PNSO Tarbosaurus vs Favorite 2020 Tarbosaurus?

[Lynx]

I have Winter Wilson and the Yuty (which were both at similar angles as the Tarbosaurus) and the feet were just as chunky or skinny as the picture portrayed. The feet likely will indeed be like that from the pictures.

[Duna]

If you have these in your collection can you let me know if this is an optical illusion or if in fact the Tarbosaurus has oversized calves, lower legs, and feet? 

Yes, it does. it's more noticeable when you have it in your hands. In fact, one foot is larger than the other (and it's not the pose). But however, I highly recommend it, that doesn't bother me too much. It's a very nice figure and it has presence, the legs look powerful. The Favorite is more toyish in comparison.

[SRF]

I'm going to disagree on the old Favorite being better, it has weirdly uniform teeth, unconvincing feathering and weird oversized scales.  I had the newer Favorite and I found it pleasant, but I was happy to replace it with the PNSO version which I like much more.  The PNSO Tarbosaurus is one of my favourite figures!

With all this positive feedback on the PNSO, I'm starting to come around to the chubbysaurus, I'm thinking I might have to get this one after all.  I love that the skin is to scale, the elongated face and the plain coloration I can live with.  And the eyes appear to be in proportion to his head unlike Wilson 2.0.  The girth is not the issue for me, the issue I've had with this figure has always been from the knee joint down, the calves look huge and the bones in the lower leg and feet appear oversized.  Heck they might be bigger than on Wilson but hard to know without having both in hand.  If you have these in your collection can you let me know if this is an optical illusion or if in fact the Tarbosaurus has oversized calves, lower legs, and feet? 

The favorite really does look like a toy by comparison, doesn't it?   And it probably can't stand without the base, it's probably for the best I didn't even know anything about it until I read this thread.

What do you mean with Wilsons eyes not being in proportion to his head while the Tarbosaurus eyes are? I would say that the eyes of Wilson are about as small as they should be, while the eyes on a lot of other PNSO figures are actually too big. The Tarbosaurus eyes are also quite good though, but this is one aspect in which Wilson is actually better.

[Antey]

The old Favorite Tarbosaurus is leagues ahead of them both.

http://dinotoyblog.com/2017/05/25/tarbosaurus-favorite-co-ltd/

It seems you made a mistake? Many leagues behind, so it will be more true. Favorite is toys. PNSO is scientific reconstruction. And the almost unanimous opinion of those present confirms this.
In my album on this site I have photographs of several tarbosaurus skeletons that I saw in the paleontological museum in Moscow (there is the largest collection of tarbosaurus fossils in the world, including the holotype). And Tarbosaurus PNSO follows these skeletons very closely, except for the missing gastralia.

[CARN0TAURUS]

The old Favorite Tarbosaurus is leagues ahead of them both.

http://dinotoyblog.com/2017/05/25/tarbosaurus-favorite-co-ltd/

It seems you made a mistake? Many leagues behind, so it will be more true. Favorite is toys. PNSO is scientific reconstruction. And the almost unanimous opinion of those present confirms this.
In my album on this site I have photographs of several tarbosaurus skeletons that I saw in the paleontological museum in Moscow (there is the largest collection of tarbosaurus fossils in the world, including the holotype). And Tarbosaurus PNSO follows these skeletons very closely, except for the missing gastralia.

Antey, what do you think about chubbysaurus' head, it seems elongated on the model but it still looks good to me.  Where the skulls at the museum shaped like that too?

[Sim]

The PNSO Tarbosaurus's proportions look fine to me.

[JohannesB]

I think that the size of the PNSO Tarbosaurus makes it easier to identify it as such, because you can work out the details better. The small Favorite model makes it much more difficult to differentiate it from other tyrannosaurids. Its arms are a bit too large as well, I think. The bigger PNSO model may have 'flaws' (maybe the pubic area is drawn out too far down, giving it this appearance of an overly enormous deep body? But then again, this may be a correct reconstruction with a right amount of flesh on the bones) but it has more going for it, IMHO.

[Antey]

The old Favorite Tarbosaurus is leagues ahead of them both.

http://dinotoyblog.com/2017/05/25/tarbosaurus-favorite-co-ltd/

It seems you made a mistake? Many leagues behind, so it will be more true. Favorite is toys. PNSO is scientific reconstruction. And the almost unanimous opinion of those present confirms this.
In my album on this site I have photographs of several tarbosaurus skeletons that I saw in the paleontological museum in Moscow (there is the largest collection of tarbosaurus fossils in the world, including the holotype). And Tarbosaurus PNSO follows these skeletons very closely, except for the missing gastralia.

Antey, what do you think about chubbysaurus' head, it seems elongated on the model but it still looks good to me.  Where the skulls at the museum shaped like that too?

It is the skull of Chuanzi that creates the image of the tarbosaurus. Especially the skulls that I saw in the museum. By the way, this is the main difference between Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus.

[CARN0TAURUS]

The old Favorite Tarbosaurus is leagues ahead of them both.

http://dinotoyblog.com/2017/05/25/tarbosaurus-favorite-co-ltd/

It seems you made a mistake? Many leagues behind, so it will be more true. Favorite is toys. PNSO is scientific reconstruction. And the almost unanimous opinion of those present confirms this.
In my album on this site I have photographs of several tarbosaurus skeletons that I saw in the paleontological museum in Moscow (there is the largest collection of tarbosaurus fossils in the world, including the holotype). And Tarbosaurus PNSO follows these skeletons very closely, except for the missing gastralia.

