PNSO: New For 2021

[CarnotaurusKing]

The head of PNSO's new Iguanodon looks fine to me, excluding the lack of cheeks, when compared to the skeletal below which @Flaffy posted.  What doesn't look right to me is the partial pronation of the PNSO figure's hands, which has the added effect of hiding the thumb spikes in part.  Compare the PNSO figure's hands to that of the skeletal below or Scott Hartman's skeletal.

IIRC it's explained in this video that Iguanodon would've held its hands at an angle of ~40°.

https://youtu.be/u8ffPhdTk14

[Psittacoraptor]

I guess this qualifies as "new for 2021". Apparently the Pachyrhinosaurus has received the Ankylosaurus treatment with a simplified paint job in newer batches:

https://tieba.baidu.com/p/7661943804

It's not anywhere near as bad as the Ankylosaurus, and the frill actually looks better IMO, but overall it looks like a downgrade to me. Seems like if you like a PNSO model, it's best not to wait too long and try to get one from the first batch.

Unless this is a fan repaint, I can't tell from Google's useless translation. I doubt it, though, since it looks too similar to the original for a repaint.

[Bread]

I wouldn't doubt it that PNSO have gone ahead and give this one a repaint or slight batch modification. I've seen complaints with this figure in particular with the paint quality, so it makes sense that it is needed for an update. I just received mine a month ago, but I haven't noticed any difference with review comparisons.

[SidB]

I guess this qualifies as "new for 2021". Apparently the Pachyrhinosaurus has received the Ankylosaurus treatment with a simplified paint job in newer batches:

https://tieba.baidu.com/p/7661943804

It's not anywhere near as bad as the Ankylosaurus, and the frill actually looks better IMO, but overall it looks like a downgrade to me. Seems like if you like a PNSO model, it's best not to wait too long and try to get one from the first batch.

Unless this is a fan repaint, I can't tell from Google's useless translation. I doubt it, though, since it looks too similar to the original for a repaint.

I'm very happy with my original, don't see the point or have a need for this one, if it's for real. Easy pass.

[Flaffy]

I hope this won't happen to most of the lineup. Still got quite a backlog of these figures I need to catch-up on.
It's really unfortunate how PNSO keeps charging these premium prices, but doesn't deliver on premium quality.

[Shonisaurus]

Honestly, I do not dislike the PNSO iguanodon, it seems to me a very well finished figure and I would not mind buying it but in my case always keeping in mind that I have many backward PNSO figures and I would prioritize other figures such as olorotitan, machairoceratops, himalayasaurus, livyatan, sinoceratops, tarbosaurus, or torvosaurus as my immediate buying preferences over getting figurines of other prehistoric animals from PNSO.

[SidB]

Pre-ordered the Iguanodon from Dan's, where his price (for now) is $49.99.

[dinofelid]

IIRC it's explained in this video that Iguanodon would've held its hands at an angle of ~40°.

https://youtu.be/u8ffPhdTk14

Hmm, I see that video also talks about the issue of cheeks starting around 12 minutes 20 seconds, he says it's unclear whether they had a membrane covering their teeth (i.e. non-muscular 'cheeks') or whether they had a horny bill or lizard-like lips (which seem to be what's shown in the PNSO model). I looked into this a little more because I thought we at least knew from mummified hadrosaurs that they had cheek-membranes, which would make them seem likely in Iguanodon, but the discussion on p. 7 of the thread on the "Saurian" computer game seems to indicate there's no actual direct evidence on this question from any hadrosaur mummies.

So I guess this means the PNSO model of the cheekless Iguanodon doesn't contradict any clear paleontological evidence, but it still seems kind of weird to me when it's part of the same line as their cheeked hadrosaurs, they were fairly closely related and had basically the same chewing system so it seems more likely they either both had cheeks or neither did.

[stargatedalek]

The evidence is not 100% solid conclusive proof, but there is evidence in favour of cheeks, that being the chewing mechanism.

[dinofelid]

The evidence is not 100% solid conclusive proof, but there is evidence in favour of cheeks, that being the chewing mechanism.

If they didn't have cheeks, is it possible they could have kept their mouth closed (and lips sealed) while chewing, or were the motions of their jaw and skull too "large" for that? Even if this could work most of the time I imagine it'd probably be less efficient than cheeks at reliably preventing all food from falling out, so there might still be a selective advantage to developing cheeks (and on p. 6 of that Saurian thread I see you pointed out that some birds do have cheek-style membranes on the side of their beaks--maybe that'd suggest they're pretty easy for archosaurs to evolve when there's an advantage to having them, not requiring a huge amount of genetic/developmental changes).

[stargatedalek]

I'm more familiar with ceratopsians than hadrosaurs and kin in this regard. Ceratopsian chewing motions are eerily similar to macaws, so they rather certainly had cheeks (the question there is to what extent, rather than whether or not they did).

They are the default characteristic in birds, just normally hidden by the beak and feathers. A birds lower jaw goes back a lot further than the lower bill normally does.

[dinofelid]

I'm more familiar with ceratopsians than hadrosaurs and kin in this regard. Ceratopsian chewing motions are eerily similar to macaws, so they rather certainly had cheeks (the question there is to what extent, rather than whether or not they did).

They are the default characteristic in birds, just normally hidden by the beak and feathers. A birds lower jaw goes back a lot further than the lower bill normally does.

