PNSO: New For 2021

[SRF]

Another T.rex is required based on the "Scotty" specimen. The Triceratops is really incredible.

Why "required"? Another T. Rex doesn't make sense at this point. And since PNSO collaborates mostly with Mark Norell from the AMNH, it wouldn't make sense to base a new T. Rex on Scotty the way Wilson is based on AMNH 5027.

[SRF]

@SRF Wow I know you folks got hit hard when those changes happened, but that's much worse then I thought.

Well luckily for me, PNSO figures are the only products I've ever purchased from AliExpress and the only products that I've imported from outside of the EU. So in that regard the new VAT doesn't hit me that hard, so no reason to complain too much. 

[Antey]

Should PNSO be blamed for inaccuracies?

When it's something known to be inaccurate, and they claim to be a science art company, yes, yes they should be.

Why are you missing the rest of the text by quoting me? Don't you understand this?

[suspsy]

Should PNSO be blamed for inaccuracies?

When it's something known to be inaccurate, and they claim to be a science art company, yes, yes they should be.

Absolutely.

[Bread]

Should PNSO be blamed for inaccuracies?

When it's something known to be inaccurate, and they claim to be a science art company, yes, yes they should be.

Why are you missing the rest of the text by quoting me? Don't you understand this?

I don't think the rest of the text was necessary to be part of the rest of the question. It was a simple question at the end of your statement, and @stargatedalek answered it with a simple statement as well. Anyone can simply select the amount of a statement they would like to quote.

[stargatedalek]

Because the concept of evolution is a continuous process does not in any way relate to whether or not a company should have full creative license while claiming to work within known data.

I get that you think those statements were connected, because you were trying to use that as justification to make it look like we don't know anything about the anatomy of any extinct animal, but that's simply untrue, we know an awful lot about many of them.

[Antey]

Because the concept of evolution is a continuous process does not in any way relate to whether or not a company should have full creative license while claiming to work within known data.

I get that you think those statements were connected, because you were trying to use that as justification to make it look like we don't know anything about the anatomy of any extinct animal, but that's simply untrue, we know an awful lot about many of them.

You don't know anything personally, you just have an opinion. But you are trying to pass it off as the truth.

[Antey]

Should PNSO be blamed for inaccuracies?

When it's something known to be inaccurate, and they claim to be a science art company, yes, yes they should be.

Why are you missing the rest of the text by quoting me? Don't you understand this?

I don't think the rest of the text was necessary to be part of the rest of the question. It was a simple question at the end of your statement, and @stargatedalek answered it with a simple statement as well. Anyone can simply select the amount of a statement they would like to quote.

You're not right. The rest of the text was the basis of my judgment. But it was dropped to discredit my judgment. I wrote that morphological diversity within a species can be so great that an attempt to accuse PNSO of inaccuracy is unfounded. In the discussed Harvey, we have a certain collective image of the iguanodon genus.
An aggressive tone towards the company's products reminds me of the reaction of a capricious child. Instead of trying to find a rational explanation, the statement that a certain person far from science is the bearer of some secret knowledge.

[stargatedalek]

You are the one claiming to bear secret knowledge. The knowledge that the entire idea of basing an animals appearance on, well, it's appearance, is allegedly flawed.

We might as well depict Diplocaulus with feathers, you never know, evolution is fluid, one could have evolved them! While we're at it why not add some dragon wings on Tyrannosaurus, and hey maybe it could breathe fire too.

[Duck]

Hey now.

[sepp]

It's time to stop this argument, nothing good will come of it and it's clear people are getting upset.

Please keep on-topic, but refrain from further arguing this discussion.

[Bread]

An aggressive tone towards the company's products reminds me of the reaction of a capricious child.

I am not sure who this is aiming at or if it is to those who provide criticism, but I have seen you make these remarks before. Calling those who have different opinion than you "childish" to simply put it. I am sorry if you find other's opinions to be different or unpleasant towards a company, but it is constructive criticism and all companies experience it.