Antey, what do you think about chubbysaurus' head, it seems elongated on the model but it still looks good to me.  Where the skulls at the museum shaped like that too?

It is the skull of Chuanzi that creates the image of the tarbosaurus. Especially the skulls that I saw in the museum. By the way, this is the main difference between Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus.

So basically,
Tarbosaurus

Tyrannosaurus

[SRF]

Only the difference between T. Rex and Tarbosaurus is even bigger. Tarbosaurus also has its eyes a little more to the sides of its head because of that.



When looking from above, PNSO has captured the skull shape of both T. Rex and Tarbosaurus very well. I do feel the snout of the Tarbosaurus seems a bit too elongated, but maybe that has also to do with how massive the rest of the figure is.

[Skorpio V.]

The old Favorite Tarbosaurus is leagues ahead of them both.

http://dinotoyblog.com/2017/05/25/tarbosaurus-favorite-co-ltd/

It seems you made a mistake? Many leagues behind, so it will be more true. Favorite is toys. PNSO is scientific reconstruction. And the almost unanimous opinion of those present confirms this.
In my album on this site I have photographs of several tarbosaurus skeletons that I saw in the paleontological museum in Moscow (there is the largest collection of tarbosaurus fossils in the world, including the holotype). And Tarbosaurus PNSO follows these skeletons very closely, except for the missing gastralia.

Antey, what do you think about chubbysaurus' head, it seems elongated on the model but it still looks good to me.  Where the skulls at the museum shaped like that too?

I understand there is skull variability and all, but the width has a HUGE difference. Much more of a difference than the length. That is still a little off though, the squamosal is WAY too short so I didn't bother editing that, but they added a little notch at the end of the snoot which adds extra length and overbite so I edited that here:

Mind you, it has an even longer snoot the holotype which has a much longer snoot than the much more complete specimen. You can also tell they didn't really account for tooth slippage either.

[JohannesB]

Is that a life reconstruction or is it a drawing of the fossil?

The picture quoted by @SRF shows a skull with rather different proportions, so I was just wondering.

I do agree that PNSO makes the squamosals ands occipitals far too short, which I find strange.

[Sim]

Having looked at a Tarbosaurus skull from the front, its proportions match what is shown in the image posted by SRF.  In the figure, the squamosal does look short, but to me it seems to be partly within the neck musculature.  I don't think PNSO's Tarbosaurus is affected by tooth slippage, and here's a controversial opinion, I don't think PNSO's newest Wilson is affected by it either.

[stargatedalek]

I don't think that is a matter of opinion that Wilson v2 has tooth slippage? You can even see the tooth slippage in the shape on the teeth themselves. They referenced so meticulously that you can see where the roots begin.

[Skorpio V.]

Is that a life reconstruction or is it a drawing of the fossil?

The picture quoted by @SRF shows a skull with rather different proportions, so I was just wondering.

I do agree that PNSO makes the squamosals ands occipitals far too short, which I find strange.

The one SRF posted was based more closely on the specimen with the less elongated skull, ZPAL MgD-107/2

PNSO's matches the holotype more than this in width and length, but it's still... off. I can give them the benefit of the doubt considering there aren't many dorsal views of it, but they definitely didn't account for compression because I still had to make the skull taller for the edit.

[Skorpio V.]

I suppose it matches the taper closer, but it really doesn't seem like the skull should be splaying outward so far.

[Sim]

Skeletal reconstructions that alter from a compressed state aren't always reliable.  I've seen at least three different reconstructions for a single skull of Xiongguanlong.


The length of the teeth of PNSO's newest Wilson looks accurate compared to Scott Hartman's skeletal: https://www.skeletaldrawing.com/theropods/tyrannosaurus-comparison

I also thought one could see tooth slippage on the figure, but looking closely at the teeth in the video review below, the teeth seem to curve all the way.  It's at 7:20 and 7:41.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSPMYVgffR8

[SRF]

I suppose it matches the taper closer, but it really doesn't seem like the skull should be splaying outward so far.

Seeing them overlapping the PNSO head is indeed still too wide. It also has some degree of binocular vision, probably more than it should have.

[Sim]

I've seen Tarbosaurus specimens with snouts wider than the last reconstruction that's being compared to the PNSO Tarbosaurus's head.  Some of them can be seen here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tarbosaurus_skulls

I also was surprised by Chuanzi's binocular vision, but my understanding is it's normal for animals to have some binocular vision, even when their eyes point primarily sideways.  More importantly, the PNSO Tarbosaurus's binocular vision seems appropriate when compared to the front view of a Tarbosaurus skull in the link above.

[CARN0TAURUS]

I suppose it matches the taper closer, but it really doesn't seem like the skull should be splaying outward so far.

Seeing them overlapping the PNSO head is indeed still too wide. It also has some degree of binocular vision, probably more than it should have.

What about muscle, ligaments, tendons, nerves, glands, and thickness of skin?  Large animals tend to have really thick skin.  I believe elephants have skin over an inch thick?  Not sure exactly how thick it is but the accumulation of all that soft tissue might have something to do with the difference?  IDK, just speculating as to why such a difference.