On the subject of ceratopsian cheeks, at 12 minutes in this video discusses the justification for the lack of external cheeks in the new PNSO Triceratops:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q2kTdyI2hc

The video cites the paper at https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ar.23988 which has a new proposal for how one of the jaw muscles (the M. adductor mandibulae externus or 'mAME') would have attached to the lower jaw in ornithischians like Triceratops, shown in section A of figure 7, along with section B of figure 9 where it's contrasted with a different idea for muscular ceratopsian cheeks. It seems from the diagram that with this new configuration the muscle itself might able to serve the the function of blocking off the teeth while the animal was chewing (at least for ceratopsians, from figure 8 it looks like it wouldn't reach far enough for ankylosaurs or hadrosaurs), though he also notes the possibility of further "buccal soft tissues" to help keep food in, saying at one point

a large sheet of skin (with inner mucosa) bridging between the maxilla and dentary has also been proposed as a possible alternative for keeping food within the oral cavity (Knoll, 2008). Preserved buccal osteoderms have at least supported the latter claim in nodosaurid ankylosaurs, specifically (Vickaryous, 2006; Knoll, 2008).

[JohannesB]

What I love about all of this, is how these surely excellent models spark such lively debates from which we all can learn so much. I think that almost all the PNSO models are beautiful (some are probably my all-time favourites), even given the sometimes divisive choices made in the reconstructions. I surely hope PNSO will keep going on updating their interpretations over the coming years (or decades). I would like to know more about the process behind the creations of the models, like, for example, which fossil specimen(s) they used, especially in the Museum Line, which does have some extra's coming with it, and it sure is nice and beautiful but much of it is fluff and kiddie stuff, in my humble (maybe controversial) opinion. But I guess these models are ultimately geared towards children, and I am getting old and grumpy, so I am not complaining.

[Bread]

Disappointed on how expensive the Triceratops is for its size. Saw a comparison image of the Parasaurolophus next to it and wow its quite a size difference. One being $42 and the other being $60.

[CARN0TAURUS]

No skull with this one? Pity.

I agree, you can't go from including bases and skulls in museum line to basically just saying, we're calling it museum line so we can make 33% off of a prehistoric line figure :0

Agreed, but I can see why this one did not get a skull. A little hard to explain but Triceratops has a more attractive, or maybe a better word to use would be appealing, skull than Iguanodon.

You're absolutely right, but they could've done several things to add a little something extra, add a base, add a skull in a larger scale because he has a small head, or add a small plant that he can stand next to.  I don't know, but I do know that when you've set a precedent for premium price equals premium extras, then you have to remain consistent with it.

[JohannesB]

I found a nice image of the skull of the holotype(?) (I. Bernissartensis) in a book I have. This photo jumped out to me in the sense that it gives me a clear illustration of what Iguanodon's head would look like in real life, emphasizing the wide, boxy head with a rather narrow snout and beak. (Different from the PNSO reconstruction. But PNSO probably used another species of Iguanodon.) But then again, looking at all the different skeletons/reconstructions of different Iguanodon species, there seems to be a certain variation between skull shapes..

[suspsy]

So Harvey's price on Amazon.com is $60 just like Doyle's. I think I'm pretty much done with PNSO unless they finally bring back the miniatures. They've priced themselves right out of my market. I'd much rather stick with CollectA and Safari.

[Thialfi]

So Harvey's price on Amazon.com is $60 just like Doyle's. I think I'm pretty much done with PNSO unless they finally bring back the miniatures. They've priced themselves right out of my market. I'd much rather stick with CollectA and Safari.

Yeah, same. Part of the appeal of the hobby for me was affordability. I might give in for a very unique species, but at this rate it's getting out of hand, financially. Pity. Perhaps PNSO has good reason for this, but for me it's not sustainable.

[Faelrin]

I'm going to agree. While their museum line was always priced on the higher side (at least for those outside the domestic market for the brand such as myself, and many others), I can't imagine it is sustainable for everyone, especially with how rapid fire their releases have been, and for some, with questionable design/quality and/or accuracy choices added in to the mix. In fact, with the exception of Mattel, and perhaps the indie Life game figures, PNSO comes out on top this year for the most prehistoric releases, with Nanmu and BotM coming close behind (at least what I've kept tabs on it so far anyways).

Even when I was doing better financially this would have been too much for me to justify, with some very few exceptions (most of those being the BotM figures in fact). At least it is good that I cannot afford many of these right now as it does allow me the chance to sit on them and ponder how much I actually want them, once the new and fresh factor wears off. And who knows, there may always be another take on one of these animals that I might find more satisfactory and/or cheaper that comes along in the future.

[CARN0TAURUS]

I'm going to agree. While their museum line was always priced on the higher side (at least for those outside the domestic market for the brand such as myself, and many others), I can't imagine it is sustainable for everyone, especially with how rapid fire their releases have been, and for some, with questionable design/quality and/or accuracy choices added in to the mix. In fact, with the exception of Mattel, and perhaps the indie Life game figures, PNSO comes out on top this year for the most prehistoric releases, with Nanmu and BotM coming close behind (at least what I've kept tabs on it so far anyways).

Even when I was doing better financially this would have been too much for me to justify, with some very few exceptions (most of those being the BotM figures in fact). At least it is good that I cannot afford many of these right now as it does allow me the chance to sit on them and ponder how much I actually want them, once the new and fresh factor wears off. And who knows, there may always be another take on one of these animals that I might find more satisfactory and/or cheaper that comes along in the future.

I agree with you guys, the prices are getting carried away.  I recently purchased gamba, paul, and conner because they're amazing figures of dinosaurs I've always really liked, paul in particular as allosaurus was my favorite dinosaur when I was a kid.  But even then I waited until they went on sale and with prime shipping I paid an avg of $33 a pop per each one, that's still really expensive but they are absolutely beautiful!  I'll keep picking and choosing to buy what I really really like from their prehistoric line but only when it goes on sale.  They can keep the museum line, not a fan of wilson, andrea or either one of the doyles