Apologies to the moderator @sepp
I just wanted to point that out because I feel like this thread always roots to the question of criticism followed by constant arguments.

[JohannesB]

If the reader will allow me to ramble a bit on the subject of the scientific rigorousness of PNSO's models (I promise to stay on topic and stay objective). It would be interesting to know how much time PNSO spends on research when designing a model. I read that PNSO are in direct contact with Mark Norell at the American Museum of Natural History. I assume that the study PNSO does is always up to a certain high degree, but I am doubtful it could ever be completely comprehensive for each and every species they make a model of. Please correct me if I am wrong. In any case, there is always some point of criticism to be found in any model, I guess - some more, some less, because there are always certain different hypotheses on the appearance in life of a certain (body part of a certain) species.

My favourite example would be their latest Tyrannosaurus rex model (late 2020 'Winter Wilson'), where there are certainly some issues that confuse me a bit about why they would create it the way they did (in this case mostly centered around the skull) after reading what knowledge and criticisms all of you, fellow members of this forum have to bring to the table. Ultimately, for me, this hobby is simply about owning beautiful toy models and being educated. The subjective value of any one model for me is indeed affected, to a certain degree, by criticisms on its (in)accuracy, but I can still find great esthetic pleasure in it. Point in case for me are the PNSO models, and also, as a more radical example, the Invicta models. Again, sorry if I am rambling.

[Antey]

I really do not want the discussion to turn into mutual accusations and the concern of the moderators is understandable to me. But when I try to bring the discussion to a wide scientific field - everything ends up with someone's sharp twitching: "No, they are not right!" And completely without argumentation. Nobody would argue if it said "Harvey's skull does not correspond to a specific museum specimen." But we see a different saying: PNSO made the wrong iguanodon. This is not the way to think in science. Because science makes hypotheses. And the more specifically it is linked to a certain limited amount of facts used, the more the hypothesis is valuable. We can judge about the appearance of dinosaurs VERY approximately. And PNSO artists are far more responsible in their work than their critics, who read the Wikipedia article in passing. I've already given an example of balanced reviews from the DinosDragons channel.

[SenSx]

So no Christmas announcement from PNSO ?
What a bummer, That is what people needed here to calm down and rediscover the christmas spirit.
I know PNSO is a chinese company, but still...

[Kaustav Bhattacharyya]

 May anybody inform me whether this brand new trike is directly scanned from the AMNH 5116 specimen like Eofauna figures?

[CARN0TAURUS]

As a person looking in from the outside and those inside being the ones with the most passionate arguments.  What are we talking about here?  Is the difference being discussed here like a bulkier male gorilla body skeleton with a female gorilla skull attached OR are we talking about that same male gorilla skeleton with an orangutan skull? 

So I'm just trying to gauge the scope the argument, is it as glaring a difference as the orangutan skull or is it potentially a gorilla with an unusually small head?

BTW, I might not know as much about prehistoric animals as most people here, but I know well enough never to resort to calling people names when they disagree with your opinions.  The irony of that statement almost made me spit out my coffee.  In my humble opinion there is no faster way to discredit yourself and it doesn't matter how much you know.  I also think it's important not to take for granted everyone here.  We are all brothers and sisters, perhaps it's different for you guys but for me I appreciate people here because you guys share a love of dinosaurs and dinosaur toys and collectibles that I honestly cannot discuss with just about everyone else I know in my life.  My wife tolerates it because she collects action figures, LOL.  But my siblings, childhood friends, and people at work etc...there just aren't many people I can passionately discuss dinosaur toys with  

[Psittacoraptor]

So no Christmas announcement from PNSO ?
What a bummer, That is what people needed here to calm down and rediscover the christmas spirit.
I know PNSO is a chinese company, but still...

They shared this for Christmas:



https://twitter.com/pnso_official/status/1474296287403126784

[Thialfi]

That's too cute!

I think Doyle and Harvey are Christmas present enough, right?

[Kaustav Bhattacharyya]

I wish to see a Dromeosaur from them, a V.mongoliensis is highly desirable. I wish to see how they tackle feathered raptors.