cover the gill filaments.

Clever design, that . . .

I'm also amused by the very slider-turtle eyes on this model.

~B.

[Concavenator]

Not interested in it, my non-dinosaur shelf is complete already. But, as a non prehistoric fish expert, I will say that, aesthetically , it's my favorite rendition of this taxon.

However, I hope this isn't the end for the medium sized range. Who knows, since now there are no gaps in numeration. It's difficult to ask for more when they have such an amazing lineup for this year, but if they're going to keep releasing new figures, I hope we will see more releases in this line. I don't have any of their "museum" line figures, but based on the pics and reviews that I have seen online, the quality of the figures in these two lines is the same, but the differences are the size and the packaging and other complements (fancier in the "museum" line) and of course the price, which is more reasonable in the medium range.